The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 8.1 Livermore AirportCITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 2004 SUBJECT information and Comment Letter on the Draft City of Livermore Municipal Airport 2004 Master Plan Update and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Report Prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner and Andy Byde, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. o Draft City of Dublin Comment Letter; Comment Letter from Alan Rosen, Acoustical Engineer; Airport ProtectiOn Area Map; Draft City of Livermore Municipal Airport 2004 Master Plan Update; and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Receive Staff Report in concept, incorporating comments from Alan Rosen and authorize Staff to send the letter to City of Livermore; or Modify the letter to incorporate comments from the City Council; or Take no action at this time. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time. DESCRIPTION: The City of Livermore has published the Draft City of Livermore Municipal Airport 2004 Master Plan Update and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public .comment. The Airport Master Plan is a document, which addresses further development of the Airport including airfield improvements, aircraft storage, and commercial services for the Airport. The City of Livermore is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act. The comment period for the environmental document is from March 10, 2004 to April 8, 2004. Comments must be submitted prior to April 8, 2004. City Staff has reviewed the Draft City of Livermore Municipal Airport 2004 Master Plan Update and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has compiled comments into one letter that is attached to this Staff Report (Attachment 1). It is anticipated, however, that due to the early submittal of the letter to make the City Council's Agenda deadline, that the comments may be slightly revised prior to completion of the final letter. COPIES TO: In-House Distribution Overview of the Master Plan The Airport Master Plan includes a discussion on the following topics: background and inventory, role and activity, airfield design, building area development, and finance and implementation of the Plan. The following discussion includes a summary of the substantive aspects of the Plan: Airport Protection Area In relation to the Airport, the primary importance to the City is the effect of the Airport Protection Area (APA) that currently surrounds the Airport. The APA is a protection area, which extends 5,000 feet north and south from the two existing runways. The APA extends approximately 2,200 feet north into Dublin, with the majority of APA along the Eastern Dublin Property Owners area (a map of the APA is included as Attachment 5). The Airport Land Use Commission of Alameda County (ALUC) has established land use policies for areas within the APA and currently those policies prohibit residential uses within the APA. As a result of the proposed Master Plan update, the size of the APA would not change. Runway Expansion The Airport currently has two runways, 7L-25R and 7R-25L. 7L-25R is currently 5,255 feet long; this runway is the northern most runway. Currently this runway, by the nature of its length and pavement strength, can accommodate a mix of aircraft that includes single engine aircraft to large-sized business jets. The Master Plan does not call for modifications to this runway. Runway 7R-25L is currently 2,699 feet in length with pavement strength of 12,500 lbs. (for a single main gear). In its current configuration the Runway can accommodate only single engine and light twin-engine aircraft. The Master plan calls for this runway to be lengthened 1,251 feet and the pavement strengthened to accommodate larger aircraft (25,000 lbs. single main gear). This lengthening and strengthening would result in a different mix of aircraft that could utilize the Airport. According to the Master Plan, this would allow the Runway to be used in event the longer runway (7L-25R) was down for maintenance and would improve safety. However, the text of the Master Plan makes no mention of the fact that this runway expansion will facilitate a shift in the types of aircraft that utilize the Airport. According to the tables within the Master Plan, the aircraft mix is projected to change significantly in the future. The table below is from the Mater Plan, which demonstrates that the largest percentage increase in aircraft type occur in the twin-engine and medium and large business jet aircraft. These planes tend to produce the highest levels of noise. Without the proposed changes to the Airport, the increased utilization of these types of aircraft could not be accommodated. The change in aircraft mix would result in additional noise impacts, which were not addressed or studied, nor mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Aircraft tvl~e Aviation Activity 2001 Projected Activity 2020 Single Engine Fixed 149,980 171,500 14.3% Single Engine Variable 55,000 90,000 63.6% twin-Engine Piston 45,000 80,000 77.8% Twin-Engine Turbo Prop 3,800 8,000 110.5% Small Fan Jet 1,100 10,000 809.1% Med Fan Jet 800 7,500 837.5% Large Fanjet 100 1,000 900.0% Small Turbojet 200 - Large Turbo Fan 20 Helicopters 1,500 2,000 33.3% %increase 2020~2001 total 257,500 source:Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update March 2004 370,000 43.7% Noise The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not contain an adequate discussion or analysis on potential noise impacts. Aircraft noise around airports consists of a series of single-events from individual aircraft flyovers. The methodology utilized in the Mitigated Negative Declaration was an average of noise levels (CNEL). This methodology does not quantify the maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax) from individual aircraft flybys, therefore the utilization of CNEL alone can make it difficult for the public and decision makers to fully evaluate noise effects. The Livermore General Plan EIR stated that over flights contribute little to ambient noise levels in Livermore. However, according to information from the Airport Manager, aircraft operate as low as 700 feet above existing and planned residential uses within Eastem Dublin. At this distance, over flights do have the potential to increase noise impacts to residences located within flight paths. In addition, the City utilized Alan Rosen of the acoustical consulting firm of Rosen, Goldberg, and Der to evaluate the noise analysis contained within the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Master Plan. The Consultant concluded that the additional analysis was needed in order to properly address the issue of noise. The three areas requiring more analysis included: (1) the change in aircraft mix; (2) single event plane flyovers; and (3) impacts to outdoor noise levels. The letter is included at Attachment 4. Flight Patterns and Approach Patterns The Master Plan does not contain any information on flight paths including approach and take-off patterns. Staff is concerned that as a result of a change in the aircraft mix, larger and noisier aircraft will impact the Eastern Dublin Area. Hanger Space The Master Plan calls for the expansion of hanger space. The expansion of the hanger space will result in more business jet usage in the form of private and corporate/fraction ownership. This will result in more utilization of runways and more activity from larger and noisier aircraft. Surrounding Uses The Mitigated Negative Deceleration does not mention or discuss the proximity of the City of Dublin to the Airport. The Mitigated Negative Deceleration does not discuss existing or approved noise sensitive uses within the City of Dublin that are located in close proximity to the Airport. The City of Dublin is located less than ½ mile away from the 7L-25R Runway and the General Plan shows residential land uses that are located less than 1 mile from the existing Runway. Additionally, existing single-family residential land uses are located approximately 1.8 miles away from the existing Runway. Additionally, the Master Plan should recognize existing development approval within adjacent cities. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and the subsequent implementing approvals (i.e. prezoning and annexation) were consistent with the ALUC policies regarding the Airport and specifically recognized the existing Airport Protection Area surrounding the Airport. Likewise the Master Plan should recognize existing and approved development within the City of Dublin. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff report and take one of the following actions: (1) approve the draft letter (Attachment 1) in concept, incorporating comments from Alan Rosen, and authorize Staff to send the letter to City of Livermore; or (2) modify the letter to incorporate comments from the City Council; or (3) take no action at this time. April 7, 2004 Ms. Jennifer Craven, Associate Planner City of Livermore Planning Division 1052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550-4899 Re-' Review of the Livermore Municipal Airport 2004 Master Plan Update and Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Craven: The City of Dublin appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Livermore Municipal Airport 2004 Master Plan Update (hereafter "Master Plan" and "Mitigated Negative Declaration") The City recognizes the importance the Livermore Airport provides to the local community, however as an adjacent jurisdiction, the City of Dublin is concerned about the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project from associated noise impacts from the Airport. Specifically, the City is concerned that the expanded airport operation will result in additional noise impacts to the existing and planned residential uses located within Eastern Dublin. In the past, the City has received complaints from Eastern Dublin residents regarding flight activities from existing operation of the Livermore Airport. Dublin is concerned that the scope and content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate. The City's comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration are summarized below: ,Project Site: The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not mention uses within the City of Dublin as adjacent to the project site. The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not discuss existing or approved noise sensitive uses within the City of Dublin that are located in close pro.ximity to the Airport. The City of Dublin is located less than ½ mile away from the 7L-25R Runway and the General Plan shows residential land uses that are located less than 1 mile from the existing Runway. Additionally, existing single-family residential land uses are located approximately 1.8 miles away from the existing Runway. Additionally, the Master Plan should recognize existing development approval within adjacent cities. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and the subsequent implementing approvals (i.e. prezoning and annexation) were consistent with the ALUC policies regarding the Airport and specifically recognized the existing Airport Protection Area surrounding the Airport. Likewise the Master Plan should recognize existing and approved development within the City of Dublin. ATTACHMENT L The Map contained in the Master Plan, labeled Airspace Plan, is inadequate in that it utilizes an out of date USGS base map and does not show current or approved land uses or nearby jurisdictional lines. The City would be happy to share the most current data in our GIS library to facilitate the preparation of a new map. Project Descriotion: The project description states the plan does not encourage increased operations, however changes to airport including runway lengthening and strengthening, new taxiway, and additional hanger space will result in increased utilization of the Airport. The Project Description section on page 7 includes the statement that "implementation of the plan does not encourage increased operations." This statement is contradicted by a statement in the Master Plan, found on page 2-9, which reads: "The availability of reasonably priced hangar units will largely govern the amount of increase in single-engine aircraft based at the airport. Hangar availability will also shape the growth in other aircraft types .... Growth in multi-engine aircraft (i.e. both piston and jet) will also be affected by the ability of commercial leaseholds." According to the Master Plan the aircraft mix is projected to change significantly in the future. The proposed modifications to the Airport will facilitate these changes to the aircraft mix, which will in turn result in a higher percentage of larger and noisier aircraft utilizing the Airport. The table below is from the Master Plan, which demonstrates that the largest percentage increase in aircraft type occurs in the twin-engine and small business jet aircraft. These planes tend to produce the highest levels of noise. Without the proposed changes to the Airport, the increased utilization of these types of aircraft could not. be accommodated. The change in aircraft mix would result in additional noise impacts, which were not addressed or studied, nor mitigation measures identified. Aircraft type Aviation Activity 2001 Projected Activity 2020 Single Engine Fixed 149,980 171,500 14.3% Single Engine Variable 55,000 90,000 63.6% Twin-Engine Piston 45,000 80,000 77.8% Twin-Engine Turbo Prop 3,800 8,000 110.5% Small Fan Jet 1,100 10,000 809.1% Med Fan Jet 800 7,500 837.5% Large Fanjet 100 1,000 900.0% Small Turbojet 200 Large Turbo Fan 20 Helicopters 1,500 2,000 33.3% % increase 2020 v. 2001 total 257,500 source:Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update March 2004 370,000 43.7% Flight Patterns and Approach Patterns Insufficient information is provided in the Master Plan Update on the approach and take-off patterns and flight paths. The City is concerned that the flight paths and flight patterns will regularly place larger and noisier aircraft above the Eastern Dublin Area. Nois.__._~e The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not contain an adequate discussion or analysis on potential noise impacts. Aircraft noise around airports consists of a series of single-events from individual aircraft flyovers. The methodology utilized in the Mitigated Negative Declaration was an average of noise levels (CNEL). This methodology does not quantify the maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax) from individual aircraft flybys, therefore the utilization of CNEL alone can make it difficult for the public and decision makers to fully evaluate noise effects. The Livermore General Plan EIR stated that over flights contribute little to ambient noise levels in Livermore. However, according to information from the Airport Manager, aircraft operate as low as 700 feet above existing and planned residential uses within Eastern Dublin. At this distance, over flights do have the potential to increase noise impacts to residences located within flight paths. Additionally, the General Plan EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration do not include any discussion of single noise events from aircraft flyovers to sensitive receptors located in Dublin. The General Plan EIR projected an additional l l3,000-flight increase from 2000 to 2020. However, the General Plan EIR did not assume a shift in aircraft mix resulting from the proposed changes to the Airport. As a result of this shift, larger aircrafts would be introduced and additional potential noise impacts would result that were not studied and mitigation measures were not identified in either the Livermore General Plan EiR or the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore the sole reliance upon Mitigation Measure Noise GP-2 to fully mitigate noise impacts is inappropriate given the programmatic nature of the Liverrnore General Plan EIR and the proposed changes to the Airport as a result of the Master Plan update. The Airport Business Plan The Airport Business Plan attached to the Master Plan Update suggests that a buffer be created .5 to 1 mile beyond the Airport Protection Area due to conflicts with residential uses. Please clarify if this buffer would extend beyond jurisdictional lines, into nearby cities. Operational Limits The Draft City of Livermore General Plan contains Policy (N-I.I.P4) that the City shall require operational limitations and feasible noise buffering for new uses that generate significant noise impacts near sensitive uses. Although the airport is not a new use, changes in .operations activity would change the FAA classification of the airport, the Airport Reference Code. The City of Dublin is concerned that without operational limitations, the impacts of the airport cannot be adequately predicted or controlled. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments. The City of Dublin looks forward to working with Livermore representatives to craft appropriate mitigation measures that ensure the impacts from the proposed expansion of the Airport are fully mitigated. The City respectfully requests that this Mitigated Negative Declaration not be adopted until such time that adequate mitigation measures can be identified that fully mitigates the impacts resulting from the Master Plan implementation. The City believes that cooperation between Livermore and Dublin on this issue can result in a solution that is beneficial to the citizens of both communities. Should you need clarification on any of the comments provided in this letter, please feel free to contact Ms. Jeri Ram, Dublin Planning Manager, at 925-833-6610. Sincerely, Eddie Peabody Jr. AICP ' Community Development Director CC~ Mayor and City Council Richard Ambrose City Manager Jeri' Ram, Planning Manager Melissa Morton, Public Works Director ROSEN GOLDBERG &DER Pierce Macdonald City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 26 March 2004 Subject: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan RGD Project #: 04-012-1 Dear Pierce: We have completed our review of the noise impacts that were identified in the initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. In summary, we found three areas that need additional analysis to allow a reader to acquire a complete understanding of the project's impacts. They are: 1. Increase in ambient noise due to project- The IS/MND does not provide an analysis of the change in aircraft noise levels that would occur as a result of the project implementation. 2. Single event noise levels - The IS/MND does not discuss single event noise levels from individual plane flyovers. The California Division of Aeronautics and a recent court decision both identify the need to discuss single event noise and potential effects. 3. Outdoor noise levels in excess of City standards - The IS/MND states that existing residences east of the airport will be exposed to a potentially significant impact since outdoor noise levels will be in excess of a CNEL of 60 dBA, the City's normally acceptable noise level. Air-conditioning is proposed to mitigate the impact by allowing windows to remain closed. Is the impact mitigated if outdoor levels remain over 60 dBA? Discussion The IS/MND identifies impacts that are associated with the implementation of the master plan. Impacts associated with the plan are primarily based on the findings of the EIR on the Livermore General Plan Update. The noise related sections of the following documents were consulted during our review: 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 Larkspur CA 94939 J Tel 415 464 0150 I Fax 415 464 0155 ATTACHMENT Pierce Macdonald 26 March 2004 Page 2 · Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, Public Review Draft, March 2004 ° Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Livermore Municipal Airport Draft Master Plan, February 2004 · City of Livermore General Plan 2003 - 2025 ° The Draft/Final EIR on the City of Livermore General Plan (except Appendix F - Noise) · Noise Impact Analysis, Livermore Airport, Livermore California, Prepared by LSA Associates, June 2002 1. NO "INCREASE IN NOISE" DISCUSSION Page 51 of the IS/MND, section Xl(c) addresses increase in ambient noise levels. The IS/MND states that the implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not lead to any greater or different noise impacts related to substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels than those identified in the 2003 EIR for the General Plan Update and refers the reader to pages 165 to 174 in Volume Ii of the 2003 EIR. According to the 2003 EIR, a project would have significant noise impact if the project would increase noise levels by over 4 dBA above existing levels without the project. The increase in noise from the airport, however, is not assessed with respect to this standard. Instead it is assessed only with respect to the City of Livermore's standard for outdoor noise, a CNEL of 60 dBA. This approach ignores the guidance of the State of California's Airport Land Use Planning Handbook~ which states that, "... consideration needs to be given to not just the absolute level of noise, but also the amount of noise increase resulting from the project." Examination of the existing and future airport noise contours indicates that areas near the airport would experience increases in aircraft noise of up to 5 dBA. An analysis of noise increases should be conducted for the noise sensitive areas in the airport vicinity including those in the City of Dublin. 2. No SINGLE EVENT NOISE LEVEL DISCUSSION Aircraft noise around airports consists of a series of single events from individual aircraft flyovers. Federal and State regulations require that the noise exposure from airports be quantified in terms of cumulative (or average) noise level descriptors such as CNEL or Lan. These descriptors, however, do not quantify the maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax) from individual aircraft flybys and, therefore, can make it difficult for the public and decision makers to fully evaluate noise effects. ~ "California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook," State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, January 2002, prepared by Shutt Moen Associates, page 7-40. Pierce Macdonald 26 March 2004 Page 3 ..................... ......................... Litigation over an EIR on the Airport Development Plan at the Oakland International Airport resulted in a recent court decision that required a supplemental EIR addressing single event noise levels. Similarly, the State of California recognizes the limitation of the CNEL metric and suggests the use of other noise metrics such as Lmax as is evidenced by the following excerpt from the State's Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. "A final consideration with respect to reviews of airport development proposals is that the issue involves not only a matter of po/icy (how much noise is acceptable?), but also, as previously noted, communication of the information in a form that the general public can comprehend. Consequently environmental impact documents prepared for airport- related projects may need to make use of supplemental noise metrics to explain the impacts even though the determination of significance relies upon criteria related to cumulative noise metrics.' 2 The inclusion of information regarding single event noise and flight tracks would help the public understand the effects of the project and allow adjacent communities to adopt appropriate land uses and planning policies. Disclosure of flight tracks and a discussion of single event noise levels and their effects could reduce the potential for future noise complaints. 3. MITIGATION OF OUTDOOR NOISE The IS/MND refers to page 173 of the 2003 EIR which has the sole impact statement regarding aircraft noise (NOISE GP-2).3 It identifies that homes, east of the airport, will be exposed to a CNEL greater than 60 dBA, a significant impact. The adopted mitigation measure requires that the City purchase and installing air conditioning units for the affected residences so that their windows can be closed when it would otherwise be too hot to do so. Although the EIR states that this mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less than significant level, the air conditioning will not improve the noise environment in the backyards of the homes. The backyards would still have a CNEL which is greater than the "normally acceptable" noise level of 60 dBA for residential land use (General Plan Table 9-7). The Negative Declaration should explain how the installation of air conditioning will fully mitigate the signifiCant noise impact. 2 Same as footnote 1. 3 Livermore Draft General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Environmental impact Report Public Review Draft, Volume II, June 2003, page 174 Pieme Macdonald 26 March 2004 Page 4 This concludes our current comments. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alan Rosen Principal Rosen Goldberg & Der m~ 'I: ,000~ [] -m 1 mmm:mmmm.mi~ ATTACHMENT LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE I PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Livermore, California March 2004 ATTACHMENT Liver, more Municipal Airport Master Plan Update Livermore, California Public Review Draft Prepared for the City of LiYermore Mead & Hunt, Inc.. formerly Shutt Moen Associates 707 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, California 95403 March 2004 Table of Contents 2 Background and Inventory LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT . ................................................................................... 1-1 Location and Environs .......................................................................................... 1-1 History ............................................................................................................... 1-3 FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...............................................................................................1-3 AERONAUTICAL SETTING ................................................................................................ 1-5 Area Airports .............................................................................................................. 1-5 Area Airspace ...................................................................................................... 1-5 COMMUNITY PROFILE ................................................................................................... 1-9 PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES ..................................................................................... 1-1 2 Airport Role and Activity AIRPORT ROLE ............................................................................................................. 2-1 Present ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 Future ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY ............................................................................................. 2-2 Based Aircraft ............................................................................................................ 2-2 Transient Aircraft Parking ............................................................................................ 2-4 Operations ......................................... : ....................................................................... 2-4 Distribution of Operations .......................................................................................... 2-4 AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS ............................................................................................. 2-6 Based Aircraft ............................................................................................................. 2-6 Based Aircraft Demand Conclusions ........................................................................... 2-9 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECASTS ........................................................................................ 2-9 Agency Forecasts ....................................................................................................... 2-9 Airport-Specific Factors ...................................................................................... 2-10 Annual Operations Demand Conclusions ................................................................. 2-10 Table of Contents 3 ii Airfield Design OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Basic Design Factors ................................................................................................... 3-1 Demand Determinants ............................................................................................... 3-2 Needs Assessment ............................................................................................... 3-2 RUNWAY 7L-25R ................................................................................................................ 3-6 Classification .............................................................................................................. 3-6 Runway Length .......................................................................................................... 3-6 Runway Width ........................................................................................................... 3-7 Pavement Strength .............................................................................................. 3-7 Runway Approaches ............................................................................................ 3-7 Runway Safety Areas ................................................................................................. 3-8 Object Free Areas ....................................................................................................... 3-9 Obstacle Free Zones ................................................................................................. 3-10 RUNWAY 7R-25 L .............................................................................................................. 3-10 Classification ............................................................................................................ 3-10 Runway Length ........................................................................................................ 3-10 Runway Width ......................................................................................................... 3-11 Pavement Strength ................................................................................................... 3-11 Runway Approaches ................................................................................................. 3-12 Runway Safety Areas ................................................................................................ 3-12 Object Free Areas ..................................................................................................... 3-12 Obstacle Free Zones ................................................................................................. 3-12 OTHER AIRFIELD DESIGN El. FMEN'[S .................................................................................... 3~13 Runway Protection Zones ......................................................................................... 3-13 FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces ................................................................................ 3-13 Building Restriction Line ........................................................................................... 3-14 Runway Lighting, Marking, and Visual Approach Aids ............................................... 3-14 Hold Lines ............................................................................................................... 3-15 Wind Indicators and Segmented Circle ..................................................................... 3~16 TAXlWAY SYSI'EM ............................................................................................................... 3-16 Taxiway Designations ............................................................................................... 3-16 Runway 7L-25R Parallel Taxiway System .................................................................. 3-17 Runway 7R-25L Parallel Taxiway System .................................................................. 3-17 Taxiway E ................................................................................................................. 3-18 Runup Apron ........................................................................................................... 3-18 Aircraft Parking Limits ............................................................................................... 3-18 Taxiway Marking and Lighting .................................................................................. 3-19 Signing ..................................................................................................................... 3-19 Table of Contents 4 Building Area Development OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 4-1 DESIGN FACTORS ................................................................................................................. 4-2 PRINCIPAL BUILDING AREA FACILITIES .................................................................................... 4-4 Roles of the North and South Sides ............................................................................. 4-4 Aircraft Storage and Parking ........................................................................................ 4-5 Hangars ...................................................................................................................... 4-5 Future Hangars ........................................................................................................... 4-5 Based Airplane Parking Positions ................................................................................ 4-6 Transient Airplane Parking Positions ........................................................................... 4-6 Transient Helicopter Parking Positions ........................................................................ 4-7 Fixed Base Operations Areas ...................................................................................... 4-7 SUPPORTING FACILITIES ........................................................................................................ 4-7 Aircraft Fuel Storage and Dispensing ........................................................................... 447 Fencing and Gates ...................................................................................................... 4-8 Aircraft Washing ......................................................................................................... 4-9 Automobile Parking .................................................................................................... 4-9 Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting ................................................................................. 4-9 NONAVIATION USES ............................................................................................................. 4-9 Finance and Implementation FINANCIAL ISSUES ................................................................................................................ $-1 Capital Funding Resources .......................................................................................... $-1 Airport Sponsor Self-Funding ..................................................................................... 5~4 Capital Improvement .................................................................................................. 5-5 KEY BUSINESS PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 5-6 Release Fuel Concession ............................................................................................. 5~6 Provide Ground Leases for Storage Hangars ................................................................ 5-8 Adopt Minimum Standards ......................................................................................... 5-8 Permit Expansion of Existing and New Aviation Services ............................................. 5-8 ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ........................................................................... 5-9 Master Plan Adoption ................................................................................................. 5-9 Master Plan Implementation ....................................................................................... 5-9 iii Table of Contents Appendices A Reference Documents B Noise Model Calculations Data C Glossary D Airport Business Plan E Airport Protection Area Map Figures Location Map ............................................................................................................. 1-2 Area Airspace ............................................................................................................. 1-8 Airspace Classes ....................................................................................................... 1-10 2A Total Number of Based Aircraft. .................................................................................. 2-3 2B Historical Annual Operations ...................................................................................... 2-5 B1 Existing Noise Contours - 2000 .................................................................................. B-9 B2 Projected Noise Contours - 2020 .............................................................................. B-10 Tables lA Airport Profile ..................................................................................................... 1-4 lB Airport Tenants .......................................................................................................... 1-6 1C Area Airports .............................................................................................................. 1-7 1 D Community Profile ................................................................................................... 1-11 2A Master Plan Activity Forecasts ..................................................................................... 2-7 3A Airport Design Standards ............................................................................................ 3-4 5A Capital Improvement Program .................................................................................... 5-7 Airport Plan Drawings (included at back of report) · Airport Layout Plan (2 sheets) · Building Area Plan · Airspace Plan iv Background and Inventory 1 Background and Inventory LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Location and Environs Livermore Municipal Airport is located in the northeastern portion of Alameda County in the Th-Valley area (Figure lA). The airport lies three miles northwest of downtown Livermore and approxi- mately two miles east of the City of Pleasanton. With an airfield elevation of 397 feet, the airport lies on the Livermore/Amador Valley floor with surrounding ridges rising to approximately 1,400 feet. A municipal golf course borders the airport along its northern edge. Several light industrial parks are located northeast of the air- port. Residential development within the City of Livermore lies near the airport to the east and southeast. The nearest residential uses within the City of Pleasanton lie approximately 1.5 miles west of the nearest runway end. Extensive aggregate mining pits and associated ponds lie south and west of the airfield. The airport's general aviation terminal is situated on Terminal Cir- cle, approximately 1/3 mile south of, and parallel to, Interstate 580. Kitty Hawk Road and West Jack London Boulevard border the airport on the east and south sides, respectively. Automobile ac- cess to Livermore Municipal Airport is from Interstate 580 via Airway Boulevard. Interstate 580 connects Livermore to the San Francisco Bay Area to the west and the Central Valley to the east. Livermore has access to the San Jose area via Interstate 680 which intersects Interstate 580 about five miles to the west. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 1-1 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY · Concord Livermore Municipal Airport · Pleasanton SAN. San Jose Stockton Trocy N 0 Miles 3O Source: Shutt Moen Associates (November 2000) Figure lA Location Map Livermore Municipal Airport 1-2 BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER I History At its inception in 1929, Livermore Municipal Airport was built as a private airfield off of Rincon Avenue. In 1942, the airport was converted into a federally-owned, naval auxiliary airfield then known as Livermore Sky Ranch. During World War II, the pri- mary role of the airport was to supplement operations at the Liv- ermore Naval Air Station, now known as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Following World War II, the City of Liver- more operated the airfield under a lease with the NaW until 1953, when the city acquired the airfield. Several years later, the airfield was relocated to its present location off Airway Boulevard and was ready for use in December of 1965. Initially, Livermore Municipal Airport encompassed 257 acres and included a 4,000-foot asphalt runway with a parallel taxiway, an air- craft parking apron with 100 tiedowns, a beacon, a lighted wind cone, and a segmented circle. It was not until 1970 that the first set of hangars and T-shelters were constructed. In 1973, an air traffic control tower was added. A precision instrument approach to Runway 25R was commissioned in 1979. To ease congestion on the primary runway, a 2,699-foot parallel runway was built in 1985. At the same time, an apron was constructed on the southwest side of the airfield. This was later followed by the construction of addi- tional hangars on the airport's south side in 1987. In 1989, the main runway was extended to 5,255 feet. Since 1985, Livermore Munidpal Airport has made more than $25 million in facility improvements, including acquisition of property to enhance approach protection. A summary of current facilities and services is presented in the Airport Profile in Table lA. FACILITIES AND SERVICES The day-to-day operation and management of Livermore Munici- pal Airport are the responsibility of the Airport Manager. The Air- port Manager is assisted on-site by five full-time and seven part- time City employees. Policy derisions affecting the airport are made by the Livermore City Council. A five-member Airport Ad- visory Commission was established in 1958. The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters in- volving the Livermore Municipal Airport. Primary Runway 7L-25R is 5,255-feet long and 100-feet wide. It is asphalt paved with precision markings. The surface is rated at 45,000 pounds for aircraft with single-wheel landing gear and 60,000 pounds for dual-wheel landing gear. Runway 7L-25R is Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 1-3 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY MAJOR FEATURES Property ~- Approximately 643 acres owned in fee by the City of Livermore. :~ City controls avigation easements on 18 acres en- compassing portions of the eastern runway protec- tion zone. Airfield ~ Elevation: 397 feet MS[_, ),- Runway 7L-25R: 5,255 feet long, 100 feet wide; as- phalt. - Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System (MIRLS). ~ Glide slope indicator (PAPI - 4.00°) on Runway 7L. , Pilot-activated runway approach lights (MALSR) and glide slope indicator (VASI - 3.00°) on Run- way 25R. - Full-length parallel taxiway on north side; 250 feet from runway centerline. ~ Runway 7R-25L: 2,699 feet long, 75 feet wide; as- phalt: unlighted. ),- Rotating beacon, lighted wind cone, segmented cir- cle, and control tower (7 am to 9 pm). Bu#ding Area ~- Building area located north of Runway 7L-25R and south of Runway 7R-25L :~ Aircraft parking; , 22 hangar buildings with 393 units. - 249 paved tiedown spaces (one shelter with 9 aircraft spaces). , 1 shelter with 9 stalls. , Helicopter parking located west of the terminal. ~- Other major facilities: ~ Airportterminal/pJlots' lounge. ~ Wash racks, AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES Traffic Pattern ),- Left turning traffic to Runways 7L and 25L. Right turning traffic to Runways 7R and 25R. , Pattern altitude: 1,000 feet AGL. Instrument Approaches ~ ILS straight-in precision approach to Runway 25R. ~ GPS-based nonprecision approach to Runway 25R. Communication ~ TOWER/CTAF: 118.10 MHz/Ground: 121.60 MHz ~ ATIS: 119.65 MHz/Unicom: 122.95 MHz MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES Management )- On-field management and maintenance by City of Livermore. Fixed Base Operations Services )~ FBOs offer wide range of small-aircraft, general avia- tion services (see Table 1B). :~ Fuel service -- 100LL, Jet-A --- by truck during day- time hours and 100 LL at 24-hour self-serve fuel is- land. Emergency and Security )~ Off-site security provided by the City of Livermore Police Department. )- On-site fire protection provided by the Livermore/ Pleasanton Fire Department, ENVIRONS Topography ~- Relatively flat to the east and west; foothills to the north and southwest. Access ~ Primary access is via Airway Boulevard and West Jack London Boulevard. Jurisdictions )~ Airport is within Livermore city limits. Nearby Land Uses )~ Municipal golf course northwest of airfield, )- Industrial/business parks to the north and east, >* Residential to the east (Livermore) and west (Pleasanton), ~ Aggregate mining to the south. Source: Shutt Moen Associates (November 2000) Table lA Airport Profile Livermore Municipal Airport 1-4 BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CI..L~I~I'ER I supported by a standard Medium Intensity Runway Lighting Sys- tem. To facilitate landing operations, a precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) with a 4° slope is located to the right side of Runway 7L, and a four-box Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) with a 3°slope is located to the left side of Runway 25R. Runway 25R also has an approach lighting system (MALSR) and ILS approach capability. The current published dimensions of the parallel runway, Runway 7R-25L, are 2,699-feet in length and 75-feet in width. It is asphalt paved with basic markings only. The surface is rated at 12,500 pounds for aircraft with single-wheel landing gear. Today, Livermore Municipal Airport encompasses 643 acres. The airport's principle building area is located on the northern side of the airport. Currently, the building area consists of 22 city-owned aircraft hangar buildings containing 393 aircraft hangar units, an aircraft storage shelter, and a corporate-style hangar building with hangar and office space. The airport's terminal building is located near the center of the building area and fronts a tiedown apron containing 249 spaces used for both transient and based aircraft. The 2,400-square foot terminal building consists of airport admini- stration offices, a conference room, and a pilots' lounge. The full range of aviation services is available for general aviation pilots and aircraft. The available services are summarized in Table lB. AERONAUTICAL SETTING Area Airports Eleven public-use airports are located within a 25-nautical-mile ra- dius of Livermore Municipal Airport. The closest public-use air- port is Byron Airport, located 12 nautical miles northeast of Liv- ermore Municipal Airport. Of the 11 airports, only Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and San Jose International Airport have longer runways. Table lC summarizes selected features of each of these airports and Figure 1B shows their location. Area Airspace Federal regulations define various categories of airspace with dis- tinct operating requirements for each type. Due to the proximity of Livermore Municipal Airport to San Francisco International and Oakland International Airports, the airspace surrounding the air- port is complex. MALSR (definition): A medium intensity runway approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights. ILS (definition): A precision instrument approach system which normally con- sists of the following electronic compo- nents and visual aids: (1) Localizer; (2) Glide Slope; (3) Outer Marker; (4) Mid- die Marker; (5) Approach Lights. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 1-5 Fuel Sales Flight Aircraft Aircraft Parts & Aircraft Instr'n Rental Maintenance Storage Miscellaneous Name Aero Financial Company Ahart Aviation, Inc. Attitude Aviation, inc. California Gyros and instruments Livermore, City of ~2 Maintenance Express Sierra Academy of Aeronautics Name Type of Business Commercial A?port i and II Buildings Beeb's Sports Bar & Grill Restaurant Las Positas Golf Course Recreation Contract flight instruction Car rentals Source: Data compilpcJ b. y Shutt Moen Associates (November 2000) Table 1 B Airport Tenants Livermore Municipal Airport 1-6 Location Facilities Services Livermore LivermoreJ Municipal City Alameda - 594 2 5,255 Asph M ~ ~ 5 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ Concord/ 22 Asph/ ~ ~ ~ ,~ _ Buchanan County Contra Costa NW 578 4 5,010 Conc H 1 ~* - Byron County Byron/ 12 66 2 4,500 Asph M 1 - - v~ .... Contra Costa NE Hayward City Hayward/ 15 Alameda SW 456 2 5,024 Asph M 1 Lost Isle State Stockton/ 25 0 1 4,000 Water No ........ San Joaquin NE Metro Oakland Port of Oakland/ 20 370 4 10,000 Asph H Oakland Alameda W International ' New City Tracy/ 25 0 1 4,000 Asph No ........ Jerusalem San Joaquin E Palo Alto/ 21 Palo Alto County Santa Clara SW 454 1 2,443 Asph M 1 San Jose/ 20 Reid-Hillview County Santa Clara NW 554 2 3,101 Asph M - ¢ - ¢ - ~ ¢ - San Carlos County San Carlos/ 24 San Mateo SW 498 I 2,600 Asph M 1 San Jose San Jose/ 21 International City Santa Clara SW 417 3 10,200 Asph H ~/~ Tracy/ 18E 120 2 3,680 Asph M 1 - - ,,~ - ,~ - - Tracy City San Joaquin 1 Distance limited to 25 nautical miles from Livermore Municipal Airport 2 FAA 5010 Forms/Livermore Municipal Airport 3 Asph=asphalt; Conc=concrete 4 Statute mile Control tower operates part-time Source: Data compiled by Shutt Moen Associates (November 2000) Table 1C Area Airports Livermore Municipal Airport 1-7 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY Source: San Francisco Sect/onal Aeronautical Chart (September 2000) Figure 1 B Area Airports Livermore Municipal Airport 1-8 BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAI~FER I 12vermore Municipal Airport is located in Class D airspace with a part-time operating control tower. When the control tower is in operation, aircraft must establish and maintain two-way radio communication with the control tower until departing the airspace. Two Class E airspace veils with floors of 700-feet above ground abut the Class D airspace associated with Livermore Municipal Airport from the east and west. The Class E airspace to the east is associated with both Byron and Tracy airports. Aircraft within this airspace utilize a nondirectional beacon to electronically receive point-to-point guidance information. The Class E airspace to the west is used to transition from the terminal environment to the 30- nautical-mile Mode C veil for San Francisco International Airport. This veil encompasses Livermore Municipal Airport and indicates to pilots that a large airport offering airline service is in the near vi- cinity..Aircraft within the 30-nautical-mile veil must be equipped with a radio transponder. The Class B airspace associated with San Francisco also abuts the Class D airspace for Livermore Municipal Airport. This airspace is highly controlled and air traffic control clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in this area. The airspace classifications are illus- trated in Figure 1C. A Federal Airway passes over the Class D airspace for Livermore Municipal .Airport. A Federal Airway is a Class E airspace corridor which is typically utilized by aircraft navigating by radio between airports. En route air traffic using Victor Airway-334 (V-334) normally do not interact with aircraft utilizing Livermore Municipal Airport. Instrument approaches to Livermore Municipal Airport are straight-in or circle-to-land. Horizontal visibility minimums are as low as 1/2 mile and have a vertical height of at least 597-feet above mean sea level. The typical pattern altitude for all aircraft is 1,397- feet above mean sea level. COMMUNITY PROFILE The City of Livermore was incorporated in 1876. Historically, Liv- ermore was an agricultural community whose local economy was supported by vineyards and ranches. Since this time, l,ivermore has evolved into a suburban community with a diverse economy. A profile of the area is contained in Table 1D. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 1-9 CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY Airspace Classes U.S. Airspace Classes at a Glance Communications Special VFR Entry Separation in Surface Requirements Area Figure 1C Airspace Classes United States 1 -10 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) CHAPTER1 BACKGROUND ANDINVENTORY GEOGRAPHY Location )~ The Tri-Valley region is located in Alameda County in northern California. )~ The City of Livermore is located in the northeastern portion of the county, 43 miles southeast of San Francisco. )~ Livermore Municipal Airport is located south of, and parallel to, Interstate Highway 580. Topography )~ At an elevation of 375 feet, the Livermore Valley floor is relatively flat with the outlying foothills of the Diablo Range rising to nearly 1,400 feet. )~ The north-south ridge of the Diablo Range extends through the center of the County separating the Valley from the Bay. A second ridge forms the eastern edge of the Valley. The flanks of Mount Diablo, the highest point in the Diablo Range, forms the northern edge of the Livermore Valley. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Major Highways ~ Two major highways provide access to the Livermore area: , Interstate Highway 580 extends in an east-west alignment connecting the central valley to the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. , Interstate Highway 680 extends in a north-south direction connecting the East Bay to both the northern and southern Bay Area. Public Transportation )~ Livermore/Almador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). )~ AItamont Commuter Express Train. )' Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is available from the City of Pleasanton, located 2 miles east of the Airport. Source: Shutt Moen Associates (November 2000) POPULATION AND ECONOMY Current/Historical Population 1990 1995 2000 )~ Alameda County 1,276,702 1,344,157 1,443,741 )'~ City of Livermore 56,741 63,854 73,345 (Source: California Department of Finance; 2000 US Census; Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2003) Projected Population 2010 2020 ~' Alameda County 1,654,500 1,793,100 )~ City of Livermore 86,000 94,100 (Sources: California Deparlment of Finance; (2001); Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2003) Basis of Economy ~ Major contributors to Alameda County economy include: research and development, government, service industry. ~ Industry groups with greatest percentage of employ- ment: ~ Government 68% ~ Retail Trade 12% , Industrial 11% (Source: City of Livermore) CLIMATE Temperatures )~ Hottest month (July): )~ Coldest month (January): (Source: City of Livermore) Avg. High Avg. Low 87.5°F. 55.4°F. 55.7°F. 37.8°F. Precipitation and Fog ~ Average annual rainfall in Livermore; 14 inches. ~ Fog conditions can occur in the late evening and early morning. (Source: City of Livermore ) Winds )~ Wind patterns over Alameda County are locally influenced by the surrounding ridges. ~' Prevailing winds are from the west-northwest. I Table 1 D Community Profile Alameda County/Livermore i 1-11 CHAPTER1 BAOKGROUNDANDINVENTORY Today, the economy is primarily supported by research and devel- opment companies. This sector employs approximately 30% of the labor force. The largest private employer is the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which employs 8,000 people, fol- lowed by Sandia National Laboratory and Triad Systems. The next two largest employer groups include government agencies and re- tail companies. For many years, the City of Livermore has been one of the largest and fastest growing cities in the Tri-Valley region. In fact, the city's population had more than quadrupled between 1950 and 1960, and more than doubled between 1960 and 1970. Since 1970, the City of Livermore has been experiencing steady gxowth. The community has grown by 30% over the last decade from 56,741 to 73,345 residents. Comparatively, the county has grown by 14% and has a population of just over 1,454,000. PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES Livermore Municipal Airport's most recent AiS)ort Master P/an was prepared by August W. Compton & Associates in 1975. The 20- year plan addressed the following topics: } .Acquisition of additional land for the approach and clear zone areas, and for the expansion of various airport facilities. } Limiting residential development within the 65-CNEL noise contour established for the airport. } Construction of a parallel runway. } Extension of the primary runway, Runway 7L-25R, 1,250 feet westward. } Additional aircraft parking aprons, tiedowns, and hangars. } Installation of Instrument I,anding System (II,S) on Runway 7L-25R. Various fiscal policy changes. The key land use compatibility document for Livermore Municipal .Airport is the Mit'port Proteclion ,4rea plan prepared by McClintock, Becket & Associates in 1992 (See Appendix E). It defined a zone around the airport in which new residential development is prohib- ited. This zone extends outward from the airport's runways 5,000 feet to the north, south and east, and 7,100 feet to the west. 1-12 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) , ,' Airport. Role a~nd 'ActivitY 2 Airport Role and Activity Forecasts AIRPORT ROLE Present Livermore Municipal Airport is one of three public-use airports in Alameda County. It is the principal airport serving the Tri-Valley area. As a general aviation facility, the airport provides a base of operations for local pilots, a point of air access to the community, a place to conduct business, and a place to conduct flight training. These general aviation roles are expanded upon below. A Base for Tri-Valley Area Pilots--For pilots who live and work in Livermore or elsewhere in the Tri-Valley area, the Liv- ermore Municipal Airport is the most convenient airport from which to fly. Recreation and personal business are the pre- dominant reasons these pilots fly. Point of Air Access for Visitors to the Community--The airport is a means of accessing Livermore and the Tri-Valley Area for recreation and business. A Source of Transportation to Other Areas--Although no charter operators are currently based at the airport, it is ex- pected that this service will be offered in the future. A Place to Conduct Business-~Another important role of Livermore Municipal Airport is as a place of business. There are six aviation and several nonaviafion businesses based at the airport. These businesses contribute to the local economy through their payrolls and purchases of goods and services. Personal/recreational flying: the use of aircraft by individuals (in their own, rented, or borrowed air- craft) for pleasure, recreational, or personal transportation not in fur- therance of their occupation or company business. Business flying: the use of aircraft by pilots (not receiving direct salary or compensation for piloting) in connection with their occupation, their employer's business, or in the furtherance of private business. Corporate flying: the use of air- craft, owned or leased, and oper- ated by a corporation or business firm, for the transportation of per- sonnel or cargo in furtherance of the corporation's or firm's busi- ness, and which are flown by pro- fessional pilots receiving a direct salary or compensation for piloting. Charter operator: a business pro- viding on-demand passenger and cargo service. Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 2-1 CHAPTER 2 AIRORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS Place to Conduct Flight Training--Livermore Municipal Airport is a major center for flight training. Three fixed base operators provide flight training. The largest of these busi- nesses trains pilots for Korean Air under contract. Site for Emergency Access to the Community--Following calamities such as a major earthquake, fire, or flood, airports are often of critical importance as points of community access for emergency and relief services. In addition, when regional ground access routes (i.e., roads, highways, and rail lines) are severed by a calamity, transportation by air may be the only means of effectively moving about and delivering supplies. It is essential that airport facilities remain operational or can quickly become operational after such events. ]n these emergency cir- cumstances, airports often see use by ,aircraft that are larger than those normally accommodated. It is also vital that the airport has usable local ground access to the surrounding community. LiYermore Municipal Airport is well positioned in this regard, thus making this operational role an important one. Future The pace of future development at the Livermore Municipal .Air- port is expected to parallel that of the Tri-Valley area. The major increases in high technology and other major industrial and com- mercial uses in the area are also expected to shift the emphasis among the roles the airport currently serves. While flight training and recreational use will continue to account for the majority of aircraft operations, the percentage of operations by transient cor- porate (including charter) aircraft is expected to increase. The air- port is also expected to become a base for corporate and charter aircraft. HISTORICAL AIRPORT ACTIVITY Based Aircraft The City of Livermore has tracked the number of based aircraft since the airport was constructed. Figure 2A graphically presents the changes in the total number of based aircraft since 1977. Growth in the initial years leveled off in the early 1980s and then grew again in the late 1980s. Since that time, the number of based aircraft has remained below the 600 level. As of .August 2001, there are 594 aircraft based at 15vermore Municipal Airport. 2-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRPORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS CHAI~TER 2 1000 800 - 600 400 /. 200 O- 1975 I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I F"'i'"l'l I I I I I I I, I I i I I I I I,I I I I I 1 980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Historical I / Forecast Figure 2A Total Number of Based Aircraft Livermor® Municipal Airport Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 2-3 Cl..IAI=q'ER 2 AIRORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS Of the 594 aircraft currently based at the airport, 527 are single- engine, propeller airplanes. There are also 62 twin-engine propeller aircraft, two jets, and three helicopters. Transient Aircraft Parking Information on the demand for transient aircraft parking was esti- mated using data from tiedown fees and observations from City employees and air traffic control tower staff. The demand for transient aircraft parking varies significantly on a day-to-day basis. On peak days, up to 20 aircraft may be on the transient ramp at one time with jets making up to one-third of these aircraft. The demand for transient parking is expected to increase more rapidly than the forecast increase in operations due to the shift to higher ratios of transient use. Operations The air traffic control tower staff at Livermore Municipal Airport documents the number and type of aircraft operations that occur during their operating hours. The tower is operational from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. every day. In excess of 95% of operations are es- timated to occur during the tower's operating hours. The remain- ing 5% occur when the tower is not open (9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Aircraft are not counted when the tower is closed. Figure 2B pre- sents the historical numbers of annual aircraft operations. The general trend has been a gradual increase in operations since the early 1980s. There was a notable peak in operations in the early 1990s that lasted for about three years. Distribution of Operations The historical distribution of operational activity (i.e., day/night, VFR/IFR, local/itinerant) can be estimated from discussions with those familiar with the airport (e.g., tower staff, flight instructors). The vast majority of operations at Livermore Municipal Airport are conducted during daylight hours. This distribution is consistent with day/night activity indices at comparable general aviation air- ports. Based upon air traffic control tower records, the existing split be- tween local and ilinerant operations is 63% and 37%, respectively. This high percentage of local operations is anticipated due to the presence of a major flight training, fixed base operation at Liver- more Municipal Airport. 2-4 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) i AIRPORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS CHAPTER 2 500,000 400,000" 300,000 -;. ~-~~_... ~,,,,,, .;'-" 200,000-' ~ '~"""""~'"'~~"~'"'" 100,000 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2115 2020 Historical Master Plan Forecast Airport Protection Area Forecas,t Terminal'Area Forecast (FAA) Note: See "Agency Forecasts" on Page 2-9 Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2001) Figure 2B Historical Annual Operations Livermore Municipal Airport 2-5 CHAPTER 2 AIRORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS The Livermore air traffic control tower recorded about 13,000 in- strument operations at Livermore Municipal Airport during the year 2000. This level of annual instrument approach activity is slightly higher than in 1999. The number of instrument ap- proaches to Livermore Municipal Airport is expected to increase slightly in the future as more business/corporate aircraft use the airport. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS In accordance with F.AA gtfidelines, the time horizon of the fore- casts in this Airport Master Plan is 20 years. However, many uncer- tainties facing the future of the general aviation industry make forecasting of airport activity an inexact science at best. The Master P/an forecasts of future aviation at Livermore Municipal Airport are summarized in Table 2A, together with the estimates of current activity levels. Projections have been developed for based aircraft, transient aircraft parking, and annual aircraft operations. As out- lined in the following sections, these forecasts have been devel- oped by: ~ Considering the previously described historical activity levels at Livermore Municipal Airport; ~ Assessing the national, state, and local trends and other fac- tors which influence the airport's activity; and then ~ Drawing conclusions from this data. Based Aircraft National Demand Factors 'Many factors come into play when forecasting at the national level. The FAA uses numerous demand factors in forecasting aviation trends. These demand factors are part of what determines the growth rates of general aviation at a national level. The following national demand factors for general aviation operations were taken from FAA Aviation Forecasts, 1998 to 2009: ~ Total active general aviation aircraft fleet ~ Passage of the product liability reform in 1994 ~ Rebirth of piston aircraft manufacturing. All of the factors listed above have shown some growth between 1996 and 1997. The growth ranged from 0.1% for total piston hours flown to 9.5% for total multi-engine piston hours flown. 2-6 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRPORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS CHAPTER 2 Existing Projected 2001 2020 Based Aircraft Aircraft Types Single-Engine 527 750 Twin-Engine 62 110 Jets 2 30 Helicopters 3 8 Total Aircraft 594 898 Storage Demand Tiedown 112 48 Hangar Space 481 850 Total Demand 594 898 Transient Aircraft Peak Daytime Parking Demand 20 40 Annual Aircraft Operations Aircraft Mix Single-Engine Fixed 149,980 171,500 Single-Engine Variable 55,000 90,000 Twin-Engine Piston 45,000 80,000 Twin-Engine Turboprop 3,800 8,000 Small Fanjet 1,100 10,000 Medium Fanjet 800 7,500 Large Fanjet 100 1,000 Small Turbojet 200 0 Large Turbofan 20 0 Helicopters 1,500 2,000 Total 257,500 370,000 Type of Operation Local (Touch-and-Go's) 158,500 200,000 Itinerant 99,000 170,000 Total 257,500 370,000 Average Operations per Based Aircraft Total 434 412 Source: Shutt Moen Associates (August 2001) Table 2A Master Plan Activity Forecasts Livermore Municipal Airport 2-7 CHAPTER 2 AIRORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) pub- lished forecast data for the period of 1998 to 2002. This forecast estimated the number of based aircraft at Livermore Municipal Airport to grow to 598 at the end of the five-year forecast period. This is consistent with the actual number of 594-based aircraft (see page 2-2). State and Local Demand Factors The most recent California State Airport System Plan was pub- lished in 1999. The system plan included all public-use airports in California. The plan calls for significant growth at Livermore Mu- nicipal Airport with total based aircraft reaching between 750 and 835 by 2010. The following airport-specific demand influences partially overlap the above national and state demand factors, but are more reflec- tive of the conditions existing at Livermore Municipal Airport. } Airport Role--As previously noted, the national growth poten- tial of one of Livermore Municipal Airport's primary user groups -- personal and recreational use aircraft -- is projected to be limited. Nationally, business aviation continues to grow. This is important to Livermore Municipal Airport because of the [inks between the local economy and business use of the air- port. ~ Facilities and Services Available~Exisfing general aviation facilities and services at Livermore Municipal Airport provide the majority of services necessary to support current operations. However, the airport lacks a full-service fixed base operator. The current City policy of not allowing fixed base operators to dispense fuel is a major reason that a full-service fixed base op- erator does not exist. Demand for Hangar Space--Increasingly, aircraft owners are seeking hangar space ro store their aircraft. This is due to the fact that aircraft are increasing in value. Livermore Municipal Airport has adequate land area to develop a sufficient number of hangars to accommodate anticipated demand. Any increase in the number of based aircraft will be driven in part by the availability of additional, suitably priced, aircraft storage han- gars. Future aircraft hangar sites are shown on the building area plan. Surrounding Airspace--Livermore Municipal Airport is lo- cated just outside of the Class B airspace associated with San Francisco International Airport. The Class B airspace to the south has a floor elevation of 8,000 feet, while the ring of Class 2-8 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRPORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS CHAI:r'rER 2 B airspace to the west has a floor elevation of 6,000 feet. Therefore, airspace considerations do not significantly constrain operations at Livermore Municipal Airport. Nearby Airports Eleven public use airports are located within 25 nautical miles of Livermore Municipal Airport. Of these airports, Hayward Executive, Buchanan Field, and Reid- Hillview airports are most similar in character. However, only the two air carrier airports, Oakland Metropolitan and San Jose International airports have precision instrument approach capa- bility like that at Livermore. Proximity to Nearby Industry~Livermore Municipal Airport has always had [inks to the industries in the area. In early years, the primary linkage was to Lawrence Livermore National Labo- ratory. In subsequent years, the dramatic growth in major in- dustrial and commercial businesses has caused the increases in use by transient corporate and charter aircraft. This trend is ex- pected to continue. Demographics~Population growth alone does not typically generate a corresponding increase in based general aviation air- craft demand. However, the combination of increasing popula- t/on and economic growth in the Livermore region should re- sult in an increase in based aircraft. Based Aircraft Demand Conclusions In recognition of the above-noted national, state, and local demand factors and planning projections, the Master Plan concludes that there is sigmificant potential for increase in Livermore Municipal Airport's based aircraft population. The availability of reasonably priced hangar units will largely govern the amount of increase in single-engine aircraft based at the airport. Hangar availability will also shape the growth in other aircraft types. However, growth in multi-engine aircraft (i.e., both piston and jet) will also be affected by the availability of commercial leaseholds. The total number of based aircraft is forecast to increase from its present level of 594 to 898 aircraft by 2020. Table 2A presents the forecast of based air- craft by type. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST Agency Forecasts Both the Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans have pre- pared official forecasts of operations for Livermore Municipal Air- Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 2-9 CHAPTER 2 AIRORT ROLE AND ACTIVI'rY FORECASTS port. The most recent FAA forecast was released July 1998. The FAA forecast calls for operations to grow to 334,126 by 2015. The California State System Plan forecast calls for annual operations to grow to between 320,000 and 344,000 by 2010. The Airport Pro- tection Area includes a forecast of 420,697 by 2011. Airport-Specific Factors Various circumstances specific to Livermore Municipal Airport are also relevant in determining future airport operational levels: ~ Number and Type of Based Aircraft---The shift toward pro- portionately more multi-engine airplanes at Livermore Munici- pal .Airport will tend to push operation counts upward more rapidly than the rate of based aircraft growth. ~ Availability of Facilities and Services Assuming that City fueling and leasing policies are supportive, it is anticipated that at least one full-service fixed base operator and more than one charter (or fractional ownership) fixed base operator will be es- tablished within the next three to five years. ~, Flight Trairdng--A large portion of the airport's total annual operations involve flight training operations. Although flight training activity is expected to continue to grow, the rate of in- crease is expected to slow and then level off. As the airport's runways approach their operational capacity, delays will in- crease. This will reduce the attractiveness of Livermore Mu- nicipal Airport as a place for training activity. ~ 7Extent of Transient Aircraft Use Increased business, corpo- rate, and industrial development within the Livermore region is expected to generate increased activity by both based and tran- sient aircraft. Much of this increased activity will be generated by multi-engine general aviation aircraft, particularly jets. Annual Operations Demand Conclusions Continued modest increases in annual aircraft operations at Liver- more Municipal Airport is antidpated. As noted previously, this growth in operations will be generated by the increase in based and transient aircraft and greater utilization of aircraft by IJv'ermore Municipal Airport-based active aircraft users. The rate of growth in Livermore Municipal Airport's annual operations is somewhat higher than the rate of growth of based aircraft due to a projected increase in the average utilization rate of aircraft over time. 2-10 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRPORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS CHAPTER The percentage split between local operations and itinerant opera- tions is projected to remain similar to current percentages over the 20-year planning period. This outlook is influenced by the sumption that based training operations will continue. However, there will be a gradual increase in the percentage of transient opera- tions over time. Summarized in Table 2A is the Master Plan 20-year forecast of fu- ture annual aircraft operations for Livermore Municipal Airport. The Master Plan forecast projects that total annual aircraft opera- tions at Livermore Municipal Airport will increase from the 2001 level of 257,500 to 370,000 in the year 2020. The utilization rate of based air- craft is calculated by dividing the total number of general aviation aircraft operations -- including those by transient aircraft -- by the number of based aircraft. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 2-1 1 CHAPTER 2 2-12 AIRORT ROLE AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) I I I I I I I i I i I I I i I I I I Airfield Design OVERVIEW The principal airfield design issue addressed in this chapter is the required length of the parallel runway (Runway 7R-25L). Addition- ally addressed are the design standards that should apply to the runways and tax/ways when the volume of category C aircraft op- erations crosses the threshold where airfield facilities should be ex- plicitly designed for these aircraft. Parallel tax/way designations are also revised. Basic Design Factors The airport's operational role - that of a general aviation airport - requires it to serve a wide variety of aircraft sizes and types. This role is well established and is expected to remain essentially the same as at present throughout the 20-year planning period. The purpose of the proposed airfield improvements is to enhance this established role. Ex/sdng facilities and site constraints strongly shape future airfield configuration options. The airport is bounded on the south and east by public roads. To the north the airport is constrained by a public road and a golf course. The northwest corner of the airport is also constrained by portions of the golf course. Airfield Design Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-1 CHAPTER 3 AIRFIELD DESIGN For the purposes of establishing airfield dimensional standards, the FAA defines the critical air- plane as the type or types that "will make substantial use of the airport in the foreseeable future. Substantial use means 500 or more annual itinerant operations or scheduled commercial ser- vice." (FAA Order 5090.3B) Runway Capacity Factors Runway configuration. Location of runway exits. ~ Existence of air traffic control facilities and navigational aids. Mix of aircraft types (including helicopters) using the airport. The amount of touch-and-go training activity. The extent of instrument versus visual weather conditions. ,Peaking conditions (i.e., the hourly, daily, and seasonal variations in traffic demand). The proximity of nearby airports and other factors affecting air- space use. Demand Determinants In general terms, airfield operational demand characteristics are de- fined by the airport role and projected activity levels as addressed in the preceding chapter. In the more specific context of airfield facility design issues, these demand factors can be summarized as follows: Design Aircraft---The majority of operations at Livermore Mu- nicipal Airport are generated by single-engine and twin-engine piston aircraft. The airport also sees frequent use by larger, faster aircraft such as twin-engine turboprop aircraft, and small and medium-sized business jets (e.g., Citation VII and Falcon 900). Less frequendy, the airport is used by large business air- craft (e.g., Gulfstream IV). Runway Approach Type--Livermorc Municipal Airport is presently well served by one Category I precision approach and one nonprecision (GPS-based) instrument approach. Both of these approaches are to Runway 25R. Each of these approaches has an approved circle-to4and approach to other runway ends. The lowest approach minimums for the airport are 200 feet above the airport elevation and 1/2 mile visibility (iLS Runway 25R). Aircraft Activity Volume---The Master Plan activity forecasts indicate that Livermore Municipal Airport has a potential to grow to 370,000 annual operations over the next 20 years (com- pared to approximately 257,500 at present). Needs Assessment For the purposes of airfield design, the above operational demands must be translated into facility needs. In basic terms, these needs can be assessed with respect to the following four factors: Operational Capacity--An airport's airfield capacity is gener- ally measured in terms of the number of aircraft operations the runway and taxiway system can accommodate in an hour or over a year. Calculation of airfield capacity, particularly annual capac- ity, is dependent upon various physical and operational factors as listed to the left. Given the current high level of activity and forecast increases, it is essential that future runway/taxiway system improvements maxi- mize airfield capacity. Thc airfield capacity is rated at 355,000 an- nual operations. This level is below forecast acdvity levels. How- ever, actual capacity -- as compared to theoretical capacity -- will accommodate the forecast increase to 370,000 annual operations. 3-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAI=~rl~R :3 The high percentages of operations by small aircraft, and touch- and-go operations extend the actual capacity. Peak-period capacity is also a concern, particularly with the high levels of training activity. However, with most of the training activ- ity linked to one based flight training school, peaks in demand can be moderated through minor scheduling changes by this fixed base operator. Based upon the FAA's capacity model, the runways can accommodate approximately 197 VFR operations per hour and 62 IFR operations per hour. ~. Runway Length--The length of runway required to accommo- date the most demanding airplanes anticipated to use an airport is a fundamental airfield design factor. Runway length require- ments for specific aircraft are dependent upon airfield elevation and design temperature (the average high temperature for the hottest month). The FAA has established formulas indicating the desirable runway length for various classes of aircraft. If a particular aircraft is especially key to an airport's role, this data is available in performance charts provided by aircraft manufactur- ers. Specific length requirements for Livermore Municipal Air- port's runways are analyzed in subsequent sections of this chap- ter. Airport Classification/Design Standards--Another basic air- field design requirement which must be assessed is the capability of the facilities to safely accommodate the types of aircraft which seek to operate at the airport. Runway length is a key compo- nent of this assessment, but other facility dimensions -- such as pavement widths and the lateral clearances from the runway to adjacent taxiways and structures - also are important. FAA design standards for these features are set in accordance with the M.i¢ort Reference Code (ARC) applicable to the airport as a whole or, in many cases, to individual runways or taxiways. The primary determinants of ARC classifications are: } The approach speed, wingspan, and weight of the most de- manding types of aircraft a runway or taxiway is intended to serve; and } The existing or planned runway approach type and visibility minimums. Table 3A summarizes the FAA design standards associated with several ARC classifications potentially applicable to Livermore Mu- nicipal Airport. The significance of these standards with respect to individual components of the airfield design is discussed in subse- quent sections of this chapter. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-3 CHAPTER 3 AIRFIELD DESIGN Table 3A Item FAA Airport Design Standards~ Airport Reference Code ............. B-I (small) B-I ! BAll .............. B-II C-II - Aircraft ~ppr0ach Speed_ .............. <121 ~i"~-~)-l--~-i'-~:'i-~i'"~ ~ <121kts <141'~' A!_r__c_r~ft_Weight Grouj3__(!bs) ........ __.~.1_.2_.500 >12,500 >12,500___>_12,__5__0_0_ L_>_12,500 ~pproach Visibili~/Minimums Visual or Visual or Visual or <% mile I <% mile Width 60 ft. 60 ft, 75 ft, 100 ff. --'~ (~) ft. Blast Pad .L.~.n. gth beyon~Runway End ....................... ~-;~i-"- 1" . 100 ft, 150.ft, ........ ]5_0_ff.._ ......... ].50 ff~ Safety Area Width 120 ft. '-"i20 ff~'"'-i ..... i-5~''fi, ~(~0 ff. 400 ft. ___L_e~.~l~_.b_e_yond Runway End_ ................2_~O. ff:.__,.__2_4_~.ff... 300 ff. 600 ff~ !.~000.ft~_._ Obstacle F_r.e__e__. ~p pe~ S.,h,~pe3 _A_. A A C ...... ~ ...... ~;. ......... Width_(_W)_ 2_50._ff._.' ........... 400 ff. .... 40_0_ ff. 400 ft, I 400.ft.. Vertica!,Heig~.. _(H)4,s ....... NA ........ .N_._A_ ............... N__A .......... 53 ft. 53 fi, Slope (_S_) ? NA NA NA 6:1 6:1 _ Object Free Ar_e_..a ......... ..... NA NA _NA N__A ........... NA Width 250 ft. 400 ff. 500 ff. 800 ff. 800 ft. ........... Length-i~y0nd Runwa~___E.n,d _~ 240 ff. _ ._2_40_ff._~300 ft. 600 ff;. 1,000 ft. Gradient (maximN,.m) 2~0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.o% 1.5% RqfT_way Setbacks ...................... ...... F_[0r~.. Bu_nway Centerline to: P a ralle~!._ R,~ ,,nw_a_v Centerli~; Hold Line 125 ft. 200 ft, 200 ff. 25O ft. 25O ft~ ...... _P_a_r_a_lle_l Taxiway 150 ff._._ .2_25 ffl ....... ~'0~-, '-~'I- 30_0.fi_. ...... 4_0_0.ff.__ ..... __Airc__r.a. ff.. Parking Line.................. _1__2_5_ff_. ....... 200ft._ .......... _250 fi,. , 400 ff~ _500_.ff_._ ........ ._B_u..i!d!ng Restriction Lines .................;~_0 ft,__ --495 fl[: 495 ff. 745 ft, 745 ff. ___ Helipad for: Smal!..He]!,,cqp_t_ers (~6,000 lbs.) 300 fi,- ...... -~30 .................... ft, - ...... ~5-0~'?_'.~iiii"~i~_5_'_0_0_'"_~. 500 ft, ___M_e. di_~m H_e_l!_copters (~12,000_l_b_s_:) 500fL 500 ft__. 1_._5_o.._o_.ff.:.~' __500 ft, 500. ft.~ Heav~ ,..Helicopters (> 12,000 lbs.) 700 ff, 700 ff. 700 ff. 700 fi. 700 ff. ~ Taxiway Design Width 25 ff. 25 ft, 35 ft, 35 ff. 35 ff. Safety Area Width 49,.ft,~, 49 ff. 79 ft. 79 ft, 79 fi, T__a~_ i__~._y__and Taxilane Setbacks From T~iyyay Centerline to: _.. , ............... ~_ ....... Paralle! T~iway/Taxilane~ 69 fi, .69..ff.__-_.~_ 105 ff. 1'--~-0-5 ~t: 'i05 ft, Fixed___~[.Mo~/ab!f~.._O_.bject 45ff. ~5.ff,....t 66ff. ! 66ff....~ 66ff. From Taxilane Centerline to: Fixed,,.or. Movable Object 40 ff... 40 ft. t 58 ft. 58 ff. 58 ft. 10 Runway P[(~e_c.__t~on.~o...n_e_ Width at Inner End --'~"ft?~ 5~3'~-ft.W°- 500 ft?o 1,000 ff, I 1,000 ff. Wi(~th at Outer End ~'~-(~'~t-.- ........ 7~-0~:""1 70Q.__ff_.__ 11_~_7.'~_0.i-~-1--~-,~5-~t. L%n~],th .... 1:,,,0.0.0 ff. 1,000 fi, ~ 1,000 ff. 2,500 ff. [ 2,5+0~00.,ff, r' ,,, Airport Design Standards Livermore Municipal Airport 3-4 AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAPTER 3 lO Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 4, Airport Design (November 1994). Object Free Zone normally extends 200 feet beyond end of runway; additional length required for runways with approach light systems. Runway Obstacle Free Zone & U i=~_~s ~.. H~ cross-section shapes: w w w Height increases 3 feet per 1,000 feet of airport elevation. Indicated dimensions for runways with approach visibility minimums <% mile are for Category I instru- ment runways. Criteria for Category II and Category III runways are more restrictive. Maximum of 0.8% in first and last quarters of runway. Indicated runway separation is for planning purposes. FAA air traffic control criteria permit simulta- neous operations by light, single-engine propeller airplanes with runways as close as 300 feet apart and by twin-engine propeller airplanes with runway separation of 500 feet. [FAA Order 7110.856]. The FAA no longer has fixed-distance standards for the Building Restriction Line location. The indi- cated setback distances are based on providing 7:1 transitional slope clearance over a 35-foot build- ing situated at the same base elevation as the adjacent runway and can be adjusted in accordance with local conditions. Assumes same size airplane uses both taxiway and adjacent taxiway/taxilane. Distance can be re- duced if secondary taxiway/taxilane is limited to use only by smaller airplanes. For runways with approach visibility minimums of % mile or more, but less than 1 mile, runway protec- tion zone dimensions are 1,000 feet width at inner end, 1,51 0 feet width at outer end, and a length of 1,700 feet. Table 3A, Continued 3-5 CHAI3'FER 3 AIRFIELD DESIGN Cessna Citation Wind Coverage--Strong winds at an airport can represent ad- ditionai airfield design concerns. FAA guidelines establish that the orientation of an airport's runway or runways should enable the airport to be usable, with crosswinds of an acceptable veloc- ity, during at least 95% of the year. Airports with lower annual wind coverage qualify for FAA funding for a crosswind runway. The criteria for an acceptable crosswind velocity are tied to the runway's airport reference code and thus to the type of aircraft using the runway. Information on wind data collected at the Livermore Municipal Airport indicates that the airport's runways are usable 97% of the year. This meets the FAA criteria; no crosswind runway is needed. RUNWAY 7L-25R Classification Currently, the most demanding class of aircraft regularly using the airport (i.e., more than 500 annual operations) are smaller corpo- rate jets (e.g., Cessna Citation III). These aircraft are in Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II. The most demanding class of aircraft anticipated to regularly use Livermore Municipal Airport in the fu- ture are those in ARC C-II. Representative aircraft in ARC C-II are the Hawker 900 and Challenger 600 series of aircraft. The air- port will also see occasional use by larger C-II aircraft such as the Gulfstream IV. Runway Length Existing Runway 7L-25R is currently 5,255 feet long. The runway's length is suffident to accommodate the mix of aircraft that use the air- port. However, the length does impose limitations on some jet air- craft depending upon temperature and the distance to the intended destination. Future The critical aircraft for Livermore Munidpal Airport for most de- sign criteria will remain the medium-sized business jet. The run- way length required to accommodate this class of aircraft was evaluated using the FAA's runway length analysis program. For large aircraft with a gross weight of 60,000 pounds or less, the FAA's program calculates the following runway length require- ments: 3-6 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 5"0 5o5" AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAPTER 3 75% of these aircraft at 60% useful load 4,990 feet 75% of these aircraft at 90% useful load 7,000 feet 100% of these aircraft at 60% useful load 5,800 feet 100% of these aircraft at 90% useful load 8,740 feet This data indicates that for 75% of the aircraft in this classification, the current runway length (5,255 feet) would allow them to carry between 60% and 90% of their useful load, in essence, passenger and cargo. For the class of aircraft of concern, business jets, most of the useful load is allocated to fuel. Additional fuel equates addi- tional miles that can be flown nonstop. Currently, even the largest business jets (e.g., Gulfstream IV) occasionally use the airport. Therefore, the principal benefit of the higher useful loads permit- ted by longer runway lengths would be to increase the length of nonstop flights by some corporate jets. Given that the airport is expected to principally serve business destinations within the west- ern region, there would be limited utility to additional runway length. Therefore, no change in the current runway length is pro- posed. Runway Width Runway 7L-25R is currently 100 feet wide. The FAA standard for a runway accommodating aircraft in .ARC C-II is a width of 100 feet. Therefore, no change in the current runway width is pro- posed. Pavement Strength The main runway, Runway 7L-25R, currently has the bearing ca- pacity to accommodate single main gear aircraft weighing up to 45,000 pounds and dual main gear aircraft weighing up to 62,000 pounds. This pavement strength is adequate to accommodate a medium-sized business jet, which is the design aircraft for this runway. Therefore, no change in the present runway strength is required. Runway Approaches Traffic Patterns and Approach Procedures The established traffic pattern for Runway 7L-25R is a left-hand pattern to Runway 7L and a right-hand pattern to Runway 25R. The pattern altitude is established at 1,000 feet above the airport elevation (1,397 feet MSL). Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-7 CHAPTER 3 AIRFIELD DESIGN A Runway Safety Area (RSA) is a cleared, drained, graded, and pref- erably stabilized surface, symmetri- cally located about the runway. Under dry conditions, an RSA should be capable of supporting aircraft rescue and fire-fighting equipment and of accommodating the occasional passage of aircraft without causing major damage to the aircraft. The area must be free of objects, except ones whose func* tion requires their location in the RSA, in which case they must be installed on frangible supports, Runway Safety Areas The current critical aircraft for l,ivermore Municipal are in ARC B- II. FlkA design standards for ARC B-II facilities (with 1/2 mile visibility minimums), such as I,ivermore Municipal Airport's Run- way 7L-25R, specify that the Runway Safety Area (RSA) be 300 feet wide the full length of the runway, extending 600 feet beyond each end of the runway. If the activity level and fleet mix change as forecast, the critical aircraft for the airport will shift ARC C-II before the end of the planning period. The RSA for this category is 400 feet xvide and 1,000 feet beyond thc runway ends. Runway 7L The exisdng RSA at the approach end of l,ivermore Municipal Airport's Runway 7L extends 600 feet beyond the end of the run- way. This meets FAA standards for ARC B-II. However, immedi- ately beyond the RSA is a chain-link fence that separates the air- field from thc fairways of the adjacent golf course. To proxdde thc required 1,000-foot RSA at the approach end of Runway 7L, the RSA would need to be extended an additional 400 feet and wid- ened to 400 feet. This would require redesigning a portion Df the golf course. The need for the upgrade is linked to the number of opcrations by category C aircraft. Not until the number of operations by cate- gory C aircraft reaches 500 annual operations would the higher RSA standards apply. Given that the area beyond the existing RSA is a golf coursc, it is reasonablc to ask for a waiver of this require- ment from the FAA. If the FAA does not grant a waiver, the costs to redesign and relocate this portion of the golf course to provide the required safety arca is cligible for FAA grant funding. Runway25R The existing RSA at the approach end of Runway 25R meets the standards for ARC B-II. In fact, the RSA almost meets the stan- dards for ARC C-II today. Without any changes, the RSA could be extended to 950 feet beyond the runway end and 400 feet in width. The internal service road that passes east of the runway end does not meet the gradient requirements for RSAs. However, as the service road is located at the very periphery of thc C-II RSA and is relatively flush with the surrounding grade, it is suggested that a waiver be sought f¥om thc FAA at the dine the runway is upgraded to .ARC C-II standards. If it is not possible to obtain a waiver, the road and its shoulders would need to be regraded to meet RSA standards. 3-8 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAW'I'ER 3 Object Free Areas The existing RSA at the approach end of Runway 25R meets the standards for ARC B-II. In fact, the RSA almost meets the stan- dards for ARC C-II today. Without any changes, thc RSA could be extended to 950 feet beyond the runway end and 400 feet in width. The internal scrvicc road that passes east of the runway end does not meet the gradient requirements for RSAs. However, as the service road is located at the very periphery of the C-Ii RSA and is relatively flush with the surrounding grade, it is suggested that a waiver be sought from the FAA at the time the runway is upgraded to ARC C-II standards. If it is not possible to obtain a waiver, the road and its shoulders would need to be regraded to meet RSA standards. Runway 7L Currently, the OFA for the Runway' 7L end does not fully meet the standard for either ARC B-II or C-II. Under both standards, fenc~ ing that borders the golf course penetrates about 50 feet into the OFA along thc area parallel to the first 1,200 feet of the runway. Additionally, when the runway is upgraded to ARC C-ii, the golf course fence off the runway end and berms lining the fairway will penetrate the OFA. As was noted in the preceding section, because the area that in- trudes into the OFA is a golf course, it is reasonable to ask for a waiver of this requirement from the FAA at this time. If the FAA does not grant a waiver, the costs to redesign and relocate this por- tion of the golf course to provide the required OFA is eligible for FAA grant funding. Runway 25R Currendy, the OFA at the Runway 25R end does not fully meet the standards for either AR(; B-II or C-II. Fencing and a berm assod- ated with the Cit3T of Livcrmore's water reclamation plant penetrate thc southeast corner of the OFA. These objects penetrate about 150 feet into the OFA. Under ARC B-II the last 100 feet of the OFA are penetrated; under ARC C-II the last 500 feet. Given thc difficulty of relocating the pond created by the intruding berm, it is suggcstcd that a waiver be sought from thc FAA at the time the runway is upgraded to ARC C-II standards, if it is not possible to obtain a waiver, relocation of the facilities to meet RSA standards is grant eligible. An Object Free Area (OFA) is a two-dimensional ground surface surrounding the runways, taxi- ways, and taxitanes. The OFA clearing standards preclude parked airplanes, operations, and objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. The OFA should be under the direct con- trol of the airport operator, Livermore Municipal Airport Master P/an Update (March 2004) 3-9 CHAI=q'ER 3 AIRFIELD DESIGN The Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) is a three-dimensional volume of airspace which supports the tran- sition of ground to airborne air- craft operations (and vice versa). The OFZ clearing standard pre- cludes taxiing and parked air- planes and object penetrations, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their func- tion. Obstacle Free Zones The dimensions of obstacle free zones (OFZs) vary depending upon the size of aircraft served and the visibility minimums of any associated instrument approach. The design aircraft for Livermore Municipal Airport is a medium business jet and the airport cur- rently has a precision approach with minimums below 3/4 mile. An OFZ for a runway with these characteristics is 400 feet wide and extends 200 feet beyond each runway end. An inner-approach OFZ exists in the approach to Runway 25R and inner-transitional OFZs lateral to Runway 7L-25R also exist. Runway 7L-25R cur- rently meets this standard. RUNWAY 7R-25L Classification Currendy, the parallel runway is designed to accommodate single- engine and light, twin-engine piston aircraft. A runway classifica- tion of ARC B-I (small) is appropriate for this class of aircraft. When the runway is extended, its ARC will be upgraded to B-II. The original design of this runway and its parallel taxiway antici- pated the eventual upgrade to ARC B-II. The runway's width and separation from its parallel taxiway meet B-II standards. Runway Length Existing Runway 7R-25L is currently 2,699 feet long. The runway's length is sufficient to accommodate about 75% of all small aircraft. Un- der almost all conditions the length is adequate for use by single- engine piston and under most conditions the length is adequate for medium twin-engine piston aircraft. Future The critical aircraft for Runway 7R-25L will remain the medium twin-engine piston aircraft. The runway length required to ac- commodate this class of aircraft was evaluated using the FAA's runway length analysis program. For small aircraft with less than ten passenger seats, the F.AA's program calculates the following runway length requirements: 3-10 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAI=~FER 3 75% of these small aircraft 2,630 feet 95% of these small aircraft 3,180 feet 00% of these small aircraft 3,800 feet This data indicates that the current length is adequate for 75% of small aircraft. To accommodate 100% of small aircraft with less than ten passenger seats, the runway length would need to be ex- tended to about 3,800 feet. Given the existing taxiway layout, if an extension of this magnitude was contemplated, it would be most efficient to extend the runway to the existing taxiway; this would result in a new length of 3,950 feet. It is recommended that this runway be extended to serve all small aircraft. The extension retains the role of the runway, but offers · several benefits. Flexibility is improved, in that an extension will enable a wider range of aircraft to use this runway. This is of value when the airport is busy or when the main runway is closed. It will also enable more aircraft to use this runway when destined for the south side building area. This reduces taxiing time and the need for aircraft to cross the main runway. This has both safety and air quality benefits. Runway Width Runway 7R-25L is currently 75 feet wide. The FAA standard for a runway accommodating aircraft in ARC B-I is a width of 60 feet; for ARC B-II it is 75 feet. Therefore, no change in the current runway width is proposed. Pavement Strength The current pavement strength of Runway 7R-25L is 12,500 pounds for aircraft with single-wheel main landing gear. This bear- ing capacity is adequate to serve all small aircraft. However, when the main runway is closed for maintenance activities or other rea- sons, Runway 7R-25L becomes the sole available runway. The util- ity of the airport could be enhanced if Runway 7R-25L could ac- commodate larger aircraft when the main runway was closed. Therefore, it is recommended that the pavement strength be in- creased to 25,000 pounds for single main gear aircraft. This pave- ment section would also accommodate dual main gear aircraft weighing 45,000 pounds. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-11 CHAPTER 3 AIRFIELD DESIGN Runway Approaches Traffic Patterns and Approach Procedures The established traffic pattern for Runway 7R-25L is a right-hand pattern to Runway 7L and a left-hand pattern to Runway 25R. The pattern altitude is established at 1,000 feet above the airport eleva- tion (1,397 feet MSL). No instrument approaches are published for this runway. It is not anticipated that instrument approaches will be developed for this runway. However, an instrument approach to this runway could be made using the circle-to-land procedures developed for the two published approaches to Runway 25R. Runway Safety Areas The current critical aircraft for Runway 7R-25L are in ARC B-I (small). FAA design standards for ARC B-I (small) runways specify that the Runway Safety Area (RSA) be 120 feet wide the full length of the runway and extend 240 feet beyond each end of the runway. When the runway is extended, the critical aircraft for the runway will shift to ARC B-II. The RSA for this category is 150 feet wide and 300 feet beyond the runway ends. The existing RSAs meet current standards, and no obstacles exist that would prevent the larger RSAs from being developed when the runway is extended. Object Free Areas FAA design standards for ARC B-I (small) with visibility mini- mums 3/4 mile or greater specify that the Object Free Area (OFA) be 250 feet wide the full length of the runway and extend 240 feet beyond each runway end. The OFA standard for ARC B-ii is 500 Obstacle Free Zones The obstacle free zone for a runway serving only small aircraft is 250 feet wide and extends 200 feet beyond each runway end. For runways serving large aircraft, the OFZ is 400 feet wide and ex- tends 200 feet beyond the runway end. The existing runway meets the standard for small aircraft. When the runway is extended, the runup aprons at both runway ends will need to be relocated to meet required clearance standards. 3-12 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAI=~I'ER 3 OTHER AIRFIELD DESIGN ELEMENTS Runway Protection Zones The runway protection zone (RPZ) for Runway 25R is 1,000 feet wide at its inner edge, 2,500 feet long, and 1,750 wide at its outer end..Approximately two-thirds of the RPZ is owned in fee simple by the airport. An avigation easement covers most of the balance of the RPZ. Kitty Hawk Road passes through the outer third of the RPZ. The airport plans to acquire avigation easements for the balance of this RPZ. Runway 7L has an RPZ that is 1,000 feet wide at its inner end, 1,700 feet long, and 1,425 feet at its outer end. All of the RPZ is located on airport property. Portions of the municipal golf course underlie the majority of this RPZ. The existing RPZ for Runway 25L is 250 feet wide at its inner end, 1,000 feet long, and 450 feet wide at its outer end. It lies com- pletely within the boundary of the airport. When this runway is ex- tended, the RPZ will increase to 500 feet wide at its inner end, 1,000 feet long and 700 feet wide. The ends of two T-hangars on the south side of the airport will fall within this larger RPZ. The dimensions of the RPZ for Runway 7R are 250 feet wide at its inner end, 1,000 feet long, and 450 feet wide at its outer end. It lies completely within the boundary of the airport. When this runway is extended, the RPZ will increase to 500 feet wide at its inner end, 1,000 feet long and 700 feet wide. This future RPZ will overlie ex- isting airport property that is currently farmed. FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navi- gabk Airspace, identifies the airspace necessary to ensure the safe operation of aircraft to, from, and around airports. This airspace is defined for each airport by a series of imaginary surfaces. The di- mensions and slopes of these surfaces depend on the configuration and approach categories of each airport's runway system. Gener- ally, most critical among the FAR Part 77 surfaces are the approach surfaces. As noted earlier, Livermore Municipal Airport has two published instrument approaches, both to Runway 25R. It is not anticipated that instrument approaches to the other runway ends will be devel- oped in the future. Therefore, the only anticipated change to the current airspace will occur when Runway 7R-25L is lengthened to 3,950 feet. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-13 The lengthening of Runway 7R-25L will change the FAR Part 77 surfaces in two ways. First, the approach surface to Runway 7R will be shifted 1,250 feet to the west. Secondly, the change from ARC B-I (small) to ARC B-II will increase the width of the ap- proach surfaces. The northern ends of three aircraft storage han- gars will underlie the approach surface when the runway is up- graded to ARC B-ii. However, none of these hangars penetrate the approach surface, and no FAA waiver is required. Building Restriction Line The building restriction line defines the limits of development of all on-airport structures, except facilities required by their function to be located near runways and taxiways. Although the FAA offers only limited guidance on defining the appropriate location for building restriction lines, most airports use Part 77 surfaces. Where possible, Part 77 surfaces have been used at Livermore Mu- nicipal Airport. However, the original, airport design did not an- ticipate development of a precision instrument approach. There- fore, in some areas the building restriction lines have been set based upon' historic patterns of development. Separate building restriction line standards have been set for the north and south side building areas. For the north side, the build- ing restriction line has been set at 600 feet from the centerline of Runway 7L-25R for all new development. However, existing structures located in the northeastern corner of the airport that are closer than 600 feet may be retained at their present location. On the south side, the building restriction line in areas yet to be developed is set to provide clearance over a standard T-hangar with a height of 25 feet. In order to provide this clearance, the building restriction line has been set 390 feet from the centerline of the runway. New structures that are taller than 20 feet should be sited to meet Part 77 clearance standards. In the southeast corner of the airport, the historic location of the building restriction should be retained. The existing building locations in this area meet FAA design standards. Runway Lighting, Marking, and Visual Approach Aids Runway 7L-25R is equipped with medium-intensity runway light- ing. This lighting is in good condition and is suitable for the run- way's existing and future use. A medium intensity approach light- ing system (MALSR) serves the approach to Runway 25R. Neither end of Runway 7L-25R is equipped with Runway End Identification Lights (REILs). These lights are useful in locating the runway threshold during hours of darkness and periods of low 3-14 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAPTER visibility. Because Runway 25R has an approach lighting system, there would be litde benefit to adding REILs to that runway end. However, adding REILs to Runway 7L would be of value during circle-to-land approaches to that runway end. The approach end of Runway 25R is equipped with a Visual Ap- proach Slope Indicator (VASI-V4L) with an approach slope of 3° and a threshold crossing height of 48 feet. A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) with an approach slope of 4° and a thresh- old crossing height of 32 feet serves the approach end of Runway 7L. The parallel runway, Runway 7R-25L, currently is not lighted and is, therefore, not usable at night. Nor does it have any visual ap- proach aids such as a PAPI. A visual approach aid should be in- stalled to serve Runway 25L, which is the predominant direction of landings. A visual aid is particularly appropriate given the fre- quency that this runway is used for training activity. Additionally, it is recommended that medium-intensity runway edge lights be in- stalled on this runway. These lights would not be routinely used. Rather, they would be manually activated whenever the main run- way was not usable due to construction or an accident on the run- way. Providing lights would enable the airport to remain open at night when the main runway was unusable for any reason. The visual approach aid and runway edge lights should be installed when Runway 7R-25L is extended. Runway 7L-25R has precision markings. As the runway was over- laid in 2000, all markings are in good condition. Runway 7R-25L has basic mar-kings; they are also in good condition. Hold Lines The FAA requires hold lines on all taxiways intersecting with run- ways. The hold lines painted on the exit taxiways for Runway 7L- 25R are set 175 feet from the runway's centerline. The FAA stan- dards for a runway with Airport Reference Code B-II that has a precision instrument approach is 250 feet. The FAA standards could only be met if the parallel taxiway were abandoned. This would seriously affect the capacity of this busy airport. Therefore, it is recommended that the nonstandard hold line location be re- tained. Although their location will be retained, the hold lines will be repainted to meet new FAA standards. The hold lines for Runway 7R-25L are set 125 feet from the run- way centerline. This meets the FAA standard for a runway serving only small aircraft (i.e., those weighing under 12,500 pounds). When the runway is extended, it will shift from airport reference code (ARC) B-I (small) to ARC B-II. With this change, the FAA standard setback for the hold lines will increase to 200 feet. As the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-15 CHAI='T'I~R 3 AIRFIELD DESIGN parallel taxiway for this runway is 240 feet from the runway's cen- terline, relocating the hold lines is possible. The principal compli- cation is that the runup apron for Runway 25L will need to be re- designed to provide the required clearances. However, even with- out the relocation of the hold lines, the taxiway intersection that includes this runup apron would need to be redesigned to smooth the flow of aircraft through this area. Wind Indicators and Segmented Circle There are two wind cones located on the airfield. The main wind cone is co-located with the segmented circle midfield between the two runways. A supplemental wind cone is located about 800 feet east of the threshold for Runway 7L. TAXIWAY SYSTEM Taxiway Designations The four existing parallel taxiways are designated T-l, T-2, T-3, and T-4. Existing runway exit taxiways are alphabetical: (i.e., B, C, D, etc.). The FAA's Standards for Aiqoort 3¥gn 3)stems directs that taxiways should have alphabetical names (e.g., A, B, C). Numbers should be used only to designate short exit taxiways that branch from a main taxiway (e.g., Al, A2, A3). Therefore, it is proposed that thc parallel taxiways be renamed as follows: ~ Taxiway T-1 would become Taxiway J ~ Taxiway T-2 would become Taxiway A I~ Taxiway T-3 would become Taxiway K ~ Taxiway T4 would become Taxiway L This naming scheme was guided by the following concepts: ~ Retain the existing designations of the exit taxiways. They al- ready have alphabetical names and are in sequence. ~ The most important taxiway is the parallel taxiway immedi- ately adjacent to Runway 7L-25R. It should be given the pre- eminent name: Taxiway A. ~ The other taxiway names should follow in sequence. The last exit taxiway is Taxiway H, so the next in sequence would be j. Taxiway I is not used as the I may be mistaken for a 1 on signs, and only runways have numeric designations. 3-16 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAPTER Runway 7L-25R Parallel Taxiway System The new designations will be used in the discussion that follows w/th the current designations noted parenthetically. The ccntcrline of Taxiway A (T-2) is located 250 feet from thc runway centerline. The runway centerline-to-parallel taxiway cen- terline dimension recommended by the FAA for an ARC B-II runway is 300 feet. When the volume of category C traffic war- rants, Rnnway 7L-25R will be upgraded to ARC C-II; the setback for a C-II runway is 400 feet. Although the FAA recommends specific separations between a runway and its parallel taxiway, the runway obstacle free zone (OFZ) can be used to define the mini- mum acceptable separation. For an ARC C-II facility, the OFZ has three components: } A horizontal plane that extends 200 feet laterally from the runway centerline. } A vertical plane that at Livermore Municipal Airport extends 52 feet upward from the edge of the horizontal plane. } An angled plane that extends outward from the edge of the vertical plane with a six to one slope up to an elevation of 150 feet. The design aircraft for the airport is the medium-sized business jet. This class of aircraft will have a wingspan of about 65 feet. taxiing on the parallel taxiway, no part of the design aircraft will penetrate the OFZ defined above. Therefore, it is concluded that it is acceptable for Taxiway A (T-2) to remain at its present loca- tion. The apron edge taxiway on the north side of the airfield is Taxiway J (T-I). The required separation between TaxiwayJ and Taxiway A (T~2) is defined by the taxiway object free area. The separation re- quired to permit simultaneous use of the two taxiways by medium business jets is 88 feet. The taxiways are currcndy separated by 125 feet which exceeds the required minimum. Runway 7R.25L Parallel Taxiway System Taxiway L (T-4) is located south of Runway 7R-25L. The separa- tion between their centerlines is 240 feet. This scparation meets FAA standards for ARC B-II runways and exceeds the standards for ARC B-I (small) runways. Therefore, the present taxiway alignment will meet FAA standards when this runway is extended. A new apron-edge taxiway (Taxiway M) is proposed to serve future development on the south side. Oncc constructed, Taxiways L and Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-1 7 M will work in a manner similar to Taxiways A and J on the north side of the airport. These dual parallel taxiways will enable two- way taxiing which will facilitate efficient movement of aircraft. The need for, and value of, Taxiway iM will grow as the number of hangars on the south side of the airport grows. Taxiway E Livermore's air traffic control staff and based pilots have noted the need to add a midfield taxiway. One purpose would be to facilitate the exiting of small aircraft from the main runway, Runway 7L- 25R, to the south side. Taxiways C and G are not optimally lo- cated for this purpose which results in small aircraft remaining on the runway longer than necessary. A midfield cross taxiway would also provide an alternate route to the south side following refueling at the fuel island in front of the terminal. Connecting Taxiway E between the two runways would be the optimum location for the additional cross taxiway. Runup Apron The approach end of Runway 25L is adequately served by a runup apron (holding bay). However, this apron and the adjacent taxiway intersection will need to be modified when the runway is extended. The extension will result in the hold line moving from its present position 125 feet from the runway center line to 200 feet from the runway centerline. The approach end of Runway 7R has a runup apron that is ade- quate for the current level of use. When the runway is extended, this runup apron will need to be replaced with one that is located at the new runway end and is farther from the runway centerline. Aircraft Parking Limits Aircraft parking limit (APL) lines are established to define where it is appropriate to park aircraft. Depending upon the configuration of an airfield, aircraft parking limit lines are set with respect to a runway or a parallel taxiway. Due to its airfield configuration, the APLs on both the north and south sides are set with respect to the adjacent parallel taxiway. The appropriate setback distance from a taxiway centerline to a parked aircraft is based upon the taxiway's object free area (OFA). Similar in concept to the runway OFA, the taxiway OFA defines an area that should be clear of objects that rise above the level of the runway. The size of the taxiway OFA is related to the wingspan of the critical aircraft. 3-18 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) AIRFIELD DESIGN CHAI=~I'ER 3 Currendy, the APLs on both the north and south sides of the air- port are set 50 feet from the centerline of the apron edge taxiways. According to FAA airfield design standards, this provides wingtip clearances for aircraft with wingspans up to 55 feet (e.g., Beech Super King Air). Operationally, this setback will also provide op- erational clearances for larger aircraft. When the main runway is upgraded to ARC C-II, the need for Taxiway J (T-l) to meet the design standard for the critical aircraft (i.e., medium business jet) should be analyzed. To meet the design standard for the critical aircraft, the APL would need to be in- creased to 55 feet from the taxiway centerline. This would elimi- nate the end tiedown positions in the based tiedown area and would further reduce the size of the already narrow transient tie- down area. If efficient circulation does not regularly require the design aircraft to utilize Taxiway J, it is recommended that the ex- isting APL be retained. Taxiway M, planned for the south side of the airfield, will have the aircraft parking limit and building restriction lines co-located. This is coincidental as the building restriction line is set to provide clear- ance for T-hangars from Runway 7R-25L's future Part 77 transi- tional surface and the APL is set by wingtip clearance requirements for Taxiway M. As noted above, the APL will be set 50 feet from the centerline of Taxiway M. As this side of the airport will be principally devoted to storage of small aircraft, the 50-foot setback will be adequate. Occasional use by large aircraft can be accom- modated operationally. Taxiway Marking and Lighting All of the parallel and runway exit taxiways are equipped with me- dium intensity taxiway lighting. The parallel and runway exit taxi- ways are appropriately marked with centerllne stripes, edge stripes, and appropriate hold lines. Centerline stripes also exist on taxi- lanes throughout the building area. Signing ]Sghted exit taxiway and hold line signs have been placed adjacent to Runway 7L-25R and its exit taxiways. Lighted signs do not exist for the parallel runway, Runway 7R-25L, as the runway is not op- erational at night. Additional signage is needed to identify taxiway intersections. This need was identified by both based pilots and air traffic control staff. Additionally, some of the existing signage does not fully meet current FAA sign standards. A sign plan should be developed to upgrade the existing signage. When Run- way 7R-25L is extended, lighted signs should be included as part of the project. Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 3-19 CHAI~TER El AIRFIELD DESIGN L~'~ ~,, '--~'~' 3-20 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) Building Area Development 4 Building Area Development OVERVIEW The building area of an airport encompasses all of the airport prop- erty not devoted to runways, major taxiways, required clear areas, and other airfield-related functions. Among the facilities found at most public-use airports are: } Based aircraft tiedowns and storage hangars } Transient aircraft parking } Fixed base operations facilities } Fuel storage and dispensing equipment } Access roads and automobile parking } Security/perimeter fencing and access gates } Lighting, marking, and signing } Public rest rooms } Public telephones } Aircraft washing area(s) At busy general aviation airports additional facilities are also com- mon: } Air terminal building with pilots lounge } Air traffic control tower } Emergency response equipment and storage facility } Corporate aircraft storage hangars/offices } Airport maintenance facilities A reduced copy of the Building Area Plan is bound into this report inside the back cover. Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 4-1 CHAIw'rER 4 BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT ~ Air freight handling facilities ~ Tenant aircraft maintenance shelter(s) ~ Public airport viewing area(s) ~ Aviation support facilities, such as restaurant/coffee shop, rental car facilities, etc. ~ Commercial/industrial buildings and other nonaviation reve- nue producing uses. This chapter examines the factors which affect the siting and devel- opment of future building area facilities at Livermore Municipal Airport and alternative ways of accommodating projected demand. The focus is on providing direction for the appropriate expansion and use of the core building areas of the airport. The proposed fa- cility design is presented in a building area plan that can be found inside the back cover of this report. DESIGN FACTORS Many factors influence the planning and, later, the development de- cisions associated with Livermore Municipal Airport's commercial and general aviation building area. Most of these factors can be grouped under four basic headings: Demand--There is forecast to be demand for additional general aviation-related building area facilities at Livermore Municipal Airport over the 20-year planning period. As documented in Chapter 2, IJvermore's based aircraft are forecast to increase by approximately 50 percent -- from the current 594 aircraft to 898 aircraft -- over the 20-year planning period. This increase in demand can be accommodated within the airport's currently available building area. If additional area is needed, the south side of the airfield could be extended to the west. The various types of aircraft that will use the airport in the future are not expected to differ significantly from the types of aircraft currently using the airport -- that is, personal/recreational aircraft, small to mid-size business /corporate aircraft, small-package cargo aircraft, and a limited number of the largest corporate jets. Setback Distances~The interior boundary of the airport building area is determined in large part by the necessary setback distances from the runway and taxiways, as defined in FAA regu- lations and design standards. As discussed in the preceding chapter, the following design criteria are recommended: ~ A minimum of 600-feet from the centerline of Runway 7L- 25R to any future buildings 4-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 } A minimum of 390-feet from the centerline of Runway 7R- 25L ro any future buildings } A minimum of 50-feet from apron edge taxiway centerlines to aircraft parking positions and hangars. } A minimum of 65-feet between facing T-hangars. These setbacks should be adequate to accommodate regular use by aircraft with wingspans of up to 57-feet (e.g., Cessna CitatiOn 7, Hawker 800XP) in the building area. Occasional use by aircraft with greater wingspans should be acceptable, provided that the pi- lots of the larger aircraft exercise appropriate care while maneuver- ing on the taxiways and apron areas. Existing Facilities--The airport's buildings and facilities are located on both the northern and southern sides of the airfield. Current development on the south side of the airfield is concen- trated in the southeastern quadrant of the airfield. The Master Plan anticipates ultimately expanding the south side of the build- ing area to the west to accommodate additional aircraft storage hangars, possibly specialty FBOs, and other aviation-linked businesses. The physical condition of the existing airport buildings and other facilities are generally good. With one exception, the exisdng facili- ties are expected to be usable for 20 or more years and are assumed to remain in place and fully functional. Ironically, among the han- gar buildings, it is the newer T-hangars (particularly their doors) that are most demanding in terms of maintenance. If staff time be- comes more available, a preventative maintenance program would more cost-effective than the current, repair-oriented system. The terminal building is the one structure that is not anticipated to be cost effective to retain through the end of the 20-year planning period. Although recent remodeling has improved the functionality of the structure, it is more expensive to operate and maintain than a newer structure would be, therefore, it is anticipated that a new terminal will be built within the plan period. Height Limitations--Both Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace surfaces and the City of Livermore's Scenic Route Element may limit the height of future airport building. Accessibility-~An important design consideration is the ease of access to individual portions of the building area from both the taxiway system and public roads. At Livermore Municipal Air- port, the full-length parallel taxiways, apron edge taxiways, and several cross-field taxiways will provide excellent access between the runways and the building areas. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 4-3 Direct public vehicular access to building area facilities on the north side is provided via three electronically operated gates. Two of these gates provide access into the eastern hangar area from Airway Boulevard. The third gate provides access onto the north apron from Terminal Circle. Additionally, one pedestrian gate provides access to the north apron (the transient apron) from Terminal Cir- cle. Another pedestrian gate gives access to the northwest apron from Club House Drive. The southern part of the building area can be accessed by vehicles via three electronically operated gates. All of the gates are accessed from West Jack i~ondon Boulevard. Two of these gates are located at the east and west ends of the existing hangar area. The third gate provides access to the southwest apron. Development Staging--Another important factor in the preparation of a building area plan is the timing of furore devel- opment. The objective is to have a plan that. is flexible enough to adapt to changes in type and pace of facility demands, is cost- effective, and also makes sense at each stage of development. Sometimes, the best location for facilities in the short-term may conflict with the optimum long-range plan. The existing con- figuration of the south side of the airport makes short-term ver- sus long-term conflicts unlikely. However, the shallowness of the north side building area, coupled with the pattern of existing development, will make development decisions on this side more challenging. PRINCIPAL BUILDING AREA FACILITIES Existing facilities are shown on the Building Area Plan in solid lines. Proposed facilities are shown in dashed lines, A re- duced copy of the Building Area Plan is bound into this report inside the back cover. Roles of the North and South Sides Over the ]i£e of this plan, the role of the north side of the airport will evolve; it is expected to become the center for fixed base opera- dons and will increasingly focus on serving transient aircraft. As hangars become available, the number of based aircraft parked on tiedowns will decrease dramatically. While the existing hangars serving small aircraft will remain, all new hangars on the north side are expected to be designed for larger aircraft. Existing taxiways, roads and infrastructure are well placed to accommodate further development. Currently, the south side has several fixed based operators and a large number of aircraft storage hangars. This mixture is expected to continue with some small variations. Banks of T-hangars and smaller box hangars will be extended to the west, continuing the current pattern. Large box hangars will be added at the east and 4-4 Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT CHAI=}'I'ER 4 west ends of the south side. In addidon to corporate flight depart- ments, the south side would also be an appropriate site for aviation- related businesses; that is, businesses that include a hangar and ac- tively use aviation as a part of their business. Even beyond the life of this plan, the south side will be used to ac- commodate additional demand for hangars, specialty fixed base op- erators, or other.aviation-related uses that do not need high visibil- ity. Aircraft Storage and Parking The forecasts and demand/capacity analyses prepared as part of the Master Plan Update indicate that, if adequate storage facilities are con- structed, about 900 aircraft could be based on airport property by 2020. Peak transient aircraft parking demand is expected to in- crease from 20 spaces to 40 spaces over this same period. All of the additional future based aircraft are expected to be accommo- dated within newly constructed aircraft storage hangars; the demand for based fiedowns is expected to decrease if hangars are available. The Building Area Plan (see inside back cover) presents one way in which the hangars and tiedowns could be arranged. Actual hangar sizes will vary depending upon market demand. Similarly the phas- ing of hangar construction will depend upon demand. It is not rec- ommended that the City ever build hangars without firm commit- ments from specific tenants. Hangars There are 22 hangar structures (with 393 hangar units) at Livermore Municipal Airport housing approximately 481 aircraft. The City owns all of the hangar units. As noted in Chapter 2, there is cur- rently strong demand for additional aircraft storage. The availability of reasonably priced storage hangars is one of the key factors re- quired to accommodate growth of based aircraft at Livermore Mu- nicipal Airport. The most efficient way for this demand to be satis- fied is for the City to build some T-hangars and smaller box han- gars, while permitting private parties to build larger hangars and some smaller hangars. Future Hangars There is sufficient land available within the existing building areas to accommodate development of the approximately 200 hangar units required to meet projected demand over the 20-year planning pe- riod. The demand at Livermore Municipal Airport ranges from T- hangars to 10,000-square-foot box hangars. The T-hangars and smaller box hangars can be accommodated on the south side Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 4-5 CI"IAI:Ir"I'~'FI 4. BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT '"~O ?5% building area. The building area plan identifies sites for up to 11 additional hangar buildings. Sites for larger box hangars exist on both the north and south sides. Positions for 15 large hangar buildings are available on the south side and four on the north side. Additionally, on the north side, leaseholds for full-service fixed base operators will provide addi- tional locations for hangars to accommodate larger aircraft. Based Airplane Parking Positions Livermore Municipal Airport has a total of 249 existing aircraft tie- down spaces accommodating both based and transient aircraft. Some based tiedowns are located on the eastern end of the north apron. However, most based dedowns are located on the north- west apron. Following the industry trend, most aircraft owners now store their aircraft in hangars whenever possible. Less than half of the based tiedown spaces are utilized. Most of these aircraft would likely move into a hangar if one were available. Given the lack of demand, no new based tiedowns are proposed. However, one tiedown space is proposed to be constructed at the end of every alternate bank of T-hangars constructed on the south side. These spaces would be available for transient pilots visiting pilots based on the south side. Transient Airplane Parking Positions Transient spaces are located in the central section of the north apron. Approximately 27 spaces are available for transients. Current peak transient demand is about 20 aircraft. The mix of transient aircraft is quite diverse. The largest regular users include small- (20,000-pound gross weight) and medium-sized (35,000- to 45,000- pound gross weight) corporate jets. However, the airport does see use by larger corporate jets, such as Gulfstreams. The balance of transient aircraft are a mixture of single-engine and twin-engine pis- ton, and turboprop aircraft. Peak demand for transient parking is expected to grow to approxi- mately 40 aircraft. Most of the growth in aircraft is anticipated to be by corporate jets and turboprops. The existing terminal area apron will need to be modified to accommodate this volume of air- craft. The modifications will include increasing the number of spaces designed for larger aircraft, and widening the spacing be- tween rows of parking positions to improve circulation for larger aircraft. 4-6 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 Transient Helicopter Parking Positions Livermore Municipal Airport currently has two designated transient helicopter parking positions west of the terminal. The parking spaces are asphaltic concrete and are in excellent condition. There is sufficient room to provide clearance for helicopters with up to 4S-foot diameter rotors. These parking positions are located in an area that is planned to become part of a full-service FBO leasehold. If a demand for transient helicopter parking exists at the time the FBO leasehold is established, the helicopter parking positions should be relocated east of the fuel island. This will require elimina- tion of some tiedown positions. Fixed Base Operations Area Attracting a full-service FBO is a high priority for the airport as an enterprise fund. Anticipated changes in the City's fueling policies will make this feasible in the near future. A full-service FBO will need a central location to efficiently serve both transient and based aircraft. The site needs high visibility from both the air side and land side of the airport. The leasehold will need to be large enough to accommodate parking and maintenance on larger aircraft. The site should be on the north side of the airport with direct ac- cess to the parallel taxiway serving the main runway. Only one area on the airport meets these requirements: the area west of the termi- nal building. Approximately 12 acres have been designated for future use for a full-service FBO, and specialty FBOs serving transient and large aircraft. Initial development of the full-service FBO should be on the east- em side of the designated area, adjacent to the terminal building. Subsequent phases, and potentially specialty FBOs, should be estab- lished in the western and northern sides of the area. SUPPORTING FACILITIES Aircraft Fuel Storage and Dispensing Aircraft fuel service at Livermore Municipal Airport is currently provided by the City of Livermore. Fuel is stored in underground tanks located below the furl island. Fuel dispensing is done at the 24-hour self-serve fuel island and by truck from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The fuel island was replaced in 1999; it is expected to be usable for the 20-year period of the Master Plan. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 4-7 it has been City policy to be the exclusive provider of fuel on the airport. This policy is reviewed as a part of this plan and may be modified in the near future. If a new policy is implemented, it will likely permit FBOs to dispense fuel, at least on the FBO's leasehold. Fencing and Gates The entire airport perimeter is fenced. The majority of the fencing is six-foot chain link. Cattle fencing is used on portions of the south and west sides. A three-foot decorative fence runs along thc front of the terminal. The hangar area in the northeast corner of the airport is currently served by two gates. The western-most gate partially blocks the tax- ilanes serving the northern row of hangar units. This gate should be relocated to the west end of this hangar area, next to the fire sta- tion. This will enable aircraft to access the northern row via the central taxilane. On the south side, the existing gate that serves the west end of the banks of T-hangars should be relocated to the west when additional hangars are constructed. This will more efficiently serve the T- hangar area. Additional gates will need to be added as the airport develops. When the FBO and large hangar leaseholds are developed on both the north and south sides, additional vehicle and pedestrian gates will be needed to provide access to the airfield. The Livermore Police Department prepared a Security Survey in sup- port of this master plan. This survey is an internal city document and not available for review due to the sensitivity of its subject mat- ter. This report included a number of recommendations related to fencing and gates. Among the recommendations were the follow- ing: } Replace existing ornamental and cattle fencing with six-foot chain link fencing along the entire airport perimeter } Install "no trespassing" signs along the fence at 200-foot in- tervals } Designate a gate number for each gate and install a sign on each gate identifying its number to assist visitors and emer- gency personnel } Consider upgrading electronic gates to use citywide smart card system Additionally, pedestrian gates should be converted to cyphered (push button, code-operated) gates. 4-8 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT CHAFFER 4 Aircraft Washing Livermore Municipal Airport has four dedicated wash racks on the airfield, three on the north side and one on the south side. All of the wash racks are served by grease traps. One additional wash rack should be created on the south side of the airfield as part of the de- velopment of new banks of hangars. A spedfic site has not been designated due to the uncertainty of the exact future layout. A site at the end of one of the banks of hangars would be a good choice. Automobile Parking Parking for Livermore Municipal Airport is located north of the terminal, across Terminal Circle. This parking lot provides ade- quate space for those using the terminal. It is anticipated that the amount of space currendy available will be adequate to meet future demand. Additional undeveloped land surrounds this parking lot. It could be expanded if demand is higher than anticipated. Based pilots typically will park their cars in their hangars or near their tiedown space. There are also a limited number of informal parking locations at the ends and near hangars. New T-hangars will have designated parking spaces at the end of the hangars. Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting A combined fire station-ARFF facility is located east of the terminal building along Airway Boulevard. The station is staffed and equipped to respond to both structure fires and aircraft emergen- cies. The dual-purpose facility has equipment bay doors that lead onto the airfield and another set that provide access to Airway Boulevard. Federal Aviation Administration regulations do not re- quire ARFF facilities at general aviation airports. However, the equipment and staffing is judged to be adequate to meet the needs of the type of aircraft that use the Livermore Municipal Airport. The facility may be relocated in approximately five years. NONAVIATION USES Existing airport property includes a few nonaviation uses. These uses provide revenue to support operation of the airport. Uses in- clude: } Livermore Municipal Golf Course with Club House } Commercial: Two buildings housing a variety of small com- mercial businesses ARFF (definition) - and fire fighting aircraft rescue Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 4-9 CHAPTER 4 BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT Agricultural: row crops, some irrigated (currently alfalfa and grass hay) The golf course provides a permanent form of approach protection west of the runways and is a source of revenue for the airport. The agricultural use offers similar benefits to the airport. The two commercial buildings are the least desirable nonaviation use as they: } Occupy an area that could readily be used for aircraft storage hangars, and } The lease does not contain adequate escalation clauses and pays less than current market rates. However, it does not appear to be cost effective to buy out the re- maining lease term (expires in 2011) in order to charge market rates. Therefore, all three of these uses can remain for the indefinite fu- ture. If the opportunity arises to renegotiate the lease for the com- mercial buildings, the City should do so. The airport owns an irregularly shaped parcel north of Club House Drive that is not potentially accessible by aircraft. The portion that fronts upon Airway Boulevard offers the potential to be developed for compatible, nonaviation uses. As an aeronaufcal use is not pos- sible, the specific use of this property should be the subject of fu- ture study by the City. As long as the use is compatible with airport operations, any use permitted under City land use ordinances would be acceptable. 4-10 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) Finance and I.mplementation 5 Finance and Implementation FINANCIAL ISSUES This portion of the Livermore Munidpa/~4iq~ort Master Plan reviews the resources available to the City for funding airport capital im- provements and presents a 20-year Capital Improvement Program. The key recommendations of the airport's Business Plan are also summarized. The complete Business Plan is presented in Appendix D. Capital Funding Resources There are a variety of resources from which funding and financing for publicly-owned airport facRifies and improvements can be ob- tained. These resources include federal grants, state grants and loans, airport sponsor self-funding, and private investment. Federal Grants Currently, the most common source of federal aid for airport facili- ties is the Airport Improvement Program (ALP) administered by the FAA. Reauthorized in 1994, the current AIP is the latest evo- lution of a funding program originally authorized by Congress in 1946 as the Federal Aid to Airports Program (FAAP). The AIP is based upon a user trust fund concept, allocating avia- fiomgenerated tax revenues for specified airport facilities on a local matching share basis. The program currently provides for 90% Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 5-1 CHAPTER 5 FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION federal participation and 10% local participation on eligible airport projects in the state of California. This federal funding program for airports was recently extended through 2004. Under the AIP, there are both entitlement and discretionary grants. Entitlement grants apply to commercial service airports; Livermore Municipal Airport does not qualify for this form of grant. As a general aviation facility, Livermore Municipal Airport must com- pete for discretionary funds with other general aviation airports in California. An unusual feature of the current authorization of AIP is a limited entitlement of up to $150,000 for airports that typically are only eligible for discretionary grants. Although the AIP is designed specifically for public airport im- provement, there are other federal programs which can also be ap- plied to airport needs. Programs such as the federally-funded Eco- nomic Development .Administration Program and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, as amended, have also been used on a limited basis to fund airport facility development not otherwise eligible for AlP grants. As it is relativel.y difficult for public airports to qualify for these special federal funding pro- grams, these resources have not been considered in the formula- tion of project funding alternatives identified in the Master Plan. State of California Grants and Loans The Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers four different programs which provide funding for airport improvements. These funding programs and their potential application at Livermore Municipal Airport are discussed below. Acquisition and Development Grant ProgrammThe Cal- trans Acquisition and Development (A&D) Grant Program is similar to the federal AIP grant program inasmuch as the state program provides airport development funds on a matching share basis -- currently 90% state and 10% local. The state grants are allocated through the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and are governed by the priorities set forth in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the California Aviation System Plan (CASP). Typically, the A&D grant program has concentrated on con- strucfion of airfield improvements that primarily benefit general aviation users. Funding opportunities within this program are sometimes very limited because of statewide funding con- straints. An airport improvement project submitted for an A&D grant faces statewide competition for limited funds. Con- sequenfly, the A&D grant program is not considered to be a significant resource for funding of improvements at l~ivermore 5-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION CHAI:~'rI=IR 5 Municipal Airport. Nevertheless, state airport improvement grants, when available, can be useful in furthering airport im- provement. Annual Grant Program--The California Division of Aeronau- tics also administers an Annual Grant Program through which all qualify/ng publicly-owned airports in the state receive $10,000 per year to be used for eligible projects. Funds received must be kept in a Special Aviation Account and, with the per- mission of Caltrans, can be accumulated for up to five years to- ward a larger capital project. The funds can also be used as part of a local match for a federal grant. This grant program is intended to assist general aviation air- ports. Airports that have been designated as reliever or commerdal service by the FAA are not eligible for this annual grant. Since Livermore Municipal Airport is designated by the FAA as a re- liever facility, it is not eligible to receive this annual grant. Airport Loan Program--Another funding source available from the California Division of Aeronautics is the State Airport I,oan Program. This program was established to allow public airport owners the opportunity to borrow funds for an 8- to 15- year term at lower than commercial interest rates. The funds can be used on specified revenue-generating projects and as the local share of FAA grant-funded projects. Nearly any type of project that will benefit the airport is eligible. The most com- mon use of these loans is for revenue-producing hangar con- struction and development of aviation fuel storage/dispensing facilities. This program has been used by the City in the past. The City may also want to consider pursuing a state loan to help finance the construction of new aircraft storage hangars. /kiP Matching Grant ProgramwState funds are able to be al- located by the CTC to partially match an AIP grant once an air- port sponsor has accepted the AIP grant from the FAA. This match program only applies to general aviation and reliever air- ports whose projects are included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. The state match is 5% of the FAA AIP grant. Thus, AIP funds 90% of a project, the state funds 4.5% (i.e., 5% of 90%), and the sponsor funds the remaining 5.5%. State matching funds can only be used for "airport and aviation purposes". These are defined in existing state law and regula- tions. Because federal regulations permit expenditure for some items that the state does not, situations can occur for which the state will not match the full amount of an AlP grant. Projects for which this distinction occurs include general aviation termi- nal buildings and vehicle access roads. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 5-3 As a general aviation facility, Livermore Municipal Airport is eligi- ble to participate in this Caltrans AIP grant match program. Airport Sponsor Self-Funding At large, commercial service airports, this source of funding typi- cally involves the issuance of general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. However, at general aviation airports such as Livermore Municipal. Airport, the high administrative costs associated with general avia- tion bonds make them a very unlikely source of funding for airport projects. Alternatively, revenue bonds (and the related financial instrument, certificates of participation) do not require voter ap- proval or the assessment of taxes. Revenue bonds are secured by the pledges of revenues from one or more airport facilities. There may be a limited number of projects for which some form of reve- nue bond is a viable financing mechanism. A T-hangar develop- ment project, for example, might be a candidate for this type of funding. However, the California Aeronautics Division's revolving loan program is typically a better source of funds for revenue pro- ducing airport projects. This loan program is a better source of funds because it is designed specifically for public airports, and of- fers below market loan rates. At publicly-owned airports the size and character of Livermore Municipal, airport sponsor self-funding is principally provided by a combination of airport-generated income and retained earnings. Funding of airport improvements and providing the local matching share for grants-in-aid from these sources is the simplest and often most economical method because direct interest costs are elimi- nated. For projects which generate revenue, such as hangars, stan- dard commercial financing may also be an option. Although the airport does not currently have any retained earnings, it is antici- pated that it will in the future. Additional revenue can be expected from leasing of new T-hangars, ground leases for large storage hangars, and additional FBO leases. Expenditures will be reduced as existing loans are paid off. Private Investment Private sector investment is an important source of funding for airport improvements, such as fixed base operations facilities and aircraft storage hangars. At Livermore Municipal Airport, the ma- jority of the aircraft storage hangars were developed using City funds. The remaining hangars were privately financed on ground leases. The City can continue to enhance the airport's attractiveness to private investors by promoting the airport, improving its facilities, and expanding its service offerings. As discussed later in the chap- 5-~4 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION CHAlaTER 5 ter, this plan proposes changing the City's policy on fueling to permit fixed base operators to offer this service. This is essential to attracting a full-service fixed base operator. Creation of mini- mum development standards, and planned revisions to the City's zoning ordinance will increase the attractiveness of the airport to private investors. In this manner, the City can shift the burden of financing certain facility developments to the tenant, while increas- ing the asset value of the airport, thereby adding to the airport's at- tractiveness and revenue-producing capability. The most common source of funding for private sector develop- ment are commercial lending institutions and insurance companies. In the case of private development on public lands, these types of financing may be difficult and expensive to obtain because the bor- rower can encumber only the improvements as loan collateral, not the underlying publicly-owned land. These conditions necessitate close attention to leasing policies and tenant contract negotiations. It is essential that agreements be reached with the tenants which provide for adequate airport revenues and facility development while encouraging private investment and satisfying the tenants' borrowing requirements. Specifically, the lease term should be suf- ficient to allow reasonable investment amortization over the period of the agreement. On occasion, private gifts and contributions are a source of fund- ing for certain airport improvements. Often, the private contribu- tion facilitates the development of public airfield improvements that jointly benefit both the private and public sectors. This fund- ing source does not appear to be available to Livermore Municipal Airport. Those capital expenditures which are most appropriately con- structed with private funds (e.g., fixed base operations facilities) have been excluded from the list of proposed capital projects iden- tified in the Master .Plan (see Table 5A). Public capital resources have not been considered for funding those projects identified as being private sector projects. Capital Improvement The proposed 20-year Capital Improvement Program for Liver- more Municipal Airport is set forth in Table SA. The listed pro- jects include both proposed improvements, as described in previ- ous chapters, and recommended major maintenance work for the airfield and building area pavement. The project costs listed in the Capital Improvement Program rep- resent order-of-magnitude estimates in 2002 dollar values and include design engineering and other related costs and contingen- Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 5-5 CHAF~rER 5 FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION cies. The estimates are intended only for preliminary planning and programming purposes. Specific project analysis and detailed en- gineering design will be required at the time of project implementa- tion to provide more refined and up-to*date estimates of individual project costs. Projects are grouped into three phases of development: short-range (within 5 years), mid-range (approximately 5 to 10 years), and long- range (beyond 10 years). The timing indicated is based upon the forecasts presented in Chapter 2 together with the maintenance and repair needs of the airfield pavement. It is important to em- phasize, though, that the general sequence of development indi- cated in the project listing is more significant than the precise tim- ing. The capital improvements are not driven by time, but by need, as determined by airport management and approved by City Coun- cil. As presented in Table SA, the Master Plan estimates a total Capital Improvement Program cost of approximately $16.3 million over the 20-year planning period. An estimated $13.9 million of the to- tal program could potentially be funded through the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. Up to $694,000 could be funded by state grants. The balance of the improvements, approximately $1.6 mil- lion will need to be financed by the airport. KEY BUSINESS PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS As part of the master plan update, a Business Plan was developed for the Livermore Municipal Airport. A complete copy of the Business Plan can be found in Appendix C. The key recommendations are as follows: Release the fuel concession to permit fueling by fixed base op- erators. Encourage the development of aircraft storage hangars through the provision of ground leases to private developers. Adopt a set of minimum standards for aviation-related busi- nesses and develop a standard airport lease agreement. Make available leasehold sites to permit expansion of existing aviation-related businesses and additional new ones. 5-6 Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER 1. Upgrade Taxiway Location Signs 2. Construct Box Hangar Taxilane & Bypass Apron 3. Airport Security Improvements & Fencin~g ..... .4_: Construct Taxiway E (midfleld) 5. Construct 3 T-Hangar Taxilanes 6. Implement Federal & State-Mandated Programs Estimated Costs (in 2001 dollars) $375,000 $337,500 $16,875 $20,625 $450,000 $405,000 $20,250 $24,750 $250,000 $225,000 $11,250 $13,750 $250,000 $225,000 $11,250 $13,750 $550,000 $495,000 $24,750 $30,250 7. Exp_and Northeast Apron (89,000 square feet) 8. Crack Seal North & Northwest Apron & Taxiway J 9. Crack Seal Runway 7R-25L & Taxiway L 10. Crack Seal South Hangar, FBO Area Taxilanes & S,W. Apron $150,000 $135,000 $6,750 $8,250 $400,000 $360,000 $18,000 $22,000 $150,000 $135,000 $6,750 $8,250 $100,000 $90,000 $4,500 $5,500 $225,000 $153,000 $7,650 $64,350 11. Extend & Strengthen Runway 7R-2 5L 12. Crack Seal Northeast Hangar Taxilanes $1,400,000 $1,260,000 $63,000 $77,000 $85,000 $58,500 $2,925 $23,575 Subtotal $4,385,000 $3,879,000 $193,950 $312,050 1. Acquire Land in Northwest Approach (8 acres) 2. Construct 3 T-Hangar Taxilanes $500,000 $450,000 $22,500 $27,500 $550,000 $495,000 $24,750 $30,250 3. Construct Taxiway M & Connector Taxiways (Phase 1) 4. Crack Seal Runway 7L-25R & Taxiway A 5. Crack Seal 3 South Side Han~lar Taxilanas 6. Overlay Runw.a.y 7L-25R & Taxiway A 7. Construct South Side Access Road $500,000 $450,000 $22,500 $27,500 $150,000 $135,000 $6,750 $8,250 $100,000 $58,500 $2,925 $38,575 $1,300,000 $1,170,000 $58,500 $71,500 $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $90,000 $110,000 8. Seal Coat Runway 7R-25L & Taxiway L 9. Seal Coat Southeast FBO Area Taxilanes $250,000 $225,000 $11,250 $13,750 $125,000 $67,500 $3,375 $54,125 10. Overlay Southwest Apron $270,000 $243,000 $12,150 $14,850 1. Reconstruct North & Northwest Apron & Taxiway J 2. Construct 3 T-Hangar Taxilanes $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $90,000 $110,000 $550,000 $495,000 $24,750 $30,250 3. Strengthen Taxiways K, L & Southern Legs of Taxlways B & C 4. Construct South Side Box Hangar Taxilane 5. Crack Seal/Pavement Repair Taxiway M (Phase 1) 6. Seal Coat Runway 7L-25R & Taxiway A $300,000 $270,000 $13,500 $16,500 $300,000 $270,000 $13,500 $16,500 $60,000 $54,000 $2,700 $3,300 $300,000 $270,000 $13,500 $16,500 7. Reconstruct Northeast Han~ar Area 8. Crack Seal/Pavement Repair Runway 25L & Taxiway L $950,000 $630,000 $31,500 $288,500 $100,000 $90,000 $4,500 $5,500 9. Seal Coat Southwest Hangar Taxilanes & Apron $285,000 $180,000 $9,000 $96,000 10. Construct Taxiway M (Phase 2) $250,000 $225,000 $11,250 $13,750 11, Seal Coat Runway 7R-25L & Taxiwa~/L $250,000 $225,000 $11,250 $13,750 12. Reconstruct Southeast FBO Area & Taxilanes $750,000 $405,000 $20,250 $324,750 Subtotal .$.6~0..95,000 $4,914,000 $245,700 $935,300 TOTAL $16,225,000 $13,887,000 $694,350 $1,643,650 Source: Shutt Moen Associates (March 2003) Table 5A Capital Improvement Program Livermore Municipal Airport 5-7 Release Fuel Concession The Livermore Municipal Airport currendy does not have a full- service fixed base operator. The current city monopoly on fueling is believed to be a significant deterrent to potential developers. The revenue generated by fuel sales are needed to support the in- vestment required to develop a full-service fixed base operator. Fuel sales revenues would be particularly important to the fixed base operator during the initial years, while the other aspects of the business (e.g., maintenance, charter, etc.) were being built up. Ac- cording to projections in the Business Plan, the direct loss of reve- nue to the City would be replaced by towage fees and new lease- hold revenues. In any case, a full-service fixed base operator is needed to provide an adequate level of aeronautical services to both based and tran- sient aircraft. Provide Ground Leases for Storage Hangars The airport master plan allocates space for new aircraft storage hangars in a range of sizes: T-hangars, small box hangars, and lar- ger box hangars. There is a large unmet demand for storage han- gars. It is expected that most of the based aircraft currently located on tiedown spaces would move into a hangar if one was available. Other aircraft owners who would like to base their aircraft at Liv- ermore Municipal Airport are on the waiting list established by the airport. Granting land leases to private developers permits the ad- dition of badly needed hangars without increasing the debt service of the airport. The airport would receive revenues from the land leases without also being encumbered with maintenance obliga- tions. Adopt Minimum Standards Concurrently with the development of the master plan update, air- port staff have been preparing Minimura Standards for Commerdal ~lerona#licalActiviiies. Those standards will specify minimum parcel and building sizes, as well as other criteria that new leaseholders must meet. Adoption of these standards will ensure that future developers at the airport make investments proportionate to the opportunities granted by the lease. It will also ensure that devel- opment obligations are equal among similar lessors. Similar bene- fits have accrued through the use of a standard airport lease agree- ment by the airport. 5-8 Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) FINANCE AND iMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER Permit Expansion of Existing and New Aviation Services The airport master plan allocates space on both the north and south sides of the airport for aviation-related businesses. This space can be used to expand existing airport business or the intro- duction of new ones. It is expected that both limited- and full- serviced fixed base operations will be developed to meet the cur- rent and forecast demand for services. All of these uses should be accommodated as long as the associated aircraft fall within the weight and wingspan limitations imposed by the airport's design, and as long as the proposals meet the City's minimum standards. ADOPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS In order for the City to adopt the Livermore Municipal~4irport Master Plan and implement the first-phase improvement projects, a variety i of state and federal environmental and other review or permit tions are required. The major steps in this process are as follows: Master Plan Adoption Environmental Impact Documentation--An Ini#al Study and Environmental/tssessment evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term use of the proposed airport improvements has been prepared in ac- cordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. This joint document is expected to facilitate the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration allowing adoption of the Master Plan. It is anticipated that the Federal Aviation Administration will be able to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact OFONS1) for the plan. City Council--The City Council has the ultimate responsibility for approval and adoption of the Airport Master Plan. The Mas- ter Plan will be reviewed by the Airport Advisory Commission and Planning Commission prior to action by the City Council. The Council's action will follow established City procedures re- garding public hearings, public notification, etc. Federal Aviation Administration--Ongoing coordination has been maintained with the FAA throughout the Master Plan study and the agency has received a copy of the draft plan for review and comment. The FAA will conduct a formal internal coordi- nation and review of the City-adopted Airport Layout Plan draw- ings. After any necessary technical revisions are made, the FAA will then approve the Airport Layout Plan as the basis for the eh- Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 5-9 gineering design and grant eligibility of specific projects. The FAA approval of the Airport Layout Plan is not a commitment by the FAA to fund any given project. Master Plan Implementation Proposed Projects--As described elsewhere in this report, several of the proposed airport improvements are programmed for early implementation. These projects include the construc- tion of Taxiway E and several hangar area taxilanes. Project Funding--The City should assess the availability and timing of City funds that can be committed to the proposed air- port improvements. Once a decision is made to proceed with specific projects, an Airport Improvement Program grant pre- application should be submitted to the FAA and the state. To facilitate the timely processing of key projects, it is recom- mended that the Capital Improvement Program identified in the Masler Plan be submitted to the FAA and the state as soon as possible in accordance with their annual CIP submission proce- dures. Engineering Design--The Airport Master Plan and the Airport Lqyout Plan drawing serve only as the starting point for the more detailed engineering design work necessary for actual construc- tion of the proposed improvements. After the Master Plan has been adopted and a decision has been made to construct the proposed projects, the City should proceed in a timely manner to arrange a contractual agreement with a qualified airport engi- neer. To assure continuity in design development, it is sug- gested that the agreement cover not just the immediate projects, but other major improvements proposed to be constructed over the next three to five years. Environmental impact DocumentationmA combined Ydnvi- ronmentalAssessment and Initial Stud_y is being prepared to identify potential environmental effects of implementation of the mas- ter plan. The document will address both state and federal en- vironmental requirements. City of Livermore Planning Amendments--As the airport master plan is currently part of the City of Livermore's general plan, adoption of the updated airport master plan will require a general plan amendment. Additionally, implementation of the plan will require amendment of City zoning codes. It is cur- rently planned that these amendments will occur as part of the master plan adoption process. 5-10 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION CHAla'TI~R 5 State Airport Permit--The Airport Permit issued to Liver- more Municipal Airport by the California Division of Aeronau- tics will need to be amended to reflect the extension of Runway 7R-25L. Airspace Review--Before work is conducted on or near the runways, a "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" (FAA Form 7460-1) must be submitted to the FAA in accor- dance with FAR Part 77. Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) 5-1 1 CHAPTER 5 FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION 5-12 Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (March 2004) Appendices Appendix A Reference Documents United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. September 1983. Airport Capacity and De/ay. Advisory circular 150/5060-5. June 1985. Airport Master P/ans. Advisory Circular 150/5070-6A. September 1985. Fie/d Formu/ation of the National P/an of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). FAA Order 5090.3B. · January 1990. Runway Length Requirements for airport Design. Advisory Circular 150/5325-4A. · March 1991. National P/an of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 1990-1999. . March 1992. Air Traffic Contro/. FAA Order 711065G. November 1995. Airspace Uti/ization Considerations in the Proposed Construction, A/teration, Activa tion, and Deactivation of Airports. Advisory Circular 70/2E. · January 1996. Airport Pavement Des/tn and Eva/uation. Advisory Circular 150/5320-6D, Change 1. . January 1996. Proposed Construction or A/teration of Objects that May Affect the Navigab/e Airspace. Advisory Circular 70/7460-2J. . March 1996. FAA Aviation Forecasts: Fisca/Years 1996-2007. Report No. FAA-APO-96-1. February 1997. Airport Design. Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 5. A-1 ,: :': :: ':(Estimated 2000 ACtivity :Level) ;::: :: ?, Total Operations Aircraft Type I Average Day I Percentage Annual Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed Pitch 149,980 410,9 58.6% Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch 55,000 150.7 21.5% Twin-Engine, Piston 45,000 123.3 17.6% Twin-Engine, Turboprop 3,800 10.4 1.5% Small Fanjet (e.g., Cessna 500) 1,600 4.4 0.6% Medium Fanjet (e.g., Challenger) 300 0.8 0.1% Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) 100 0.3 < 0.1% Small Turbojet (e.g., Lear 25] 200 0.5 0.1% Large Turbofan (e.g., MD 81) 20 0.1 < 0.1% Total 256,000 701.4 100.0% F ::' : :' ":': ?q;itt~:'::::";" :!~'::::::::':': : ::: : :: :<:::;: ::~':: ::~ ( 0 cast 2020, ACt!~lty:J~!)~;: ,:::, ::: ::::: , ,:::: ::: : :, ,, ; ,:,:,::::~ :::~ 4:, ;;,,,,:: ?~ .: ::::I:: ' :: · ' Total Operations Aircraft Type J Average Day I Percentage Annual Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed Pitch 171,500 475,3 46,6% Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch 90,000 246.6 24.5% Twin-Engine, Piston 80,000 219.2 21.7% Twin-Engine, Turboprop 8,000 21.9 2.2% Small Fanjet (e.g., Cessna 500) 10,000 27.4 2.7% Medium Fanjet (e.g,, Challenger) 7,500 20,5 2.0% Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) 1,000 2.7 0.3% Small Turbojet (e.g., Lear 25] 0 0.0 0,0% Large Turbofan (e.g,, MD 81) 0 0.0 0.0% Total 368,000 1013.7 100.0% Note: Helicopter operations were not included in noise modeling because helicopters are not included in the aircraft data base. B-1 Noise Model Calculation Data /Appendix Aircraft Type Percentage of Operations by Aircraft Type Day Evening Night 7:00 a.rn, 7:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 1o:oo p,rn, 7:OO a.rn. Takeoff Landing 87.0 10.0 3.0 87.0 10.0 3.0 Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed Pitch Takeoff 87.0 10.0 3.O Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch Landing 87.0 10.0 3.0 Takeoff 87.0 10.0 3.0 Twin-Engine, Piston Landing 87.0 10,0 3.0 Takeoff 81.0 10.0 9.O TwimEngine, Turboprop Landing 81.0 10,0 9.0 Takeoff 80,0 15,0 5,0 Small Fan jet (e.g., Cessna 500) Landing 80.0 15.0 5.O Takeoff 80,0 15,0 5,0 Medium Fanjet (e,g,, Challenger) Landing 80,0 ' 15,0 5,0 Takeoff 80.0 15.0 5.0 Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) Landing 80.0 15.0 5,0 Takeoff 80.0 15,0 5.0 Small Turbojet (e.g,, Lear 25] Landing 80.0 15,0 5.0 Takeoff 80.0 15.0 5.0 Large Turbofan (e.g., MD 81) Landing 80.0 15.0 5.0 Aircraft Type Percentage of Operations by Aircraft Type Day Evening Night 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. Takeoff 87.0 10.0 3.0 Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed Pitch Landing 87.0 10,0 3,0 Takeoff 87,0 10.0 3.0 Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch Landing 87.0 10.0 3.0 Takeoff 87,0 10.0 ;3,0 Twin-Engine, Piston Landing 87,0 10,0 3.0 Takeoff 81,0 10.0 9.O Twin-Engine, Turboprop Landing 81.0 10.0 9.0 Takeoff 80,0 15.0 5.0 Small Fanjet (e,g,, Cessna 500) Landing 80.0 15.0 5.0 Takeoff 80.0 15,0 5,0 Medium Fanjet (e,g., Challenger) Landing 80.0 15.0 5.0 Takeoff 80,0 15,0 5.0 Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) Landing 80,0 15,0 5,0 B-2 Noise Model Calculation Data / Appendix B Percentage ~'f Percentage of Landings Takeoffs Aircmft Type Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy 7L 25R 7R 25L 7L 25R 7R 25L Single-Engine, Fixed and Day 6.0 34.0 9.0 51.0 9.0 51.0 6.0 34.0 Variable Pitch Evening 6.0 34.0 9,0 51.0 9.0 51.0 6.0 34.0 Night 6.0 34.0 9.0 51.0 9,0 51.0 6.0 34.0 Day 13.5 76.5 1.5 8.5 13.5 76.5 1.5 8.5 Twin-Engine, Piston Evening 13.5 76.5 1.5 8.5 13.5 76.5 1.5 8.5 Night 13.5 76.5 1.5 8.5 13.5 76,5 1.5 8.5 Day 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 All Other Aircraft Evening 15,0 85.0 15.0 85,0 Night 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 Percentage of Percentage of Landings Takeoffs Aircraft Type Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy Rwy 7L 25R 7R 25L 7L 25R 7R 25L Single-Engine, Fixed and Day 6.0 25.0 9.0 60.0 9.0 34.0 6~0 51.0 Variable Pitch Evening 6.0 25.0 9,0 60.0 9.0 34.0 6.0 51.0 Night 6.0 25.0 9.0 60.0 9.0 34.0 6.0 51.0 Day 13.5 65.0 1,5 20.0 13.5 65.0 1.5 20.0 Twin-Engine. Piston Evening 13.5 65.0 1,5 20.0 13.5 65.0 1.5 20.0 Night 13.5 65.0 1.5 20.0 13.5 65.0 1.5 20.0 All Other Aircraft Day 15.0 85.0 15.0 85,0 Evening 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 Night 15.0 85.0 15,0 85.0 B-3 Noise Model Calculation Data / Appendix B B-4 Percentege of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Runway 7L Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed 15.0 40.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 Pitch Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch 15.0 40.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 Twin-Engine, Piston 15.0 40.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 40.0 20.0 30.0 5.0 5.0 Small Fanjet (e.g., Cessna 500) 67.0 33.0 Medium Fanjet (e.g., Challenger) 67.0 33.0 Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream Iii) 67.0 33.0 Small Turbojet (e.g., Lear 25] 67.0 33.0 Large Turbofan (e.g., MD 81) 100.0 Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type ......... Runway 7L .............. T2..o. i T23 .... 1 I ...... ~'in'gle_Engi'ne' Propeller, Fixed Pitch 15.0 40.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch 15.0 40.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 Twin-Engine, Piston 15.0 40.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 40.0 20.0 30.0 5.0 5.0 Small Fanjet (e.g., Cessna 500) 67.0 33.0 Medium Fanjet (e.g., Challenger) 67.0 33.0 Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) 67.0 33.0 Noise Model Ca. lculation Da,ta' ~Appendix B I Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Ru.n.w.. a.Y_....25R Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed Pitch 6.O 14.0 14.0 13.0 13.0 12.0 28.0 I Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch 6.0 14,0 14.0 13.0 13.0 12,0 28,0 Twin-Engine, Piston I 6.0 14,0 14.0 13.0 13,0 12,0 28,0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 20,0 20.0 20,0 40.0 Small Fanjet (e.g., Cessna 500) I 25.0 25.0 25.0 25,0 Medium...Fanjet. (e.g., Challenger) I 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0 t Large Fanjet (e,g., Gulfstream III) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25,0 Small Turbojet (e.g., Lear 25] 25.0 25.O 25.O 25.0 Large Turbofan (e.g,, MD 81) ~ 50.0 50,0 t Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Runway 25R Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed Pitch 6.0 14.0 !14.0 13.0 13.0 : 12.0 28,0 , Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch 6,0 14,0 14,0 i13,0 13.0 12,0 28,0 Twin-Engine, Piston 610 14,0 14.0 13,0 13.0 12.0 28.0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 2O.O 2O.O 2O.0 40.0 Small Fanjet (e.g., Cessna 500) I 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 aediu.m...Fan!et.(e,g,, Challenger) I 25.0 25.0 25,0 25,0 I Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) 25,0 25.0 25.0 25.0 B-5 Noise Model Calculation Data / Appendix B Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Runway 71 Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed 5.0 85.0 10,0 Pitch Single-Engine, Propeller, 5,0 85,0 10,0 Variable Pitch Twin-Engine, Piston 5,0 85,0 10,0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 5.0 10.0 20,0 10,0 55,0 Small Fanjet (e,g,, Cessna 500) 100,0 Medium Fanjet (e,g,, Challenger) 100,0 Large Fanjet (e,g,, Gulfstream 100.0 Small Turbojet (e,g,, Lear 25] 100,0 Large Turbofan (e,g,, MD 81) 100,0 Percentage of Track U~age by Runway Runway 7L Aircraft Type .................. Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed 5.0 85.0 10.0 Pitch Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable Pitch 5.0 85.0 10.0 Twin-Engine, Piston 5.0 85.0 10.0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 5,0 10,0 2O.0 10,0 55.O Small Fanjet (e.g., Cessna 500) 20.0 20,0 60,0 Medium Fanjet (e.g,, Challenger) 20.0 20.0 60.0 Large Fanjet (e,g., Gulfstream III) 20,0 20.0 60,0 B-6 Noise Model Calculation Data / Appendix B Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Runway 25R L1 L..2. ................................ L6 Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed 15.0 42.0 43,0 Pitch Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable 15,0 42,0 43,0 Pitch Twin-Engine, Piston 15.0 42,0 43,0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 70,0 15,0 15.0 Small Fanjet (e,g,, Cessna 500) 100.0 Medium Fanjet (e.g., Challenger) 100.0 Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) 100.0 Small Turbojet (e,g,, Lear 25] 100.0 Large Turbofan (e.g., MD 81) 100.0 Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Runway 25R L1 L2 L6 Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed 15.0 42.0 43,0 Pitch Single-Engine, Propeller, Variable 15,0 42,0 43.0 Pitch Twin-Engine, Piston 15.0 42,0 43,0 Twin-Engine, Turboprop 70,0 15.0 15,0 Small Fanjet (e.g,, Cessna 500) 70,0 15.0 15,0 Medium Fanjet (e,g,, Challenger) 70,0 15.0 15.0 Large Fanjet (e.g., Gulfstream III) 70.0 15,0 15,0 B-7 Noise Model Calculation Data / Appendix B Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Runway 7R Runway 25L Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed 41.0 33.0 13.0 13.0 1.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Pitch Single-Engine, Propeller, 41,0 33,0 13.0 13.0 1.0 33.0 33,0 33.0 Variable Pitch Twin-Engine, Piston 41.0 33,0 13.0 13,0 1.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Percentage of Track Usage by Runway Aircraft Type Runway 7R Runway 25L L,2 | L,~ ...... l ........... ~,17 ....... t~ ~ ~ ~5 Single-Engine, Propeller, Fixed 10.0 Pitch 15,0 35.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 Single-Engine, Propeller, 15,0 35,0 50,0 50.0 40.0 10,0 Variable Pitch Twin-Engine, Piston 15.0 35.0 50,0 50.0 40,0 10,0 Source: Shutt Moen Associates (May 2001) 13-8 Noise Model Calculation Data/Appendix B 3,000' N 0 FEET 6,000' 1" = 3,000' Source; Shutt Moen Associates (September 2001) Figure B1 Existing Noise Contours - 2000 Livermore Municipal Airport B-9 N o 3,000' FEET 1"=3,000' 6,000' Source; Shutt Moen Associates (September 2001) Figure B2 Projected Noise Contours Livermore Municipal Airport B-10 - 2020 Ioo% Appendix C Glossary ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL): An elevation datum given in feet above ground level. AIR CARRIER: A person who undertakes directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage in air transportation. (FAR 1) (Also see Certificated Air Carrier) AIR CARRIERS: The commercial system of air transportation, consisting of the certificated air carriers, air taxis (including commuters), supplemental air carriers, commercial operators of large aircraft, and air travel clubs. (FAA Census) AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC): A facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircraft operating on IFR flight plans within controlled airspace, principally during the en route phase of flight. When equipment capabilities and controller workload permit, certain advisory/assistance services may be provided to VFR aircraft. (AIM) AIR TAXI: A classification of air carriers which directly engage in the air transportation of persons, property, mail, or in any combination of such transportation and which do not directly or indirectly utilize large aircraft (over 30 seals or a maximum payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds) and do not hold a Certificate of Public Conve- nience and Necessity or economic authority issued by the Department of Transportation. (Also see commuter air carrier and demand air taxi.) (FAA Census) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC): A service operated by appropriate authority to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. (FAR 1) AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT: An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. (NTSB) AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: A grouping of aircraft (Categories A-E) based on 1.3 times their stall speed in their landing configuration at their maximum certificated landing weight. (Airport Design) AIRCRAFT OPERATION: The airborne movement of aircraft in controlled or non-controlled airport terminal areas and about given en route fixes or at other points where counts can be made. There are two types of opera- tions -- local and itinerant. (FAA Stats) AIRCRAFT PARKING LINE LIMIT (APL): A line established by the airport authorities beyond which no part of a parked aircraft should protrude. (Airport Design) AIR/FIRE ATTACK BASE: An established on-airport base of operations for the purposes of aerial suppression of large-scale fires by specially-modified aircraft. Typically, such aircraft are operated by the California Department of Forestry and/or the U.S. Forest Service. AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP: A grouping of airplanes (Groups I-V) based on wingspan. (Airport Design) O-1 APPENDIX C GLOSSARY Ioi ob AIRPORT: An area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any. (FAR 1) AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point of an airport's usable runways, measured in feet above mean sea level. (AIM) AIRPORT HAZARD: Any structure or natural object located on or in the vicinity of a public airport, or any use of land near such airport, that obstructs the airspace required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking off at the airport or is otherwise hazardous to aircraft landing, taking off, or taxiing at the airport. (Airport Design) AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC): A commission established in accordance with the California State Aeronautics Act in each county having an airport operated for the benefit of the general public. The purpose of each ALUC is "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatibility land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses." An ALUC need not be created if an alternative process, as specified by the statutes, is estab- lished to accomplish the same purpose. (California Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.) AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP): A scale drawing of existing and proposed airport facilities, their location on the airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to demonstrate conformance with applicable standards. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. (Airport Design) AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): A point established on an airport, having equal relationship to all existing and proposed landing and takeoff areas, and used to geographically locate the airport and for other planning purposes. (Airport Design) AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT): A terminal facility that uses air/ground communications, visual signaling, and other devices to provide ATC services to aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airport or on the movement area. (AIM) AIRWAY/FEDERAL AIRWAY: A Class E airspace area established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of which is defined by radio navigational aids. (AIM) ALERT AREA: A special use airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft. (AIM) APPROACH LIGHT SYSTEM (ALS): An airport lighting system which provides visual guidance to landing aircraft by radiating light beams in a directional pattern by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with the extended runway centerline during a final approach to landing. Among the specific types of systems are: ® [DIN-- Lead-in Light System. · ~lAt$1?-- Medium-intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights. · OD~lIS-- Omnidirectional Approach Light System, a combination of LDIN and REILS. · $5A/,~-- Simplified Short Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights. (AIM) 0-2 GLOSSARY APPENDIX C APPROACH SPEED: The recommended speed contained in aircraft manuals used by pilots when making an approach to landing. This speed will vary for different segments of an approach as well as for aircraft weight and configuration. (AIM) AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM (AWOS): Airport electronic equipment which automatically measures meteorological parameters, reduces and analyzes the data via computer, and broadcasts weather infor- mation which can be received on aircraft radios in some applications, via telephone. AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF): An aircraft radio navigation system which senses and indicates the direction to a L/MF nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) ground transmitter. (AIM) AUTOMATIC TERMINAL INFORMATION SERVICE (ATIS): The continuous broadcast of recorded non-control information in selected terminal areas. (AIM) BACK COURSE APPROACH: A non-precision instrument approach utilizing the rearward projection of the ILS Iocalizer beam. BALANCED FIELD LENGTH: The runway length at which the distance required for a given aircraft to abort a takeoff and stop on the runway (accelerate-stop distance) equals the distance required to continue the takeoff and reach a height of 35 feet above the runway end (accelerate-go distance). BASED AIRCRAFT: Aircraft stationed at an airport on a long-term basis. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line which identifies suitable building area locations on airports. CEILING: Height above the earth's surface to the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena that is reported as "broken", "overcast", or "obscuration" and is not classified as "thin" or "partial". (AIM) CERTIFICATED ROUTE AIR CARRIER: An air carrier holding a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the Department of Transportation authorizing the performance of scheduled service over specified routes, and a limited amount of nonscheduled service. (FAA Census) CIRCLING APPROACH/CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER: A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with a runway for landing when a straight-in landing from an instrument approach is not possible or is not desirable. (AIM) COMMERCIAL OPERATOR: A person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier. (FAR 1) COMPASS LOCATOR: A Iow power, Iow or medium frequency (L/MF) radio beacon installed at the site of the outer or middle marker of an instrument landing system (ILS). (AIM) COMPASS ROSE: A circle, graduated in degrees, printed on some charts or marked on the ground at an airport. It is used as a reference to either true or magnetic direction. (AIM) COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL): The noise rating adopted by the State of California for measurement of airport noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day, measured in 0-3 lo- o' APPENDIX C GLOSSARY decibels and adjusted to an equivalent level to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during evening and nighttime periods. COMMUTER AIR CARRIER: An air taxi operator which performs at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules which specify the times, days of the week and places between which such flights are performed. (FAA Census) CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: A generic term that covers the different classifications of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E airspace) and defines dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Controlled airspace in the United States is designated as follows: Class/I -- Generally, that airspace from 18,000 feet MSL up to and including 60,000 feet MSL (Flight Level 600), including the airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48 contiguous states and Alaska. Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must operate their aircraft under IFR. C/ass B-- Generally, that airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports in terms of airport operations or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each Class B airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area and two or more layers (some Class B airspaces areas resemble upside-down wedding cakes), and is designed to contain all published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area, and all aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the airspace. The cloud clearance requirement for VFR operations is "clear of clouds". · C/ass C-- Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a surface area with a 5 nm radius, and an outer area with a 10 nm radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within the airspace. VFR aircraft are only separated from IFR aircraft within the airspace. · C/ass D-- Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (chartered in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures. Arrival extensions for instrument approach procedures may be Class D or Class E airspace. Unless otherwise authorized, each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while in the airspace. No separation services are provided to VFR aircraff. Class E-- Generally, if the airspace is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D, and it is controlled airspace, it is Class E airspace. Class E airspace extend upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures. Also in this class are Federal airways, airspace beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet AGL used to transition to/from the terminal or en route environment, en route domestic, and offshore airspace areas designated below 18,000 feet MSL. Unless designated at a lower altitude, Class E air- GLOSSARY APPENDIX C space begins at 14,500 MSL over the United States, including that airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48 contiguous States and Alaska. Class E airspace does not include the airspace 18,000 feet MSL or above. DEMAND AIR TAXI: Use of an aircraft operating under Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 135, passenger and cargo operations, including charter and excluding commuter air carrier. (FAA Census) DISPLACED THRESHOLD: A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning ol~ the runway. (AIM) DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME): Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in nautical miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft from the DME navigational aid. (AIM) FAR PART 77: The part of the Federal Aviation Regulations which deals with objects affecting navigable airspace. FAR PART 77 SURFACES: Imaginary surfaces established with relation to each runway of an airport. There are five types of surfaces: (1) primary; (2) approach; (3) transitional; (4) horizontal; and (5) conical. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA): The United States government agency which is responsible for insuring the safe and efficient use of the nation's airspace. FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A business operating at an airport that provides aircraft services to the general public, including but not limited to sale of fuel and oil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, and repair; parking and tiedown or storage of aircraft; flight training; air taxi/charter operations; and specialty services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance, painting, overhaul, aerial application, aerial photography, aerial hoists, or pipeline patrol. FLIGHT SERVICE STATION (FSS): FAA facilities which provide pilot briefings on weather, airports, altitudes, routes, and other flight planning information. GENERAL AVIATION: That portion of civil aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers. (FAA Stats) GENERIC VISUAL GLIDE SLOPE INDICATOR (GVGI): A generic term for the group of airport visual landing aids which includes Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI), and Pulsed Light Approach Slope Indicators (PLASI). When FAA funding pays for this equipment, whichever type receives the lowest bid price will be installed unless the airport owner wishes to pay the difference for a more expensive unit. GLIDE SLOPE: An electronic signal radiated by a component of an ILS to provide descent path guidance to ap- proaching aircraft. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): A relatively new navigational system which utilizes a network of satellites to determine a positional fix almost anywhere on or above the earth. Developed and operated by the U.S. Department of Defense, GPS has been made available to the civilian sector for surface, marine, and aerial navigational use. For aviation purposes, the current form of GPS guidance provides en route aerial navigation and selected types of nonprecision instrument approaches. Eventual application of GPS as the principal system of navigational guidance throughout the world is anticipated. C--5 I o'Z om APPENDIX C GLOSSARY HELiPAD: A small, designated area, usually with a prepared surface, on a heliport, airport, landing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters. (AIM) iNSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. It is prescribed and approved for a specific airport by competent authority. (AIM) INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for conducting instrument flight. Also term used by pilots and controllers to indicate a type of flight plan. (AIM) INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A precision instrument approach system which normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: (1) Localizer; (2) Glide Slope; (3) Outer Marker; (4) Middle Marker; (5)Approach Lights. (AIM) INSTRUMENT OPERATION: An aircraft operation in accordance with an IFR flight plan or an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal control facility. (FAA ATA) INSTRUMENT RUNWAY: A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a precision or non-precision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved. (AIM) ITINERANT OPERATION: An arrival or departure performed by an aircraft from or to a point beyond the local airport area. LARGE AIRCRAFT: An aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight. (FAR 1) LIMITED REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (LRCO): An unmanned, remote air/ground communications facility which may be associated with a VOR. It is capable only of receiving communications and relies on a VOR or a remote transmitter for full capability. LOCALIZER (LOC): The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway. (AIM) LOCAL OPERATION: An arrival or departure performed by an aircraft: (1) operating in the traffic pattern, (2) known to be departing or arriving from flight in local practice areas, or (3) executing practice instrument approaches at the airport. (FAA ATA) LORAN: An electronic ground-based navigational system established primarily for marine use but used extensively for VFR and limited IFR air navigation. MARKER BEACON (MB): The component of an ILS which informs pilots, both aurally and visually, that they are at a significant point on the approach course. MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL): An elevation datum given in feet from mean sea level. MEDIUM-INTENSITY APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (MALS): The MALS is a configuration of steady-burning lights arranged symmetrically about and along the extended runway centerline. MALS may also be installed with sequenced flashers - in this case, the system is referred to as MALSF. G-6 GLOSSARY APPENDIX C MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): A type of special use airspace of defined vertical and lateral dimensions established outside of Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military activities from IFR traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted. (AIM) MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE (MDA): The lowest altitude, expressed in feet above mean sea level, to which descent is authorized on final approach or during circle-to-land maneuvering in execution of a standard instrument approach procedure where no electronic glide slope is provided. (FAR 1) MISSED APPROACH: A maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be completed to a landing. (AIM) NAVIGATIONAL AID/NAVAID: Any visual or electronic device airborne or on the surface which provides point- to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight. (AIM) NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A 4 MF or UHF radio beacon transmitting nondirectional signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction finding equipment can determine his bearing to or from the radio beacon and "home" on or track to or from the station. (AIM) NONPREClSION APPROACH PROCEDURE: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided. (FAR 1) NONPRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY: A runway with an instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities, with only horizontal guidance, or area-type navigation equipment for which a straight-in nonprecision instrument approach procedure has been approved or planned, and no precision approach facility or procedure is planned. (Airport Design) OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): A surface surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes which should be clear of parked airplanes and objects except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. (Airport Design) OBSTACLE: An existing object, object of natural growth, or terrain at a fixed geographical location, or which may be expected at a fixed location within a prescribed area, with reference to which vertical clearance is or must be provided during flight operation. (AIM) OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): A defined volume of airspace above and adjacent to a runway and its approach lighting system if one exists, free of all fixed objects except FAA-approved frangible aeronautical equipment and clear of vehicles and aircraft in the proximity of an airplane conducting an approach, missed approach, landing, takeoff, or departure. OBSTRUCTION: An object/obstacle, including a mobile object, exceeding the obstruction standards specified in FAR Part 77, Subpart C. (AIM) OUTER MARKER: A marker beacon at or near the glide slope intercept position of an ILS approach. (AIM) PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI): An airport visual landing aid similar to a VASi, but which has light units installed in a single row rather than two rows. 0-7 PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE: A standard instrument approach procedure in which an electronic glide slope is provided, such as an ILS or PAR. (FAR 1) PRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY: A runway with an instrument approach procedure utilizing an instrument landing system (ILS), microwave landing system (MLS), or precision approach radar (PAR). (Airport Design) RELOCATED THRESHOLD: The portion of pavement behind a relocated threshold that is not available for takeoff and landing. It may be available for taxiing and aircraft. (Airport Design) REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS AIR/GROUND FACILITY (RCAG): An unmanned VHF/UHF transmitter/receiver facility which is used to expand ARTCC air/ground communications coverage and to facilitate direct contact between pilots and controllers. (AIM) REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (RCO) AND REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR): An unmanned communications facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCO's serve FSS's. RTR's serve terminal ATC facilities. (AIM) RESTRICTED AREA: Designated airspace within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restriction. (FAR 1) RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE: A term previously used to describe the runway protection zone. RUNWAY EDGE LIGHTS: Lights used to define the lateral limits of a runway. Specific types include: · HII?I- High-Intensity Runway Lights. · MII?I -- Medium-Intensity Runway Lights. RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REIL): Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold, which provide a pilot with a rapid and positive visual identification of the approach end of a particular runway. (AIM) RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): A trapezoidal shaped area at the end of a runway, the function of which is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground through airport owner control of the land. The RPZ usually begins at the end of each primary surface and is centered upon the extended runway centerline. (Airport Design) RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the even of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. (Airport Deb sign) SMALL AIRCRAFT: An aircraft of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight. (FAR 1) SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined horizontal and vertical dimensions identified by an area on the surface of the earth wherein activities must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. (AIM) GLOSSARY APPENDIX C STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (SID): A preplanned instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic control de- parture procedure printed for pilot use in graphic and/or textual form. SID's provide transition from the terminal to the appropriate en route structure. (AIM) STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR): A preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) air traffic control arrival route published for pilot use in graphic and/or textual form. STARs provide transition from the en route structure to an outer fix or an instrument approach fix/arrival waypoint in the terminal area. (AIM) STOPWAY: An area beyond the takeoff runway, no less wide than the runway and centered upon the extended centerline of the runway, able to support the airplane during an aborted takeoff, without causing structural damage to the airplane, and designated by the airport authorities for use in decelerating the airplane during an aborted takeoff. (FAR 1) STRAIGHT-IN INSTRUMENT APPROACH - IFR: An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun with- out first having executed a procedure turn; it is not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing weather minimums. (AIM) TAXILANE: The portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways, aircraft parking positions, hangars, storage facilities, etc. (Airport Design) TAXIWAY: A defined path, from one part of an airport to another, selected or prepared for the taxiing of aircraft. (Airport Design) TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES (TERPS): Procedures for instrument approach and departure of aircraft to and from civil and military airports. There are four types of terminal instrument procedures: precision approach, nonprecision approach, circling, and departure. TERMINAL RADAR SERVICE AREA (TRSA): Airspace surrounding designated airports wherein ATC provides radar vectoring, sequencing, and separation on a full-time basis for all IFR and participating VFR aircraft. (AIM) THRESHOLD: The beginning of that portion of the runway usable for landing. (AIM) TOUCH-AND-GO: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway A touch-and-go is defined as two operations. (AIM) TRAFFIC PAT[ERN: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from an air- port. The components of a typical traffic pattern are upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach. (AIM) TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT: Aircraft not based at the airport. TRANSMISSOMETER: An apparatus used to determine visibility by measuring the transmission of light through the atmosphere. (AIM) UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Now known as Class G airspace. Class G airspace is that portion of the airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace. 0,-9 APPENDIX C GLOSSARY L.;~* '~' UNICOM (Aeronautical Advisory Station): A nongovernment air/ground radio communication facility which may provide airport information at certain airports. (AIM) VERY-HIGH-FREQUENCY OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR): The standard navigational aid used throughout the airway system to provide bearing information to aircraft. When combined with Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) or Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) the facility, called VOR-DME or VORTAC, provides distance as well as bearing information. VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR (VASI): An airport landing aid which provides a pilot with visual descent (approach slope) guidance while on approach to landing. Also see PAPI. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual conditions. The term "VFR" is also used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of flight plan. (AIM) VISUAL GLIDE SLOPE INDICATOR (VGSl): A generic term for the group of airport visual landing aids which in- cludes Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI), and Pulsed Light Approach Slope Indicators (PLASI). When FAA funding pays for this equipment, whichever type receives the lowest bid price will be installed unless the airport owner wishes to pay the difference for a more expensive unit. VISUAL RUNWAY: A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved air- port layout plan. (Airport Design) WARNING AREA: A type of special use airspace which may contain hazards to nonparticipating aircraft in international airspace. (AIM) C-10 GLOSSARY APPENDIX C SOURCES FAR 1: Federal Aviation Regulations Part 1, Definitions and Abbreviations. (1993) AIM: Airman's Information Manual, Pilot/Controller Glossary. (1993) Airport Design: Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Design. Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 4. (1994) FAA ATA: Federal Aviation Administration. Air ?rafficActivily. (1986) FAA Census: Federal Aviation Administration. Census o£ U.~. C/v//Aircra~ (1986) FAA Stats: Federal Aviation Administration. Stat/sEca/Hanc//~oo/~ o£Aviation. (1984) NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board. U.S. N?$t~ 830-3. (1989) O-11 Appendix D I Airport Business Plan CREDITS The Airport Master Plan Update and this associated Business Plan component were funded through a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant, identified as AIP 3-06-0123-16. The City of Livermore would especially like to thank the FAA for allocation of this grant and continued service and U.S. Representative Ellen Tauscher for her support of the Livermore Municipal Airport. City Council: Dr. Marshall Kamena Tom Reitter Lorraine Dietrich Mark Beeman Marjorie Leider Mayor Vice-Mayor Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Airport Advisory Commission: Ralph Cloud Alex Shezifi Ralph Huy Melvyn Lowney Stephen Picha Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Planning Commission: Darryl West Martha Claassen Barbara Bailey Doug Homer Michal Lea Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner City of Livermore Staff: Linda Barton Jim Piper Dan McIntyre Marc Roberts Kevin Roberts Monica Potter Leander Ham-i, A.A.E. City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Services Director Community Development Director Economic Development Director Finance Director Airport Manager Airport Consultants Mead & Hunt, Inc. (formerly Shutt Moen Associates) McGill Martin Self, Inc. D-1 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Page 3 SECTION 11 - BACKGROUND AND AVIATION TRENDS ............... Page 9 SECTION III - FINDINGS, STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS... Page 14 SECTION IV - DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS ...... Page 23 SECTION V - FINANCIAL FORECAST AND STRATEGY ............... Page 27 SECTION VI - ECONOMIC BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ................... Page 36 APPENDIX A - AVIATION FUEL SERVICES ANALYSIS D-2 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Livermore Municipal Airport (LVK) is a City of Livermore owned facility. The Airport is managed through the City's Public Services Department and is financially operated under an enterprise fund system. Since LVK operates as a City enterprise and is a federal grant recipi- ent, there are constant pressures on the airport to demonstrate that it is self-supporting and capable of meeting its long-term obligations, both in terms of financial feasibility and deliv- ery of services. The Airport is designated as a General Aviation Reliever Airport by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). With this FAA designation, LVK serves to relieve general aviation operations from the three utilized Bay Area air carder airports (Oakland-OAK, San Jose-SJC, and San Francisco-SFO). With good approach zones (VFR and IFR), available land, geographic location, its designa- tion by the FAA as a reliever airport, and experienced airport management, LVK is one of the most important general aviation airports in the region. LVK is quickly gaining recogni- tion and interest from the corporate general aviation sector as a destination. The airport is also realizing significant interest from full service Fixed Base Operators (FBO's) and the de- velopment community that serves the general aviation industry. This business plan, a component of the Airport Master Plan Update, seeks to provide infor- mation relative to: · LVK's importance and role relative to regional aviation demands · LVK' s economic benefit to the City and Region Financial management and cost versus benefit of existing operations versus those rec- ommended in this plan, especially as it relates to privatization of fuel service Development planning, and management of airport lands. Furthermore, this Business Plan is intended to provide the framework for management and business related decisions regarding airport operations, strategies for maintaining financially feasible operations, aviation and non-aviation related development on airport lands, and de- livery of services by the airport and future airport leaseholders and developers of airport lands (minimum standards). The short, medium and long-term strategies and objectives pro- vided throughout the various sections of this plan are intended to: Support the Airport Master Plan. Achieve the objectives of the Airport and the City of Livermore. D-3 APPENDIXD AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN · Support Airport businesses, tenants and pilots that are based at and use LVK. · Maintain fiscal responsibility while ensuring optimum service delivery under an en- terprise management system. Position the airport as a cost effective and efficient enterprise for the City of Liver- more. Utilize the benefits of the Airport to support economic development through support- ing increased corporate/business aviation demands within the Th-Valley and eastern Bay Area region. · Foster the general aviation objectives and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates of the airport. Geographically, Livermore Airport (LVK) and the continued residential and business growth in the greater Bay Area and western San Joaquin County have created increased demands on LVK. With other airports in the region outgrowing their physical capacity in terms of both airspace and airfield operations, LVK will continue to realize these demands and must plan accordingly. Locally, increased business growth in the 1-580 and 1-680 corridors is expected to increase general aviation demand for the airport as well as accommodating both reliever and new traffic demand from future growth in both the greater Bay Area as well as western San Joaquin County. Information and data used in the development of this plan were gathered from and compared to other regional and community airports within the larger regional area, and are used for comparative purposes to allow an assessment of LVK's competitiveness and relative "busi- ness'' position. It is thought that these airports impact LVK either directly or indirectly in terms of dernand for based aircraft, competitive operations and potential shifts of based air- craft to LVK especially corporate aircraft. If the airport were to attract a full service FBO, businesses owning corporate aircraft that already operate at LVK would likely be based at LVK. These airports include: · Buchanan Field (CCR) Byron (C83) · Hayward Executive (HWD) · Reid-Hillview (RHV) · Palo Alto (PAO) San Carlos (SQL) D-4 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD · Tracy (TCY) Stockton (SCK) Additionally, it is thought that a percentage of corporate aircraft from San Jose and San Fran- cisco will have to be accommodated elsewhere since both of these facilities are at or reaching capacity. Map I-1 Livermore Municipal Airport Regional Location San Raf, SAN FRANCISC 1 \ Concord Palo Alto \ \ Stockton Oakla% Livermore Municipal LIVERMORE · Pleosonton Jose N 15 Miles 3O D-5 APPENDIXD AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN This business plan realizes the direct and indirect benefits the airport has on many individu- als, and businesses surrounding the airport. This plan assists in the implementation of the Airport Master Plan and facilitates the programs outlined in the plan to minimize effects on these indirect constituency groups. The plan also realizes the economic benefits to these indi- rect constituency groups especially surrounding businesses that are not directly dependent on the Airport, but benefit economically from the airport. This business plan further realizes the critical need to accommodate the direct demands of general aviation and those businesses and enterprises that support the corporate/business as- pects of general aviation. The development community also recognizes these demands and will be a key component to eventually fostering the remaining buildout of the Airport. Ex- amples of these demands that could be implemented by Airport management in the future, include: Development of an additional 200 + aircraft storage hangars. At least one full-service Fixed Base Operator (FBO) and a variety of aeronautical support businesses including corporate/business aviation services. · Community Service and Educational Facilities. The airport must plan appropriately to accommodate these current and future de- mands and as a City enterprise, make sound business decisions regarding airport assets and financial solvency. Business Plan Methodology Overall, the Business Plan methodology inherently utilizes qualitative and quantitative analy- ses and relates findings from these analyses into policy recommendations (Section III) for Airport management. Responsibilities of airport management include both airfield and air- port operations. Although City fuel operations at the Airport are thought of as an important element to the revenue stream as a City enterprise, it requires significant use of staff time for the return on revenue and constrains the Airport from its other obligations and ability to at- tract private aviation uses that would expand and improve service to the aviation community. As such, a key component to this plan is an analysis of the cost/benefit of discontinuing fuel services, and in essence, contracting out to attract quality full service Fixed Base Operators (FBO's) allowing Airport staffto improve its focus on Airfield and Airport operations as fol- lows: Airfield Operations Includes those elements that are related to the airfield itself, including mn- ways, taxiways, instruments and equipment, hangars, tie downs, aircraft park- ing, safety and fuel. D-6 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D Airport Operations Includes those items related to off airfield operations including the terminal area, vehicular parking areas, airport administration including management and staff, budgeting and finance, planning, property and leaseholder manage- ment, and general business and community. In preparing this Business Plan, the duties of an airport manager as defined by the aviation management industry were considered with utmost importance. The following provides an excerpt from the Organization and Administration section of "Airport Planning and Man- agement'' second edition by Alexander T. Wells. Ed.D., 1992, Tab Books: "An airport manager is often part landlord and part business executive. As a land- lord, the safe condition and operation of the airport is his/her greatest responsibil- ity. The maintenance of the airport buildings and land are also importana As a business executive the manager is in charge of public relations; financial planning; profitable and efficient day-to-day operation; and coordination of airline, conces- sion, and airport facilities to best serve the tenants and flying public. The airport manager's primary duty is the safe and efficient operation of the airport and all its facilities regardless of size." The business plan focuses on the objectives of the airport manager as described above espe- dally overall Airport Operations while the Master Plan, among other things, provides the guide to Airfield Operations, land uses and capital improvements. By focusing on Airport Operations the business plan effectively provides a guide for sound decision-making that im- plement the direct airfield improvements as well as overall management and financial ele- ments. The Business Plan does address the financing and implementation of identified Capi- tal Improvements and ongoing operations and maintenance for identified airport and airfield improvements. Both facts as well as assumption are used to compute future forecasts related to aviation de- mand, economic and financial feasibility elements, and land development. The plan assumes that the development and increased demands on the airport will happen and that a sound business strategy for the Airport as a City enterprise is essential. Specific methodologies for pertinent sections are described therein. For example, in Section VI, the analyses of eco- nomic impacts utilize FAA guidelines under the publication Estimating the Regional Eco- nomic Significance of Airports. Also the RIMMS II Model developed by the Bureau of Eco- nomic Analysis was used for direct and indirect multipliers on spending and job creation. Data sources were also widely used within this Businesses Plan. These data sources include: Mead & Hunt, formerly Shutt Moen Associates, the prime consultant for prepa- ration of the Airport Master Plan Update. City of Livermore and Airport Management. D-7 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. · California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. · Metropolitan Transportation Commission State Department of Finance, Demographics Unit and State Franchise Tax Board. · Federal Aviation Administration Business Plan Format and Organization The business plan is organized into six sections including this one. Section II includes a background and description of LVK operation trends in a local and regional context. Section III includes findings, recommendations, and strategies for implementing airport objectives. Section IV provides an assessment of the socioeconomic trends and conditions of the City of Livermore, the surrounding area of impact, and the larger Oakland Metropolitan Statistical Area. Section V provides a financial assessment and cost/benefit analysis of the two primary revenue streams and associated costs. Section VI presents the economic impact of the Airport on the local economy. D-8 AIFIPOFIT BU$1NI=SS PLAN APPENDIX D SECTION II. BACKGROUND AND AVIATION TRENDS Livermore Airport operations began as an auxiliary airfield for the United States Navy in April 1942. The airport was purchased by the Federal Government through condemnation for auxiliary airfield use in support of the Livermore Naval Air Station. The Naval Auxiliary Air Field was used throughout World War II, but became surplus to Naval aviation needs after the war ended. Thereafter, the City of Livermore (incorporated in 1876) leased the airport from the Navy and commenced civilian airfield operations at the airport (then known as the Livermore Sky Ranch). Under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1944, the City was able to acquire title to all airport property, which consisted of approximately 262 acres. Airport facilities at this time include two sod runways, Runway 7/25 was 4,007 feet long by 500 feet wide and was the main Runaway. Runway 2/20 was 2,000 feet long by 500 feet wide. The airport included four hangars, a small office building, two houses, a rotat- ing beacon, a lighted wind cone, and a 5,000-gallon fuel tank. Aircraft sales and service, hangar rentals and agricultural flying services were the main services provided at the airport. During the baby boom years and the out migration from urban centers to suburban bedroom communities, the airport was impacted by development encroachment. With the vision and realization that the airport provided an important service and amenity to the City and region, the City began the process of relocating the airport. This process occurred starting in 1958 when the first Airport Master Plan was written, to 1965 when all airport operations were re- located to the current site. Through negotiating an unrestricted quitclaim deed from the Fed- eral Government, the proceeds from the sale of land at the original site were used to match funds and obtain a Federal Aid to Airports program grant to develop the current airport site. Development of the Livermore Airport included Runway 7-25, a 4,000 foot long by 100-foot wide asphalt runway, parallel taxiways, a beacon, lighted wind cone and segmented circle, and 104 tie downs. The apron totaled 383,000 square feet. The first FBO commenced opera- tions in 1966 and constructed the first hangars. Over the years, the airport continued to ex- pand by constructing T-hangars and T-shelters. Due to significant increase in air traffic counts, the FAA commissioned and constructed an Air Traffic Control Tower that was com- pleted in 1973. Ironically, LVK finds itself in a similar position as it did in the 1950's when the airport relo- cated to its current site. The airport is becoming more impacted by urban sprawl and is fore- casted for increases in air traffic demand simply as a result of population and employment growth. This, in tum, creates the need to both improve existing facilities as well as develop new facilities. Currently, LVK lacks a full service FBO that, in the opinion of this consultant, is essential to maintaining future viable operations. The airport is also home to Sierra Academy of Aero- nautics who provides flight training exclusively for Korean Air, while Ahart Aviatiomand Attitude Aviation provide flight training and aircraft rental services to the public. D-9 D-lO Table III-1 Livermore Municipal Airport Regional Comparison of Based Aircraft % Count~ Based Aircraft Distribution Alameda 1,823 24% Contra Costa 670 9% Santa Clara 1,994 27% San Mateo 646 9% Matin 323 4% Napa 255 3% Solona 244 3% Sonoma 964 13% San Joaquin 586 Total 7,505 100% Source: MTC: MMS. Inc. Chart ii1-1 Livermore Municipal Airport Regional Comparison of Based Aircraft 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 Alameda Contra Santa San Costa Clara Mateo County Matin Napa Solona Sonoma San Joaquin AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D Table iii-2 Livermore Municipal Airport LVK Share of Based Aircraft 2001 Based Aircraft Alameda Count~ Total Bay Area LVK 601 Alameda County 1,994 Greater Bay Area 7,505 Source: MTC: MMS. Inc. 30.14% 8.01% Livermore Airport is the only airport that serves the Th-Valley region. As such, the airport is located near and serves all major business centers within the Tri-Valley area including, the City itself, and surrounding areas of Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon. Livermore National Laboratory; Bishop Ranch, headquarters to over six Fortune 1000 com- panies; and Hacienda Business Park which is the corporate headquarters of PeopleSofi are served by LVK for example. The Tri-Valley is fast emerging as a destination for other new economy high tech employers that are expanding and migrating out of the Silicon Valley in Santa Clara County located approximately 20 miles to the south and west of LVK. Table III-3 Livermore Municipal Airport LVK Trends in Operations and Based Aircraft LVK % Growth Year Operations ~ Based Aircraft 1975 175,000 ~~ 230 1985 [1] 210,000 20% 400 1990 222,843 6% 440 1995 222,142 -0.3% 500 2000 234,621 6% 601 [1] % growth is over ten years between 1975 and 1985. Source: City of Livermore; MTC; MMS. Inc. % Growth Based Aircraft 74% 10% 14% 20% D-11 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN D-12 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Chart III-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Flight Operation Trends LVK Flight Operations 1975 1985 1990 1995 2000 Table III-4 Livermore Municipal Airport LVK Trends in Operations and Based Aircraft LVK % Year Operations Change :~/ ~, :~,/'~~,:i/:~' '~: 1975 175,000 1985 210,000 20% 1990 222,843 6% 1991 234,076 5% 1992 252,370 8% 1993 282,621 12% 1994 243,882 1995 222,142 -9% 1996 229,505 3% 1997 236,342 3% 1998 239,017 1% 1999 253,047 6% 2000 234,621 -7% Source: FAA; City of Livermore; MMS, Inc. AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D Chart III-3 Livermore Municipal Airport Flight Operation Trends FLIGHT OPERATIONS 7O% 6O% 50% Local 4O% 30% 20% 10% O% Table III-5 Livermore Municipal Airport IFR Operations % IFR of Year Air Taxi Military General Aviation Total IFR Total Fit. Ops. 1990 123 112 10,534 10,769 3.82% 1991 55 127 12,644 12,826 5.01% 1992 47 124 12,925 13,096 5.19% 1993 55 87 13,295 13,437 5.22% 1994 37 214 12,446 12,697 5.21% 1995 50 67 10,889 11,006 4.32% 1996 144 72 11,037 11,253 4.90% 1997 373 31 12,286 12,690 5.37% 1998 842 32 12,784 13,658 5.71% 1999 372 49 11,564 11,985 4.74% 2000 269 40 12,544 12,853 4.99% Source: FAA; City of Livermore; MMS, Inc. D-13 APPENDIXD AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN SECTION !11. FINDINGS, STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Flight Operations/Demand for LVK 1. Findings LVK is a valued transportation facility for the City, business community, general aviation and the Th-Valley area for which the airport provides a convenient aviation facility. Demands for additional and improved aviation services through Fixed Based Operator(s) are high at LVK. LVK demands by the aviation industry include the need to accommodate busi- ness/corporate class aircraft including hangars, maintenance, fuel and other support services. LVK is classified as a Reliever Airport in the FAA, National Plan of Integrated Air- port Systems (NPIAS). As such, LVK is a specially designated general aviation air- port intended to reduce congestion from the larger commercial service airports (Oak- land, San Francisco and to a lesser extent San Jose). LVK must maintain the objective of providing safe and adequate airfield and airport operations. LVK's geographic position, good approach zones, available land to accommodate im- proved aviation businesses and services, coupled with business growth in the Tri- Valley and trends showing a decline in general aviation and increase demand for business/corporate aviation services. During the decade of the 1990's, LVK reached its peak for flight operations in 1993 with just under 283,000 operations. Since 1993, flight operations have declined to an average of approximately 237,000 over the six-year pehod between 1994 and 2000. Itinerant flight operations, (those flights that use LVK between origin and destination, typically these are charters and/or business/corporate flights) average approximately 40 percent of total flight operations. With changing demands in general aviation to business/corporate services, itinerant flight operations should decline with the goal of attracting more based aircraft at LVK. Forecasts indicate that flight operations will most likely remain relatively constant but based aircraft is estimated to increase if the City pursues private FBO operations. Un- der a growth scenario, annual operations could total approximately 370,000 provided improvements to the airfield are conducted pursuant to the Mater Plan Update and Airport management objectives. Note that although based aircraft is estimated to in- crease, flights are expected to remain constant. D-14 AIFIPOI:IT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D City fuel operations are detrimental to the overall service delivery responsibilities at LVK because the operations detract from operation and maintenance of other facili- ties including airfield maintenance and hangar maintenance. Staffutilization for pro- viding fuel service consistently exceeds 90 percent according to Airport management. This detracts from the other service responsibilities of the Airport. 2. Strategies and Recommendations Foster development of the estimated 200 + hangars as identified in the Airport Master Plan Update. The development of these hangars should be accomplished by the City through long-term ground leases to private developers and operators. The ground lease should average between $.21 and $.25 per square foot (in 2001 dollars) annu- ally. The range in the ground lease rate is dependent on site location, hangar type, and any potential share in gross revenues that a lower lease rate would offset. Reduce economic risk, operating and maintenance costs to the City by allowing pri- vate aviation related development to occur through the provision of long-term land leases pursuant to FAA mandates. Attract full service FBO's on existing and available vacant lands to accommodate shifts in service demands in General Aviation from recreational flying to busi- ness/corporate flight operations. Set aside approximately thirty acres on the south side of the airport and ten acres on the north side for private aviation related development and services. LVK should at- tract new aviation service businesses as well as retain and help expand Sierra Acad- emy of Aeronautics, Ahart Aviation, Attitude Aviation and other existing aviation re- lated businesses, provided that the expansion of these businesses meet the minimum standards and objectives set forth by Airport management. Continue to work with the surrounding communities to identify operational concerns and accommodate any viable and FAA compatible aviation related improvements to accommodate changing aviation demands. Integrate airport operations and the airport facility with economic development efforts of the City to attract non-aviation related businesses that view the location of the air- port as an asset to their business needs. Implement the planning principals set forth in the Master Plan Update to help position the Airport to meet the business/corporate aviation demand while striving to improve the needs of existing pilots and airport businesses. D-15 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN B. Demographic and Socioeconomic Conditions 1. Findings Population in the City of Livermore has increased from an estimated 49,000 in 1980 to 73,345 in 2000. This is approximately a 24 percent increase. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have grown at a rate of 12 percent and 16 percent respectively over the last decade. Households have lagged slightly behind population growth with the number of house- holds growing by 22 percent in the City of Livermore in the 1990's. Primary, secondary and tertiary areas (defined in Section IV) around the airport were analyzed to determine population and other demographic indicators for the airport. As a result, more than half of the City*s population, just above 46,000 persons, reside within a three-mile area of LVK. Median household income in the City of Livermore is estimated at close to $85,000 per annum, compared to $57,000 for Alameda County as whole. This higher than av- erage income in the City is another key indicator associated with flight operations and general aviation demands. City of Livermore labor force is comprised of predominantly white-collar jobs with 16.88 percent made up of professional specialties and 14.44 percent in executive and managerial roles. This somewhat balances with precision and production crafts which account for 12.78 percent of the jobs. Again, the relatively high and continued growth in white-collar jobs are indicators impacting future demand at LVK for busi- ness/corporate operations. 2. Strategies and Recommendations Maintain internal review of long range City planning efforts (General Plan and if ap- plicable Specific Plan) to influence land use decisions that remain compatible with Airport objectives, FAA requirements, and future airport improvements. This could be achieved through compatibility checks with the adopted ALUC's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for LVK. Work with economic development and planning staff regarding off-site development within a three-mile radius of the Airport regardless of noise contours. The airport manager should always review planned and proposed developments within the City and provide recommendations prior to any decision by the Planning Commission or City Council. D-16 AIRPORT BUSINIESS PLAN APPENDIX D Discourage a full-time residential population around the airport beyond the Airport Protection Area (APA). An additional .5 to 1 mile buffer should be used outside of the compatible CNEL. The airport is too important both in terms of transportation and economic benefit to be rendered incompatible with adjacent residential develop- ment. It should be noted that the APA prohibits residential uses within its boundaries. The City should encourage its planning agency, and those of the surrounding cities, to implement a real estate disclosure document signed by all new residents acknowl- edging the existence and proximity of the airport and resulting disturbances. Although data, on the national, regional, and local level suggests that the younger generations (< 35 years) are twenty to twenty-five percent less likely to obtain a pri- vate pilots license, thereby creating a downward trend in recreational flight opera- tions, it is recommended that LVK maintain sufficient land to provide airport opera- tions that cater to student pilots and the businesses that serve them. C. Business Operations and Financial Management 1. Findings LVK as a City enterprise depends upon two major revenue sources - (1) Rental in- come from hangar, tie-down, land leases and (2) fuel sales. LVK has approximately 45 acres of vacant land that could be used to provide aviation support services and safety improvements to accommodate current and forecasted aviation demands. LVK is in an optimum position to do so. LVK is experiencing a high level of inquiries fi-om private aviation businesses to de- velop on vacant airport lands. LVK must overcome the strain of providing fuel service with the goal of improving the balance in the delivery of other airport and airfield services including meeting the demands of existing tenants and providing services such as maintenance to existing hangars and buildings. The demand for airport land is at an all time high and overall airport activity (in terms of based aircraft, hangar demand, and fuel demand) has seen substantial increases. Although flight operations trends have and are forecasted to remain relatively con- stant, General Aviation trends indicate a decrease in flight training and recreational flying activities and an increase in Business/Corporate (B/C) flight operations and re- lated support services. D-17 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN D-18 Fuel services currently provided by the City are detrimental to both the long-term economic health of the airport as well as overall service delivery related to other air- port and airfield operations. The City currently receives an estimated $1.4 million in lease revenue and $40,000 in net fuel revenue per annum. If the City were to cease fuel operations and attract a full service FBO, revenues could significantly increase and cost to the City could signifi- cantly decrease. In 1980 LVK sold approximately 475,000 gallons of fuel while in 2000, LVK sold 811,000 gallons. This is a 71 percent increase in fuel demand over the twenty-year period. In 1980, Avgas (100LL) sales totaled approximately 293,000 gallons while in 2000, 100LL sales totaled approximately 417,000 gallons. This is an increase of approxi- mately 42 percent. Conversely, turbine engine fuel (Jet A) demand totaled 182,000 gallons in 1980 and 394,000 gallons in 2000. This is an increase of approximately 116 percent over the twenty-year period. LVK currently nets $.05/gallon for Jet A and $.06/gallon for 100LL. Currently, an- nual net revenue fi-om fuel sales is estimated at $40,000. Revenue from fuel is esti- mated at $1.83 million with expenses for fuel service estimated at $1.79 million not including costs associated with deferred maintenance of other airport facilities due to the high percentage of Airport staff utilization necessary for fuel delivery. Business Plan projections identify that under current operating conditions total de- mand for fuel is estimated to increase to approximately 986,000 gallons by 2020. This is a 22 percent projected increase over the twenty-year period. Under this projection, net revenues in future dollars are estimated at approximately $72,000 in 2020 (when adjusted for inflation from approximately $40,000 current dollars). Under the cost versus benefit analysis prepared in Section V of this Business Plan, which assumes that the City will release its monopoly on fuel sales and then be able to attract a full service FBO(s), fuel demand is estimated to increase to 1.8 million gallons in the year 2020. At this future date, Jet A demand is estimated at 986,000 gallons while 100LL or equivalent is estimated at 807,000 gallons indicating a shift in demand. By releasing the fuel concession and attracting an FBO or FBO's that cater to the fu- ture demands of LVK, the City will reduce costs and increase revenues. The loss in revenue from existing fuel sales will be off-set by fuel flowage fees, increased rents and volume in both fuel demand and demand for vacant airport land. The additional revenue from the FBO scenario will allow LVK to focus on airfield operations, property management, and maintenance, and build fund reserves. AIRPORT BUSiNESS PLAN APPENDIXD Net Operating Income, including rental income and fuel sales is estimated at $114,000 per annum on a present value basis under current conditions. Net Operating Income, including rental income and fuel flowage fee revenue is esti- mated at $254,000 under the FBO scenario. By releasing the fuel service, reducing costs, attracting an FBO, charging a fuel flow- age fee and market rate rents, LVK will benefit in approximately $140,000 per annum in additional revenue compared to current operations and forecasts. Over twenty years this represents an additional $2.8 million (present value dollars). The City's airport staff currently has responsibility for fueling services, and mainte- nance of the airfield, 393 hangars, a terminal building, and miscellaneous other facili- ties. Common maintenance tasks include, but are not limited to: · Hangar Maintenance including: Hangar door floor tracks and top guides are the major maintenance concern, particularly in the South Hangars; greasing the door wheels and repairing the tracks and guides is an ongoing task Bimonthly flushing of the fire sprinkler system Fixing minor leaks in the fire sprinkler system Repairing hangar roofs leaks, especially around vents and skylights. · · Airfield · · Touch-up painting Replacing interior and exterior light bulbs and minor electrical repairs Lighting: Replacing edge light lamps and lenses Replacing runway and taxiway sign lamps · 1 · Airfield · · Replace bulbs of apron lighting system Maintain rotating beacon Maintenance Airfield pavement weed abatement Airfield mowing Wash rack filter and plumbing maintenance Trash removal and separating hazardous wastes out of trash bins D-19 APPENDIXD AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Maintenance of waste oil collection system · Maintenance of perimeter fencing and gates (only gates require sig- nificant periodic maintenance) · Cleaning and maintenance of public hangar restrooms (daily) · Annual storm water reporting These tasks are currently accomplished with four full-time, regular staff, and seven tempo- rary staff. Most of the staff time is currently devoted to fueling services. This has led to an ongoing difficulty in finding sufficient stafftime to keep up with maintenance responsibili- ties. If City staff no longer has to provide fueling services, it is anticipated that the backlog of maintenance items will be eliminated. It will also be possible to institute a proactive pre- ventative maintenance program. It is anticipated that this would require use of the use of the four full-time, regular staff, but probably not all of the temporary staff. 2. Strategies and Recommendations ,,,Prior to entering into any long-term lease agreement, an appraisal to determine the fair market rental value should be performed. Hangar and tie down rents and charges should be reviewed every three (3) years. This review should include a comparison of rates at other general aviation airports throughout the region as identified in Section i of this plan. The purpose of the review is to compare the equivalent lease rates and charges and make adjustments based on the current data. The objective is to maintain lease rates that are consistent with other general aviation airports within the region. Rental rates should be adjusted annually at the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPi) for the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as published each February by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. D-20 Adopt a set of Minimum Standards for aviation related businesses at LVK. Utilize the recently standardized Airport lease agreement. Solicit through the Request for Proposal process Fixed Base Operators. Rents should be charged at fair market value (estimated at $.21/psf/per annum in 2001). A share in annual gross revenue between 2 to 4 percent could be considered at the discretion of Airport Management during lease negotiations to maintain a competitive advantage for the airport. Charge a fuel flowage fee from any private concessionaire for the rights to the fuel service and defray City operating costs (estimated in the business plan at $. 15/gallon). LVK should always strive to break-even and balance costs and revenues as well as receive a premium share of revenue for release of the fuel concession (derived from fuel flowage fee). As such, the minimum fuel flowage fee per gallon should never fall AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD below the net revenue per gallon the City could otherwise receive. In addition, fuel towage fees should include charges for City staff time and management, airfield maintenance costs, and reserves. The recommended per gallon fuel towage fee should not fall below the City's current net revenue from fuel sales which is between $.05 and $.06/gallon (present value). Airport management should make adjustments to the fuel towage fee based on either the CPI or wholesale benchmarks tied to gas commodity indexes. Consistent with City policies, 10 percent of gross revenue should be allocated as an expense item to operating reserves and an additional 10 percent should be allocated to the System Improvement Reserve Fund. Accounting of internal City charges to the Airport should be maintained and audited in accordance with FAA regulations and procedures. Maintaining revenues for Capital Improvement Funding as identified in Chapter 5 of the Master Plan Update to meet grant matching requirements should be set-aside as top priority. Any additional net revenue after reserves and grant matching set-aside, could be used to leverage additional Certificates of Participation or lease revenue bonds for improvements not eligible for FAA or Caltrans grant funding (CIP) but necessary for continued improvement and maintenance of Airport facilities. It is recommended that the City make a minor change to the official name of the Liv- ermore Municipal Airport by dropping the word "Municipal". Other City enti- ties/facilities are not referred to as "Municipal" such as the Livermore Municipal Li- brary, Police Water Resources etc. The airport is by and large a regional facility and the name change would help with improved communication and less confusion in fu- ture correspondence. D. Economic Impact LVK plays an important and significant role in the City's economy. LVK is the only airport serving the Tri-Valley Region and as such, provides a key transportation ele- ment for transient business and recreation aviation. Currently, 84 jobs exist as a direct benefit from the Airport. Approximately 577 jobs are created from both direct and indirect economic benefits of LVK. Total direct expenditures into the economy from aviation related businesses as a di- rect effect of LVK totals approximately $11 million per annum. Total estimated visitor spending, that would not otherwise occur if LVK did not exist, is estimated at $21 million per annum. D-21 APPENDIX O AIRPORT BUSINESS PI_AN Student aviation impacts total $1.4 million per annum in disposable income. Other direct expenditures from the Airport total approximately $200,000 per annum. This includes, taxes, capital improvement expenditures, rental car revenue, agricul- tural and golf course lease revenues. Total direct economic benefit is estimated at $33.8 million per annum. Total direct and indirect economic benefit as a result of LVK total $57.4 million per annum. If the City were to attract an FBO and the associated amount of increased based air- craft, the total direct and indirect economic benefit of the airport could reach $100 million. 2. StrategieL~ and Recommendations Work to retain and support growth of existing aviation related businesses. Attract a full service FBO or FBO's as previously stated. This will continue to im- prove the economic benefit received from LVK. Assist with City economic development efforts to attract hotels, office and light in- dustrial space off-airport to provide the base infrastructure and facilities needed to ac- commodate direct and indirect demands of the aviation industry at LVK. D-22 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D SECTION iV. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS Demographics and socioeconomic trends are important variables in determining the impact LVK will have on future populations. Both the estimate of growth and projections of how quickly the community will grow to reach buildout are important to the airport and airport operations. With this information and updates to this information in the future, LVK can de- termine how best to position itself in the future to accommodate changing population needs as well as prosper from an emerging population and businesses that are destine to grow. This demographic and socioeconomic analysis measures population and employment vari- ables for the City of Livermore and surrounding areas of impact, Alameda County and the Oakland Metropolitan Statistical Area. Table IV-1 Livermore Municipal Airport Population 1980 1990 2000 2005 %Change %Change %Change 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2005 City of Livermore 48,869 56,741 73,345 78,900 Alameda County 1,105,380 1,279,182 1,430,315 1,486,745 Oakland MSA 1,761,760 2,082,914 2,416,546 2,537,175 Contra Costa County 656,380 803,732 930,203 988,643 16% 24% 7.6% 16% 12% 4% 18% 16% 5% 22% 16% 6% Primary LVK Trade Area 15 8 14 16 -47% Secondary LVK Trade Area 1,450 731 1,300 1,529 -50% Tertiary LVK Trade Area 29,403 34,460 43,144 46,177 17% 75% 14% 78% 18% 25% 7% Source: State Department of Finance; Claritas Inc.: City of Livermore; MMS, Inc; .4B.4G Projections 2003. D-23 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN 1980 Table IV-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Households % Change 1990 2000 2005 1980-1990 %Change 1990-2000 %Change 2000-2005 City of Livermore 16,478 20,643 25,199 27,340 25% 22% Alameda County 426,092 479,518 539,655 564,059 13% 13% Oakland MSA 667,626 779,806 930,374 985,892 17% 19% Contra Costa County 241,534 300,288 366,946 400,216 24% 22% Primary LVK Trade Area 4 3 4 5 -25% Secondary LVK Trade Area 428 289 401 461 432% Tertiary LVK Trade Area 9,656 12,138 14,636 15,65 ! 26% Source: State Department of Finance; Claritas Inc. City of Livermore; MMS, Inc,; ABAG Projection,v 2003 33% 39% 21% 7% 5% 6% 9% 25% 15% 7% Table IV-3 Livermore Municipal Airport Income Median Average Per Capita Household income HousehoLd Income Income City of Livermore $84,925 $96,202 $34,152 Alameda County $57,010 $73,358 $27,869 Oakland MSA $63,001 $80,112 $31,079 Contra Costa County $61,261 $77,331 $31,027 Primary LVK Trade Area Secondary LVK Trade Area Tertiary LVK Trade Area $116,667 $112,041 $34,287 $106,250 $112,012 $34,450 $93,633 $108,787 $36,496 Source: State Department of Finance; Claritas Inc. City of Livermore; MMS, Inc. D-24 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD Table IV-4 Livermore Municipal Airport Cost of Housing Median Median Vacancy Rate Property Value (SFR) Rent/month (al! housing) City of Livermore Alameda County Oakland MSA Contra Costa County $352,644 $680 3.94% $324,014 $770 4.88% $324,533 $583 4.93% $286,201 $655 5.02% Primary LVK Trade Area Secondary LVK Trade Area Tertiary LVK Trade Area $400,000 $660 7.54% $404,861 $660 7.59% $385,551 $772 3.88% Source: State Department of Finance; Claritas Inc. City of Livermore; MMS, Inc. Table IV-5 Livermore Municipal Airport Age Distribution Median Average < 18 18-65 65+ Age Age City of Livermore Alameda County Oakland MSA Contra Costa County 27.02% 64.60% 8.38% 35.3 34.7 25.05% 63.96% 10.99% 35.9 35.9 25.14% 63.56% 11.30% 36.7 36.4 25.45% 62.89% 11.66% 37.2 36.6 Primary LVK Trade Area Secondary LVK Trade Area Tertiary LVK Trade Area 26.60% 69.32% 4.06% 32.5 33.1 26,76% 69.68% 3.56% 34.4 33.4 27.07% 65.34% 7.60% 35.4 34.6 Source: State Department of Finance; Claritas Inc. City of Livermore,. MMS, Inc. D-25 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Table IV-5 Livermore Municipal Airport Labor Force and Employment C!t7 o,.f,L.!vermore Alameda County Oakland MSA Contra Costa County Executive and Managerial 14.44% 15.15% 16.39% 18.34% Professional Specialty 16.88% 17.10% 16.65% 15.96% Technical Support 6.76% 4.97% 4.70% 4.27% Sales 10.83% 11.33% 12.10% 13.31% Administrative Support 16.70% 17.85% 17.58% 17.15% Service: Private Household 0.26% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43% Service: Protective 2.31% 1.55% 1.58% 1.61% Service: Other 8.37% 9.02% 8.80% 8.45% Farming Forestry and Fishing 1.05% 0.99% 1.11% 1.31% Precision Production and Craft 12.78% 10.06% 10.17% 10.33% Machine Operator 3.32% 4.76% 4.04% 2.90% Transportation and Material Moving 2.79% 3.38% 3.20% 2.92% Laborers 3.50% 3.40% 3.26% 3.03% Source: State Department of Finance; Claritas Inc. City of £ivermore; MMS, Inc. Table IV-6 Livermore Municipal Airport Labor Force and Employment - Airport Trade Area Primary LVK Secondary LVK Tertiary LVK Trade Area Trade Area Trade Area Executive and Managerial Professional Specialty Technical Support Sales Administrative Support Service: Private Household Service: Protective Service: Other Farming Forestry and Fishing Precision Production and Craft Machine Operator Transportation and Material Moving Laborers 10.82% 10.82% 15.34% 24.00% 23.79% 15.46% 8.00% 7.93% 5.59% 7.76% 8.09% 12.18% 17.65% 17.52% 16,68% 0.00% 0.02% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 2.35% 9.65% 9.58% 8.70% 0.00% 0.03% 0.83% 7.29% 7.52% 12.54% 4.00% 3.96% 3.23% 4.24% 4.20% 3.12% 6.59% 6.53% 3.67% Source: State Department of Finance; Claritas Inc. City of Livermore; MMS, Inc. D-26 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D SECTION V. FINANCIAL FORECAST AND STRATEGY Table V-1 Livermore Municipal Airport Hangar Lease Revenue Current Conditions Tiedowns North Hangars and Shelters T-Hangars Shelters End Rooms Exec. Hangars/small £xec. Hangars/large Sub-Total South Hangars T-Hangars Rect. Hangars Exec. Hangars Corporate Hangars Hangar S- 1 Other Sub-Total Total Revenue 2001-2002 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 $ 71,280 87,318 106,965 131,032 160,514 $ 356,830 $ 437,117 $ 535,468 $ 655,948 $ 803,537 $ 15,230 $ 18,657 $ 22,855 $ 27,997 $ 34,296 $ 25,380 $ 31,091 $ 38,086 $ 46,655 $ 57,153 $ 48,480 $ 59,388 $ 72,750 $ 89,119 $ 109,171 $ 39,600 $ 48,510 $ 59,425 $ 72,795 $ 89t~74 $ 485?520 $ 594~762. $ .... 2~.~,583 $ 892~515 $ ~093~331 $ 683,100 $ 836,798 $ 1,025,077 $ 1,255,719 $ 1,538,256 $ 46,680 $ 57,183 $ 70,049 $ 85,810 $ 105,118 $ 224,400 $ 274,890 $ 336,740 $ 412,507 $ 505,321 $ 58,820 $ 72,055 $ 88,267 $ 108,127 $ 132,455 $ 84,204 $ 103,150 $ 126,359 $ 154,789 $ 189,617 $ 44,810 $ 54,89~. $ 67~243 $ 82,373 $ 100,907 $ 1,142~01~.....' $ 1,398,967 $ 1,713,735 $ 2,099,325 $ 2,571~73 $ 1,698~814 ,$ ,~,~,0,,81,047 $ 2,549,283 $ 3,122,871 $ 3,825~517 Table V-2 Livermore Municipal Airport FBO Buildout Assumptions/Lease Revenue Projection Private FBO Land Area Scenario Acres Gross Sq. Ft. Revenue/Land Use $. 18/sq. fl./Ramp $.21/sq. ft./South Side Building Areas $.25/sq. ft./North Building Areas 22 Acres 958,320 $ 2,069,971 $ 2,414,966 $ 2,874,960 Note: Although 45 acres are available for lease to private operators such as an FBO, 22 acres are determined as a reasonable lease for an FBO. This maintains 23 acres for other uses that could be attracted to the airport for purposes of meeting other economic development objectives of the City. D-27 Table V-3 Livermore Municipal Airport Net Fuel Revenue to City Jet A iOOLL City Revenue/Gallon $ 0.64 $ 0.65 City Cost/Gallon $ 0.59 $ 0.59 Net Revenue to City $ 0.05 $ 0.06 Pump Price $ 1.93 $ 2,78 Wholesale Price $ 1.01 $ 1.73 Source: City of Livermore 4/01 pricing; MMS, Inc. Table V-4 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Revenue/Expenditure Forecast-Existing Conditions Existing Cond Revenue Fuel Concession Expenses Fuel Labor and Overhead Fuel Truck Leases Repairs/maintenance/admin Estimated Costs NOI before Debt/Loans/General Fund (increase in NOI due to Jet A demand) 2001-2002 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 $ 1,833,258 $ 2,261,783 $ 2,790,474 $ 3,442,748 $ 4,247,490 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,480,953 $ 1,847,125 $ 2,275,984 $ 2,818,708 $ 346,000 $ 425,048 $ 517,368 $ 632,908 $ 743,667 $ 44,500 $ 52,288 $ 61,438 $ 72,189 $ 84,823 ,~,_, 202~000 $ 255~848 ,~ ..... 3,Q2~621 $ 380~580 $ 447~181 ...~_...~,792,~00 $ 27214~136 $ ~}8~553 $ 3,361,661 $ 4,094,378 $ 40,7,58, $ .......... 47,.646' $ 61~922 $ 81087 $ 153,111 D-28 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD Table V-5 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Flowage Fee Revenue/Expenditure Forecast~FBO Scenario 2001-2002 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 Revenue Fuel Flowage Fee @ .$15/g~lon $ 121,687 $ 172,200 $ 193,725 $ 247,538 $ 269,063 Expenses Fuel $ $ $ $ $ Labor and Overhead $ $ $ $ $ Fuel Truck Leases $ $ $ $ - $ Repairs/maintenance/admin[2] $ 30,000 $ 35,250 $ 41,419 $ 48,667 $ Estimated Costs $ 30,000 $ 35,250 $ 41,419 $ 48,667 $ NOi before Debt/Loans/General Fund [1] escalation rote @ 3.5 % 57,184 57,184 $ 91,687 $ 136,950 $ 152,306 $ 198,870 $ 211,879 Table V-6 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Demand Forecast - Current vs. FBO Operations Total Estimated Gallons Current Operations Total Estimated Gallons w/FBO Net Increase (gallons of fuel) w/FBO % Increase (Gallons of fuel) w/FBO Total Estimated Revenue Current Operations Total Estimated Revenue w/FBO Net Increase in Revcnuc w/FBO ~ Increase in revenue w/FBO Source: City of Livermore; MMS, Inc. 2001-2002 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 811,248 851,810 894,401 939,121 986,077 811,248 1,148.000 1.291,500 1.650,250 1,793,750 n/a 336,752 439,690 755,849 854,629 n/a 34~8% 44.4% 75.7% 81.9% 2001-2002 2004=2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 $ 1,833,258 $ 2,914,973 $ 3,853,230 $ 5,785,196 $ 7,388,702 $ 1,833,258 $ 4,399,725 $ 5,584,420 $ 8,191,296 $ 10,037,082 n/a $ 1,484.752 $ 1,731,190 $ 2,406.100 $ 2 648 380 51% 45% 42% 36% D-29 Chart IV-1 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Demand Projections Current Operations vs. FBO Total Estimated Gallons Current 2,000,000 1,8OO,OOO 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Operations Total Estimated Gallons (FBO) 2001-2002 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 201 Chart V-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Revenue Forecast Current Operations vs. FBO Scenario $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- · Total Estimated Revenue Current Operations Il Total Estimated Revenue (FBO) 2001-2002 2004~005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 D-30 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D Table V-7 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Demand Forecast -Existing Conditions 2001-2002 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 Fuel (gallons) 100LL Discount 208,596 219,026 229,977 241,476 253,550 100LL Self Serve 107,680 113,064 118,717 124,653 130,886 100LL Regular 100,248 105,260 110,523 116,050 121,852 Jet Fuel, Discount 66,368 69,686 73,171 76,829 80,671 Jet Fuel, Regular 328,356 344,774 362,012 380,113 399,119 Total Estimated Gallons 811,248 851,810 894,401 939,121 986,077 Source: City of Livermore; McGill Martin Self, Inc. Table V-8 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Revenue Forecast - Existing Conditions 2001-2002 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 100LL Discount $ 536,092 $ 661,403 $ 816,006 $ 1,006,748 $ 1,242,075 100LL Self Serve $ 276,738 $ 341,425 $ 421,233 $ 519,696 $ 641,I 75 100LLRegular $ 268,665 $ 331,465 $ 408,945 $ 504,536 $ 622,471 Jet Fuel, Discount $ 99,552 $ 122,822 $ 151,532 $ 186,953 $ 230,653 Jet Fuel, Regular $ 640,294 $ 789~_963 $ 974,617 $ 1,202,433 $ 1,483,502 Total Estimated Revenue $ 1,821,340 $ 2,247,078 $ 2,772,333 $ 3,420,366 $ 4,219,876 Source; City of Livermore; McGill Martin Self, Inc. D-31 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN D-32 Table V-9 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Demand Forecast - FBO Scenario 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 Fuel (gallons) 100LL Discount 229,600 258,300 330,050 358,750 100LL Self Serve 160,720 180,810 231,035 251,125 100LL Regular 126,280 142,065 181,528 197,313 Jet Fuel, Discount 229,600 258,300 330,050 358,750 Jet Fuel, Regular 40..1~8..00 452,025 577,588 627,813 .. Total Estimated Gallons 1,148,000 1,291,500 1,650,250 1,793,750 Source: City of Livermore; McGill Martin Self, Inc. Table V-10 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Flowage Fee Revenue Forecast - FBO Scenario 2004~2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 Fuel (gallons) 100LLDiscount $ 693,335 $ 916,502 $ 1,376,025 $ 1,757,424 100LL Self Serve $ 506,107 $ 669,011 $ 1,004,445 $ 1,282,851 100LLRegular $ 397,656 $ 525,651 $ 789,207 $ 1,007,954 Jet Fuel, Discount $ 404,670 $ 534,923 $ 803,128 $ 1,025,734 Jet Fuel, Regular $ 920,624 $ 1~216~950 $ 1,827,115 $ 2,333,544 Total EstimatedRevenue $ 2,922,392 $ 3,863,037 $ 5,799,920 $ 7,407,507 Source: City of Liverrnore; McGill Martin Self, Inc. AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD Table V-Il Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Flowage Fee Recommended Ranges Flowage Fee Range 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 Fee ~ $.05/gallon [l] $ 57,400 Fee ~ $.08/gallon $ 91,840 Fee ~ $.15/gallon $ 172,200 Fee ~ $.20/gallon $ 229,600 [1] City nets $.5/gallon Source: City of kivermore; McGill Martin Self, Inc. $ 64,575 $ 82,513 $ 103,320 $ 132,020 $ 193,725 $ 247,538 $ 258,300 $ 330,050 $ 89,688 $ 143,500 $ 269,063 $ 358,750 Table V-12 Livermore Municipal Airport Fuel Price Estimate/Gallon 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 100LL Discount 100LL Self Serve 100LL Regular Jet Fuel, Discount Jet Fuel, Regular $ 3.02 $ 3.55 $ 4.17 $ 2.57 $ 3.02 $ 3.55 $ 3.15 $ 3.70 $ 4.35 $ 1.76 $ 2.07 $ 2.43 $ 2.29 $ 2.69 $ 3.16 Source: City of Livermore; McGill Martin Self, Inc. 4.90 4.17 5.11 2.86 3.72 D-33 APPENDIXD AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Table V-13 Livermore Municipal Airport Cash Flow Estimate - Existing Conditions Revenue Fuel Concession Hangar Rents (incl. exstg. FBO) Total Estimated Revenue Expenses Fuel Labor and Overhead Fuel Iruck Leases Repairs/maintenance/admin Estimated Costs 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 NOI before Debt/Loans/General Fund Grants/Loans/Internal Charges Less: Balance Forward Previous Year Sub-Total Addl Charges Balance $ 2,261,783 $ 2,790,474 $ 3,442,748 $ 4,247,490 $ 2,081,047 $ 2,549,283 $ 3,122,871 $ 3,825,517 $ 4,342,830 $ 5,339,757 $ 6,565,619 $ 8,073,007 NPV $ CIP Need $ Difference/Reserves/Payment Capacity $ Annualized $ Source: City of Livermore; McGill Martin Self, Inc. $ 1,480,953 $ 1,847,125 $ 2,275,984 $ 2,818,708 $ 425,048 $ 517,368 $ 632,908 $ 743,667 $ 52,288 $ 61,438 $ 72,189 $ 84,823 $ 414,775 $ 487~361 $ 572,649 $ 672,862 $ 2r373~063 $ 2~913~292 $ 3~553~730 $ 4r320,060 $ 1~969~767 $ 2~426~465 $ .3~011~889 $ 3~752,948 1,468,750 1,725,781 2,027,793 2,382,657 $ - $ - $ $ $ 1~468,750 $ 1~725~781 $ 2~027~793 $ 2~382~657 $ 501~017 $ 700~684 $ 984~096 $ 1~370~291 377137644 1~36,616 2,277,028 113,851 D-34 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D Table V-14 Livermore Municipal Airport Cash Flow Estimate - FBO scenario 2004-2005 2009-2010 2014-2015 2019-2020 Revenue Fuel Flowage Fee @ $ 172,200 $ 193,725 $ 247,538 $ Hangar Rents $ 2,081,047 $ 2,549,283 $ 3,122,871 $ Full ServiceFBO $ 17080r985 $ lr2707157 $ 1~49~..a4..35 $ Total EstimatedRevenue $ 3,334,232 $ 4,013,165 $ 4,862,843 $ 269,063 3,825,517 1~753~611 5,848,191 Expenses Fuel $ $ $ Labor and $ 425,048 $ 517,368 $ Fuel Truck Leases $ $ $ Repairs/maintenance/admin $ 414~775 $ 4877361 $ Estimated Costs $ 839,823 ~ 1,004,729 $ $ 632,908 $ 743,667 $ 572~649 $ 672,862 1,205,857 $ 1,416,529 NOI before Debt/Loans/General Fund $ 2,494~109 $ 3,008,436 $ Grants/Loans/Internal $ 1A68,750 $ 1,725,781 $ Less: Balance Forward Previous $ $ $ Sub-Total Addl Charges $ 1,468,750 $ 1,725,781 $ 3,657,287 $ 4,431,662 2,027,793 $ 2,382,657 $ - 2,027,79z $ 2~82,6~7, Balance $ 1,025,659 $ 1,282,655 $ 1,629,494 $ 2,049~005 NPV $6,507,223 CIP Need $ 1 ~436~616 Difference/Reserves/Payment Capacity $5~070,607 Annualized $253,530 Source: City o£Livermore; McOill Martin SeI[,, Inc. D-35 SECTION VI - ECONOMIC BENEFIT General Aviation airports, including airport operations, businesses that serve the airport both directly and indirectly, and those businesses that are attracted to an area as a result of the availability of an airport, provide an important and measurable economic benefit to the local economy. Often times, the benefits of general aviation and the airports that serve this con- stituency are overlooked and seen as invisible to the economy. In fact, most general aviation airports in a local community context are seen by the non-users as a detriment due to issues mainly associated with noise and land uses. However, airport flight operations including air- craft used to deliver needed supplies, such as automobile parts and medical equip- ment/supplies, business aircraft used to transport employees to a meeting, transient charter aircraft or recreational flying all provide demand for goods and services. This demand for goods and services result in dollar expenditures to obtain goods and services. These expendi- tures at the local level benefit local businesses, create and sustain jobs, and provide a stream of tax revenue to local government. The purpose of the economic impact assessment is to provide a quantitative measure of the economic impact of Livermore Municipal Airport on the local community. LVK is the only airport serving the Th-Valley area. As such, the airport provides services for recreation, tran- sient and business aircraft as well as flight operations. The methodology presented in this analysis incorporates guidelines established by the Federal Aviation Administration in its publication entitled, Estimating the Regional Significance of Airports. In addition, guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) were applied to the Input/Output multipliers. Pursuant to FAA guidelines, there are four measures of economic impact that should be esti- mated. These include: (1) Gross Revenues - Total annual revenues estimated by the airport and associated direct and indirect operations. (2) Value Added - New output created within the region that results from input supplies and materials processed by labor and management, to produce a product for resale or purchase. (3) Payroll - A value added component representing the payment for the labor involved in creating new output. (4) Employment - The number of jobs estimated to create new output. D-36 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD Economic Multipliers The identified four measures of economic impact are applied to a series of economic activity. Essentially, there are two categories of the economy that are distinct and measurable for pur- poses of this study and include those businesses and industries that provide the economic base and those that serve the residents that live within the local area. Businesses and indus- tries that are part of the base economy are those that create new wealth by drawing in new demand and expenditures (new money). Businesses that serve the local resident population on the other hand merely circulate/exchange money that is already existing in the local econ- omy. LVK functions directly as part of the base economy. The airport, airport tenants, and airport businesses employ local residents; pay salaries and benefits as well as purchase supplies from local businesses in the economy. The airport also functions as a business in the tourism in- dustry (a basic industry) drawing visitors to the area such as flight training students, pilots, and business travelers to the area who spend money in the local economy. The initial spend- ing by these groups, and the recirculated dollars from this spending, has a multiplied effect on the expansion of the local economy. As a side note, LVK's proximity to Silicon Valley, the Oakland MSA, and the growth of the high tech sector emerging in the 1-580 corridor are primary variables supporting the estimated increase in flight operations and tourism that re- sult in future economic growth as a direct result of LVK. It is anticipated that implementation of the Airport Master Plan and elements of this business plan related to fuel service will result in a shift in fuel concession from the City to a full ser- vice FBO. Because the City of Livermore has the sole fuel concession, LVK has been unable to attract a full service FBO. In light of the fuel concession either losing money or making a marginal return for the City, combined with the cost of management and intense labor, the economic impact assumes that an FBO will be contracted at the Airport in the short to me- dium term. As such, an example of the "base economy" is the profile of LVK attracting a full service Fixed Base Operator who would expend dollars at City of Livermore business to ob- tain supplies. An example of the tourism impact from LVK is a flight training student from Korean Air who comes to LVK to train at Sierra Academy and spends $400 a week ($1,600/month) on a hotel, eating at restaurants and recreation. For illustrative purposes, lets assume that the FBO spends $1,500/month on supplies from local businesses. The $1,500 expended by the FBO and the $1,600/month spent by the flight student has a "direct impact" on the local economy. This is new money expended locally that would not have otherwise occurred without LVK. These expenditures in turn support jobs at local businesses, hotels, and restaurants and generate local tax revenue. The new money ex- penditures in the local economy does not stop with "direct impact". These expenditures of new money also have a measurable "indirect impact" on the local economy as the suppliers to local businesses, hotels and restaurants experience increased demand, revenue, add staff and pay taxes as a result of the "direct impact" of new money expenditures. In addition, "induced impacts" result from employees in these businesses who benefit from both the direct and in- D-37 direct economic expansion from new money expenditures. Their buying power increases from additional salaries and they have more money to spend on a full variety of goods and services to support their individual lifestyles as residents in the community. The indirect and induced impacts on the local economy are referred to in economic terms as the "multiplier effect". The "multiplier effect", how many times a dollar circulates through the economy, is estimated in addition to the "direct impact". The use of Input/Output (I/O) models are used to estimate the interrelationship between various sectors in the local econ- omy (retail, hotel, food etc.) and to provide multipliers which compute the estimated "indi- rect impact" and "induced impact" as a result of the direct expenditures. As an example, if the multiplier for office equipment and supplies is 1.4 in Alameda County, then approximately $600 of indirect and induced economic activity is generated from the direct $1,500 expendi- ture by the FBO on supplies as provided in the above example. The total direct and indirect economic impact for each $1,500 spent on supplies by the FBO is estimated at $2,100. Direct Impacts - This is defined as any activity that has an immediate consequence from airport economic activity. This includes activities from airport labor and management as well as other City of Livermore departments that work directly with the airport such as Finance, General Services (ground maintenance and management), fixed base operators (fuel and maintenance), flight schools, charter services, FAA, car rentals, and other tenants with a di- rect involvement in aviation. In essence, these businesses would not exist if it were not for the airport. These entities may be located either on or off site. Employing labor, purchasing local goods and services, and contracting for airport construction and capital improvements are examples of direct impacts. Indirect Impacts - This is defined as the economic activity primarily of those businesses that would still exist if were not for LVK but realize increased economic benefit from the airport. This includes for example, hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and entertainment. An estimate of the number of visitors to the area as a result of LVK is an essential component for measuring indirect impacts as their expenditures at the above mentioned businesses provide the basis to calculate indirect impacts. Induced Impacts - This is defined as the recurring rounds of spending from both the direct and indirect impacts. For example, an instructor at Sierra Academy or a waiter at a local res- taurant living in the area spend their wages in the local economy of groceries, clothing, hous- ing etc. These expenditures induce more jobs and income in the local economy as well. Assumptions Assumptions for estimates of economic impact include some fundamental criteria such as the geographic area selected for the assessment, time, employment and spending estimates, and what is omitted from the analysis. D-38 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD The economic impact analysis was conducted for LVK in the context of the larger Tri-Valley region. Direct, indirect, induced and final demand estimates are computed from the airport with the majority of economic impact assumed to occur in the cities of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton and unincorporated Alameda County (primary and secondary trade areas). The time period for economic impact modeling is typically expressed on an annualized basis. The most recent full year data available is for the year 2000, which was used as the baseline year for the analysis. The estimated future growth is based on available land at LVK to sup- port future flight operations as a result of its designation as an FAA reliever airport and pro- jected flight operations of 350,000 per annum. Non-aviation related uses such as the surrounding hotels, restaurants, the golf course, and vineyards, clearly provide services to and benefit from LVK. The question becomes how much do they benefit and would they still exist and is the economic impact generated from these businesses attributable to LVK. This question is also relevant to non-aviation uses that do not serve or benefit from LVK but merely lease property from the airport. This assess- ment assumes that these businesses would still exist within the area. Perhaps not on LVK land (such as a portion of the golf course) pursuant to FAA guidelines that the airport land would revert back to the federal govermnent if LVK did not exist, but given market condi- tions would none the less exist most likely at different location but still within the area. As such, the economic impact from these uses was not analyzed. Only airport related businesses and operations were included as well as visitor expenditures computed from a percentage of flight operations. The economic impact and jobs generated to non-aviation related businesses that benefit from the airport but would otherwise still exist (car rentals, golf course, restaurants and other retail sales, and hotels) are analyzed through visitor expenditures directly from airport related op- erations and aviation related businesses at LVK. Aviation Uses 'Uses analyzed include employment, expenditures and buying power from each aviation use/user, including city of Livermore airport and general services personnel. The following table provides a description of the list of tenants and number of employees. Wage estimates are aggregated due to confidentiality issues of private business interests. D-39 APPENDIXD AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Direct Impact Table VI-1 Livermore Municipal Airport Operating Expenditures by Airport and Aviation Related Businesses Airport and Airport Related Businesses Aggregated Aggregated Employees % Distribution Aggregated Non-wage Total Direct (FrE) Emplo~yecs Direct Wages Expenditures Expenditures City of Livermore LVK 7 Attitude Aviation 4 California Gyros & Instruments 3 Maintenance Express 4 Ahart Aviation 24 Sierra Academy 30 FAA 13 Total 8.24% 4.71% 3.53% 4.71% 28.24% 35.29% 15.29% 85 100% $ 3,821,290 $ 7,339,000 $ 11,160,290 Table VI-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Visitor Spending Estimates LVK 2000 Operations Arrivals ~ 50% Out of Region ~ 18% ill Average passengers (incl. Pilot) Total Visitors Average Length of Stay (days) Total Visitor Days Averag,e Daily Expenditures Total Estimated Visitor Spending 256,000 128,000 23,040 2.2 50,688 2.25 114,048 $ 185.00 $ 21,098,880 [1] Out of region includes business visitors and those who would not visit ifLVK did not exist. Source: Alameda County; FAA,. City of Livermore; MMS, Inc. D-40 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD Chart VI-I Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Business Employment Distribution D-41 APPENDIX D AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Table VI-3 Livermore Municipal Airport Student Pilot Expenditures Students Students Local Visitor/Long Term Total Students Local Students Average Local Student Visits per annum Total Student Days/I,ocal Average Local spending/day 450 240 690 14 90 n/a 6,300 21,600 27,900 $23.00 $56.66 n/a Total Student Expenditures _$144,900 $1,223,856 $1r368~756 [ 1 ] Includes four classes per year at 60 students/class. [2] Includes divisor for 60 students at class turnover four times/year. Source: Livermore Airport; Sierra Academy; Abaft Aviation; Attitude Aviation; McGill Martin Self, Inc. Table VI-4 Livermore Municipal Airport Direct Airport Expenditure Summary Aviation Related Business Operations [1] Primary Users and Business Visitors Students and Student Visitors [2] Other Expenditures [3] Total Direct Economic Impact [ 1 ] Includes LVK, City of Livermore Enterprise Direct Expenditures 2001 $$$ $ 11,160,290 $ 21,098,880 $ 1,368,756 $ 206,49O $ 33,834,416 [2] Excludes rental income received by Korean Air for student housing [3] Includes taxes, constr, etc. Source: City of Livermore, MMS, Inc. % of Total Expenditures 33.0% 62.4% 4.0% 0.6% 100.0% D-42 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIXD Table VI-5 Livermore Municipal Airport Miscellaneous/Other Expenditures Other Category 2000-2001 Taxes Aircraft $ 72,000 Possessory Interest [1] $ 93,690 Capital Improvement/Construction $ 15,000 Car Rental $ 5,500 Agriculture $ 6,500 Golf Course Contribution $ 13,800 Total $ 206,490 [ 1 ] Airport rental income cap. rate @ 15 to derive possessory interest value. Source: City of Livermore; Alameda County Auditor; MMS, Inc. D -43 APPENDIX D D-44 AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Chart VI-2 Livermore Municipal Airport Airport User Expenditure Distribution AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX D Table VI-6 Livermore Municipal Airport LVK Direct and Indirect Economic Benefit Change in Final Demand LVK Category Sector Final Demand Output Total Output OnpuO (OutpuO ~New $$$~ Multiplier Direct & indirect Aviation Related Businesses Wages and Salaries Private ltouseholds $ 3,488,456 1.0567 $ 3,686,251 Benefits Health Services $ 222,650 1.831 $ 407,672 Subcontractors Personal and Repair Services $ 850,000 1.8207 $ 1,547,595 Insurance Insurance $ 123,000 2.2244 $ 273,601 Cost of Goods & Fuel Wholesale Trade, Transportation $ 2,979,000 1.7055 $ 5,080,685 Services and Supplies Wholesale Trad% Transportation $ 3~49%184 1.6888 $ 5~906r044 Sub-Total $ I 1~160~290 1.5145 $ 16r901t849 Primary Users and Business Visitors Food and Beverages Eating and Drinking Places $ 7,806,275 1.6835 13,141,865 Transportation Transportation $ 2,487,558 1.796 4,467,654 Shopping. Souvenirs etc, Retail Trade $ 2,109,888 1.6546 3,491,021 Lodging Hotels and Lodging $ 7,595,597 1.9315 14,670,895 Personal Services Personal and Repair Sca-vices $ 1,054,944 1.8207 1,920,737 Communication Communication $ 43,872 1.639 71,907 Sub-Total $ 2 lr098t880:00 1.7899 37z7764t078 Students and Student Visitors Food and Beverages Eating and Drinking Places 479,065 1.6835 806,505 Transportation Transportation 136,876 1.796 245,829 Shopping, Souvenirs etc. Retail Trade 492,752 1.6546 815,308 Personal Services Personal and Repair Services 164,251 1.8207 299,051 Communication Communication 27,375 1.639 44,868 Recreation Hotels and Lodging 68,438 1.9315 132,188 Sub:rotal $ 1~368r756 1.7123 2r343~748 Other Taxes Aircraft Local Government $ 72,000 1.9822 142,718 Taxes Possessory Interest Local Government $ 93,690 1.9822 185,712 Capital Improvement/Construction Construction $ 15,000 1.7756 26,634 Car Rental Transportation $ 5,500 1.769 9,730 Agriculture Local Government $ 6,500 1.9822 12,884 Goll'Course Contribution Local Government $ 13~800 1.9822 27r354 Sub-Total $ 206~490 405~033. ..... GRAND TOTAL ~ $ 33~834~416 ........ $7~414~708 Source: FAd; BEd; MMS, Inc. D-45 APPENDIXD AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Table VI-7 Livermore Municipal Airport LVK Direct and Indirect Job Creation Change in LVK Category Sector Final Demand Aviation Reluted Businesses Wages and Salaries Private Households $ 3,488,456 Benofits Health Services $ 222,650 Subcontractors Personal and Repair Services $ 850,000 Insurance Insurance $ 123,000 Cost o£Goods & Fuel Wholesale Trade, Transportation $ 2,979,000 Services and Supplies Wholesale Trade~.Tra,.nsportation $ ~t497~184 Sub:l'otal $ 11,160,290 Final Demand Employment Multiplier Total Jobs 8~2 29 15.5 3 27.7 24 14.7 2 10.7 32 12 42 131 Primary U~rs and Business Visitors Food and Beverages Eating and Drinking Places $ 7,806,275 23.5 183 Transpotiation Transportation $ 2,487,558 11 27 Shopping, Souvenirs etc. Retail Trade $ 2,109,888 17.8 38 Lodging Hotels and Lodging $ 7,595,597 18.4 140 Personal Services Personal and Repair Services $ 1,054,944 27.7 29 Communication Communication $ 43~872 5.9 0.26 Sub-Total $ 21 ~098~880.00 418 Students and Student Visitors Food and Beverages Eating and Drinking Places 479,065 23.5 11 Transportation Transportation 136,876 11 2 Shopping, Souvenirs etc... Retail Trade 492,752 17.8 9 Personal Services Personal and Repair Services 164,251 18.4 3 Communication Communication 27,375 5.9 0.16 Recreation Hotels and Lodging 68,438 18.4 1 Sub-Total $ 1~368,756 26 Other Taxes Aircraft Local Government $ 72,000 9.8 0.71 Taxes Possessory Interest Local Government $ 93,690 9.8 0.92 Capital Improvement/Co nstraction Construction $ 15,000 12.9 0.19 Car Rental Transportation $ 5,500 11 0.06 Agriculture Local Government $ 6,500 9.8 0.06 Golf CourSe Contribution Local Government $ 13,800 9.8 0.14 Sub-Total $ 206t490 2 GRAND TOTAI, $ 33~834~416 577 Source: FA~t; BEll; MMS, Inc. D-46 HUTT MOEN IS 80 C I AT E S I Services to the Aviation Industry: I* Planning · Engineering . Management I I i i I I I I i I 1 707 AVIATION BLVD, ~,NTA ROSA, CA 95403 ITEL: (707)52&5010 ATTACHMENT March 23, 2001 Mr. Leander Hauri, A.A.E. Airport Manager Livermore Municipal Airport 1052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore, California 94550-4899 SUBJECT: Aviation Fuel Services Analysis Livermore Municipal Airport Dear Mr. Hauri: The scope of services for the master plan study of Livermore Municipal Air- port includes the following task: Fuel Management -- Consultant shall evaluate and compare the annual expenditures of staff and equipment committed to providing fueling ser- vices, and estimate an average annual fuel flowage fee required to offset the cost of the City providing this service, with the same amount of annu- al contribution to the revenue of the airport. The evaluation shall make recommendations to the City of the benefits of either retaining the sole fueling rights or issuing fuel concessions to others. This analysis was specifically requested by Airport management to assist the City in determining the most appropriate manner in which to provide aviation fuel services at Livermore Municipal Airport. Documented herein are the findings and conclusions of our analysis. The analysis reflects our discussions with Airport staff as well as financial projec- tions provided by the City/Airport. In addition, several area fixed base operators (FBOs) and airport managers were contacted for a regional perspective on airport fueling issues and opportunities. Our evaluation of I.ivermore Municipal. Airport's existing fuel. services capability yielded the following observations: The City/Airport is currently the sole and exclusive supplier/dispenser of aviation fuel (both Jet A & 100LL) on the field. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines such sole source aeronautical activities conducted on-airport by the airport owner as a proprietary exclusive. SHUTT MOEN ASSOCIATES Mr, Leander Hauri March 23, 2001 Page 2 Operational experience indicates that City/Airport staff is unable to properly attend to airport facilities and grounds maintenance responsibilities due to the high volume and workload involved in fueling. Cross-utilization of airport employees is no longer possible. Airport maintenance work has to be performed by City/Airport staff on an. overtime and/or temporar3, basis, or it has to be contracted out to the private sector because of time constraints. This approach is very costly and is only capable of responding to corrective maintenance demands. The effect of neglecting hangar maintenance already reflects poorly on customer service and may result in costly repairs in the near future. The Airport has been unable to attract quality, multi-service FBO(s), corporate jet centers, etc., to the Airport because historically, the City/Airport has chosen not to relinquish any fueling rights or concessions to FBO(s). To attract quality FBO(s) to an airport such as Livermore Municipal Airport, it is generally acknowledged within the industry that the FBO(s) will need to offer fueling services (Jet A and 100LL) to both its based and transient customers. The sale of fuel is the principal source of operating revenue for most FBO(s) -- particularly those FBO(s) serving the growing transient corporate aircraft market. The Airport needs at least one quality FBO that is oriented towards servicing the needs of the transient corporate aircraft market. A multi- service FBO of this type typically provides aircraft fueling service, line services, aircraft parking/storage, pilot/passenger waiting area(s), and aircraft repair/maintenance. The City currently provides only limited aviation-related services and does not meet the increasing demands of corporate customers and their aircraft. Current Airport tenants also lack the necessary aviation support facilities to serve this growing market. Airport staff is currently developing a set of Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronatical Activities which will define and regulate the scope of services and facilities required to operate an FBO at the Airport. In response to these issues, the following three fuel service scenarios were ex- plored as part of this analysis: Airport owner provides all on~airport fuel service -- This is the "status quo':' condition at Livermore Municipal Airport. Airport owner and FBO(s) split on-airport fuel service -- This is a relatively rare arrangement within the airport industry. The most likely split would have the FBO(s) providing fuel service on their own respective I I I I I I I I I i i I i I I SHUTT MOEN I Mr. Leander Hauri March 23, 2001 Page 3 leaseholds and the Airport providing fuel service on all public aprons cluding the self-service fuel island in front of the public terminal). This scenario could be in effect for a transitional period of time (e.g., 2 to 5 years) or it could be a permanent arrangement. The "transitional" scenario could be used to permit new multi-service FBO(s) the time necessary to establish their presence and economic viability on the airport. After a reasonable period of time (e.g., 2 to 5 years), all fueling rights and capability on the airport could be transferred to the now established FBO(s). · FBO(s) provide all on-airport fuel service -- In this scenario, private- sector FBO(s) would provide all fuel service on the Airport. FBO(s) would have full rights to fuel aircraft on their own leaseholds, and they would also have equal fuel servicing rights on the Airport's public aprons. Nationwide, this scenario is the most prevalent form of fueling service at airports similar in size and operational role to Livermore Municipal Airport. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these three scenarios are de- tailed in Exhibit A. Airport staff has indicated a preference for the second scenario -- the airport owner and FBO(s) split on-airport fuel service -- for a transitional period of time. Airport staff proposes to issue on-airport fuel service concessions to the private-sector to better attract and ultimately facilitate development of quality multi-service FBO(s). A reasonable fuelflowage fee (per gallon of fuel sold) would be implemented to be paid to the Airport by the FBO(s). The fuel flowage fee paid by the FBO(s) to the Airport would be used by the Airport to support airport operations, maintenance, and development and would, in effect, replace the profit currently being generated by the Airport's proprietary fuel service activity. The FBO(s) would be responsible for constructing their own fuel storage and dispensing facilities on their leasehold(s). In addition, smaller FBO's (e.g., Attitude and Sierra) would be permitted to use the Airport fuel farm and pay a fuel farm users fee plus the fuel flowage fee. The fuel farm users fee would pay for the incremental cost to the Airport of operating, maintaining, and replacing the Airport's bulk fuel storage facility. Alternatively, the existing City/Airport-owned bulk fuel storage facility and dispensing equipment could be sold or leased to the new multi-service SHUTT MOEN ASSOCIATES Mr. Leander Hauri March 23, 2001 Page 4 FBO(s). This transferal of the Airport's bulk fuel storage and dispensing facilities could occur during the transitional period. The Airport's existing bulk fuel storage facility was constructed in 1992 and is estimated to have a total useable life of 25-30 years. The 1992, the City estimated that the replacement value of the fuel facility and fuel island was $1.3 million. This amount seems high and may include additional costs incurred in the clean-up and environmental ~nitigation of the former fuel storage facility. A replacement cost of $1.0 million is assumed for the expense calculations used in Exhibit B. Under the split airport owner/FBO(s) fueling scenario, FBO(s) would have the exclusive right to fuel on their leased premises only, allowing the City/Airport to serve all other areas and transient customers utilizing the public parking apron. The Airport would continue to operate the self-service fuel island in front of the public terminal. The smaller number of City/Airport staff required under this scenario would permit the more effective cross-utilization of Airport personnel while maintaining public fuel services on the airport. Airport staff estimates that the associated savings in reduced use of over-time and part-time personnel and lower equipment costs could be in excess of $100,000 per year. Airport staff proposes to maintain its public fuel services including the termi- nal self-service island until the new multi-service FBO(s) is established and the revenue from ground rent and fuel flowage fees surpasses the Airport's original fuel revenue. It is anticipated that these levels of "replacement" revenue should be generated by the FBO(s) rather fast, perhaps as quickly as within two years, since the net fueling revenue to the City/Airport is not that substantial --projected to be approximately $37,651 in FY 2000/2001 (see Exhibit B). Implementation of the above actions would: Enable the Airport to better fulfill the demand of Airport users and re- gional businesses through increased on-airport competition and a greater array of aeronautical services; Permit the Airport to better maintain its primary assets and improve cus- tomer service (i.e., function as an Airport proprietor and landlord and not as an FBO); and I I I I i I i I I I I I I I i SHUTT MOEN ASSOCIATE Mr. Leander Hauri March 23, 2001 Page 5 Increase Airport revenue through the leasing of airport land to quality, multi-service FBO(s); implementation of fuel flowage fees and fuel farm user fees; and participation in other enhanced FBO revenues (e.g., percentage of gross, aircraft sales, etc.). Exhibit B reflects the current "status quo" airport fuel service condition at Livermore Municipal Airport (i.e., the airport owner provides all on-airport fuel service). Exhibit B compares the projected (FY 2000/2001) annual ex- penditures of Airport staff and equipment committed to providing fueling ser- vices versus the projected revenue to be gained. This comparison yields a pro- jected net operating profit of approximately $.06 per gallon of fuel sold at the Airport. Should the City decide to transfer all or a portion of the on-airport fueling services to the private sector, the combined fueling-related revenue (i.e., FBO fuel flowage fees, new FBO leasehold fees, enhanced Airport services, etc.) should be adjusted so as to initially equal and ultimately surpass this amount. The decision as to which fueling scenario would best serve Livermore Municipal Airport is, for the most part, subjective and based upon local needs and perspectives. Airports throughout the nation have developed and prospered using either the airport owner-only fueling scenario or the FBO(s)- only fueling scenario. It is very. rare to see a split airport owner/FBO¢) fueling arrangement that is established on a pertnanent basis. In the airport owner-only fueling scenario, all of the profit and all of the cost and liability exposure accrue to the airport owner. The airport owner is responsible for providing virtually all of the customer amenities and services required--particularly for transient aircraft operators. The FBO(s) who remain are typically smaller, limited, and more specialized in thei,' service capabilities. In the FBO(s)-only fueling scenario, all of the profit, all of the cost, and most of the liability exposure accrue to the FBO(s). However, a significant portion of the airport owner's "lost" profit is .typically recouped through the development of fir~ancially stronger, higher quality FBO(s) paying more substantial ground lease rates, fuel flowage fees, and other enhanced fees. At Livermore Municipal Airport, the profit generated through City/Airport fuel sales is relatively small (approximately $38,450 in year 2000~. This amount could easily be recouped through a fuel flowage fee paid by a thriving multi-service FBO..Additional cost that would have to be covered by Airport operational revenues would include the personnel costs associated with the SHUTT MOEN ASSOCIATES Mr. Leander Hauri March 23, 2001 Page 6 I former City/Airport fueling staff now serving full-time as City/Airport operational/maintenance staff. It is our opinion that the Airport should ultimately pursue the FBO(s)-only fueling scenario. However, there are distinct advantages to the split airport owner/FBO(s) for the short term (see Exhibit A). We believe that the FBO industry serving the high quality, transient corporate aircraft market would react favorably to such an arrangement--provided that the arrangement was for a short, transitional period only (i.e., 2 to 5 years). We further believe that significant growth of this customer market at Livermore Municipal Airport is some five years away. increasing delays, costs, and hassles at major airports (in particular, Bay Area air carrier airports) are forcing more and more companies to use corporately owned and/or "fractional" aircraft to meet their corporate air transportation requirements. The users of transient corporate aircraft will eventually discover Livermore Municipal Airport as a desirable alternative to the crowded Bay Area airports. It is imperative that Livermore Municipal Airport be properly positioned and equipped to efficiently accommodate this increased based and transient aircraft user demand. We trust that this information will prove useful to you and the City/Airport as you further explore your on-airport fuel service options. Sincerely, David B. Heal, A.A,E. Senior Consultant DBH:a Attachments cc: Tom Williams N:\Clients\LVK\Corres\LVK. Itr Hauri fuel svcs analysis.doc Exhibit A Analysis of Airport Fuel Service Options Livermore Municipal Airport The following is an analysis of airport fuel service options applicable to Livermore Municipal Airport (LVK). AIRPORT OWNER PROVIDES AIJJ ON-AIRPORT FUEL SERVICE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Greater Airport control of fuel service levels and fuel pricing. Airport avoids FBO(s) credit/bank problems leading to FBO(s) failure and possibility of FBO(s) being unable to supply fuel to public. Potentially permits cross-utilization of airport fuel personnel for airport maintenance, operations, security, ARFF, etc. (Not currently achievable at LVK due to high fueling workload.) Potential for Airport to gain all fueling revenue (if service is performed cost- effectively). Fueling is typically a private commercial function outside of public airport ministration duties. FBO(s) having fueling rights typically en- courages better quality FBO(s) that are able to offer a wider array of aviation support ser~ vices. If the Airport provides all fuel service, better quality, full-service FBO(s) may not be able to thrive at the airport. FBO(s) without fueling rights tend to be smaller and more specialized. In addition they typically do not provide the services and amenities (e.g., pilot/passenger waiting areas) desired by transient aircraft operators. Airport owner is responsible for providing appropriate facilities, services, and amenities desired by transient aircraft operators. increased liability exposure. Requires continuing airport capital funds for eventual replacement of existing fueling facilities/equipment, development of expanded bulk fuel storage facilities, fuel dispensing equipment, replacement of refueler trucks, etc. Higher salary and benefits costs for Airport employees (versus lower private sector costs). Higher cost of Airport employees' training and licensing (versus lower private sector costs). AIRPORT OWNER AND FBO(s) SPLIT ON-AIRPORT FUEL SERVICE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Allows Airport to continue earning fuel revenue, both through direct sales and through fuel flowage fees from FBO(s). Typically results in higher quality, economical- ly stronger FBO(s) who are capable of offering a wider range of services to the public. Profitable fueling service helps to sup- port other less profitable, but requires FBO services (e.g., customer amenities, apron areas, etc.). Ability to share fuel farm with smaller FBO(s). Ensures that public fuel will always be avail- able if FBO(s) are unable to supply/dispense. Still utilizes a limited number of higher cost Airport employees (salary and benefits costs versus private sector costs). Potential disparate fuel pricing issues (competition between Airport and private sector). Shared use of fueling services and facilities may result in higher administrative costs. Shared fueling market 0.e., airport operator versus private sector FBO) may not be attractive to a quality, transient oriented FBO. FBO(s) PROVIDE ALL ON-AIRPORT FUEL SERVICE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Airport is not involved in day-to-day op- erations/maintenance of fueling service. May result in higher quality, economically stronger FBO(s) who are capable of offering a wider range of services to the public. Profitable fueling service helps to support oth- er less prefitable but required FBO services (e.g., customer amenities, apron areas, etc.). Simplified administration and collection of fuel flowage fee revenue accruing to Airport. FBO(s) primarily responsible for liability cxposure associated with fueling. Competitive fueling among FBO(s) and nearby airports likely to result in lower prices. Airport staff can dedicate their full attention to airport-related operational and maintenance duties. Seven-day Airport employee workweek not required resulting in lower personnel costs. If FBO(s) fail, public fuel supply may not be available. A substantial portion of fueling profits goes to FBO(s) -- but this should result in higher quality, multi-service FBO(s) paying higher ground lease rates, percentage fee, and fuel flowage fees. Exhibit B Airport Fuelinp Analvsis Projected Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Livermore Municipal Airport The following analysis reflects the current "status quo" airport fuel service condition -- the Airport provides all aviation fueling services on airport property. No other entity provides aviation fuel on airport property. The analysis is based upon aviation fueling-related expense and revenue projections generated by the City of Livermore. Proiected Annual Operating Expenses (Fuel and Oil) ~ Cost of Sales (Fuel and Ot ) ............................................................................................ $ 799,700 ~ Fueling Personnel (Including Personnel Service)2 ..................................................................... 334,870 97,979 ~ Cost of Sales (Other3/Miscellaneous)~ ....................................................................................... 2,000 , Fueling-related insurance ........................................................................................................... 110,000 ~ Amortization/Replacement of Fuel Storage/Dispensing Facilities and Equipmen¢ .. ~ TOTAL ......................................................... $1,~44,549 It should be noted that the above projected operating expenses do not reflect the lost rental income from airport property utilized for fuel storage and dispensing facilities. projected Annual Operating Revenuess (Fuel and Oil) Sale of Fuel (626,000 Gallons ~ $2.19/Gallon) ........................................................................ $ 1,374,000 Sale of Oil (2,600 Quarts ~ $3.27/Quart) ................................................................................. .- 9,000 TOTAL ................ $ 1,383,000 Projected Annual Operating Profit (Fuel and Oil) .............................................................................. $ 38,451 Projected Annual Operating Profit (Fuel&Oil) $38,451 Projected Annual Gallons of Fuel Dispensed~' 626,000 - $0.06 per gallon dispensed NOTES: ~ Source: City of Livermore, Future Year Expenditure Budget Worksheet. 2 Source: City of Livermore, Two-Year Financial Plan, FY 2000-2002 -~ Includes O&M costs of one City-owned refueler truck and three leased refueler trucks. 4 Calculated on the basis of $1,000,000 investment over a 25-year useful life at 10% compounded interest -~ Source: City of Livermore, Airport Revenue Projections. 6 Limited effect of oil sales does not significantly change final value. Appendix E Airport Protection Area 191ap F:-I Airport Plan Drawings I® '11 ~ ~ ~, . . ~ , ~ I + + / I I I I ~TI 0 ~'~) r ......................... SEE SHEET 1 I i I --+++--+++ +++~_~+ iTl 1 I II , I I I I I ! I ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore. CA 94550-4899 Ph: (925) 960-4000 Fax: (925) 960-4058 TDD (925) 960-4104 www, ci,livermore.ca,us MAYOR / COUNCIL Ph: 960-40I(I · Fax: 960-4025 CITV MANAGER Ph: 960-4040 · Fax: 960-4045 CITY ATTORNEY Ph: 960-4150 · Fax: 960-4180 RISK MANAGEMENT Ph: 960-4170 ,, Fax: 960-4180 CITY CLERK Ph: 960-4200 . Fax: 960-4205 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ph: 960-4400 · Fax: 960-4459 Bnlldtng Division Ph: 960-4410 . Fax: 960-4419 Engineering Division Ph: 960-4500 · Fax: 960-4505 tIonstug & Human Services Divisiou Ph: 960-4580 ° la'ax; 960-4149 Planning Division Ph: 960-4450 · Fax: 960-4459 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ph: 960-4140 · Fax: 960-4149 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Ph: 960-4300 · Fax: 960-4309 FIRE DEPARTMENT 4550 East Avenue Ph: 454-2361 · Fax: 454-2367 LIBRARY 1000 S. Livennore Avenue Ph: 373-5500 · Fax: 373-5503 PERSONNEL Ph; 960-4100 · Fax: 960-4105 POLICE DEPARTMENT 1110 S. Livcrmore Avenue Ph: 371-4900 ° Fax: 371-4950 TDD 371-4982 PUBLIC SERVICES 3500 Robertson Park Rd, Ph: 960-8000 · Fax: 960-8005 Airport Division 636 Terminal Circle Ph: 373-5280 ° Fax: 373-5042 Golf Course Division 909 Clubhouse Drive Ph: 373-5239 · Fax: 373-5203 Mainteaance Division 3500 Robertson Park Rd. Ph: 960-8020 · Fax: 960-8025 I~ater Resources Division 101 W. Jack London Blvd. Ph: 960-8100 · Fax: 960-8105 CITY OF LIVERMORE DATE: March 9, 2004 TO: Public Agencies FROM: City of Livermore Planning Division Review of City of Livermore Municipal Airport 2004 Master Plan Update and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Enclosed is a copy of the 2004 Airport Master Plan Update and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Master Plan and Airport rezoning for your review and comment. The City of Livermore Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the following applications and required environmental documents on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, beginning at 7:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers located at 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California. These items have also been tentatively scheduled for review by the Livermore City Council on Monday, June 7, 2004, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers located at 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California. 1. Special Implementation Plan (SIP) 04-001 - 2004 Airport Master Plan Update, including proposed operational and facility improvements through 2020. 2. General Zoning Change Text T-00-301 - Establishment of new Airport (AIR) Zoning District, including development standards and permitted aviation uses. 3. General Zoning Change Map Z-00-557 - Rezoning of MuniciPal Airport operations and facilities areas to new Airport (AIR) Zoning District. The above referenced projects have been determined not to have a potential for significant environmental impact and are proposed to be issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Livermore is the lead agency for receiving comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The starting date for the review period is March 10, 2004, and the ending date for the review period is April 8, 2004. ATTACHMENT 5 Livermore Municipal Airport March 9, 2004 Page 2 Additional copies of the environmental document are available during this period at the City of Livermore Cormnunity Development Department located at 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California, and the Livermore Mmficipal Airport, located at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, California, and the Civic Center Public Library located at 1000 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California. The project applications are available for review at the City of Livermore Community Development Department, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore. If you challenge the action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written comment at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the City of Livemaore Planning Division at (925) 960-4450. Sincerely, Jennifer Craven Associate Planner Enclosures: 1) 2004 Airport Master Plan Update for Livermore Municipal Airport 2) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 2004 Airport Master Plan Update and Airport Rezoning MITIGATED FOR THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL MASTER PLAN ,UPDATE LSA February 2004 (CEQA) AI'RPORT NOTICE OF INTENT (CEQA) TO ADOPT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 2004 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND AIRPORT REZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS TO: INTERESTED PERSONS & AGENCIES FROM: CITY OF LIVERMORE SUBJECT: Notice of Completion of an Initial Study LEAD CEQA AGENCY: ' City of Live,-more Planning Division 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livcnuore, CA 94550 Contacts: Jennifer Craven, Associate Planner Leander Hauri, Airport Manager CEQA I~NITIAL STUDY (!,.S) Notice is hereby given that the Initial Study resulting m a corresponding Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 2004 Airport Master Plan Update and Airport Rezoning Map and Text Amendments in the City of Livermore is complete and available for public review and comment. A brief summary of the proposed project and anticipated environmental effects is provided below. Project Location: Consisting of 39 separate parcels comprising 643-acres, the project site is generally located south of the Interstate 580, north of Jack London Boulevard, west of the Isabel Avenue (SR 84), and east of E1 Charro Road. CONSULTING FIRM: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Contact: Judith Malamut, Associate Proposed Project: The City of Livermore proposes an update to the 1975 Airport Master.Plan (i.e., 2004 Airport Master Plan Update), as well as Airport rezoning text and map amendments. The 2004 Airport Master Plan Plans for operational and safety improvements needed in order to adequately accommodate forecasted increases in aircraft operations and based aircraft at the Municipal Airport through 2020. Aircraft operations are forecast to increase from a 2001 base of 257,500 to 370,000 by 2020. Based aircraft are forecast to increase from a 2001 base of 594 to 898 by 2020. In order to adequately manage'the forecasted aircraft · operations, the secondary runway (7R-25L), primarily utilized when the main nmway (7L-25R) is down for maintenance, is proposed to be extended 1,301-feet, for a total runway length of 4,000-feet. No change is proposed for the pr/mary runway beyond routine maintenance. Other operational improvements include: Construction of a new secondary runway taxiway; new runway safety areas; installation of secondary runway and taxiway lights; acquisition of eight-acres for additional aircraft flight protection; construction of 1.16 m/Ilion square feet of fixed based operator and storage hangar space; and, 107,950 square feet of aviation- related office space. The rezoning map and text amendments w/Il establish a new Airport (AIR) zoning district for the 393-acres at the Airport that support the aircraft operation and safety areas, as well as aircraft hangars, maintenance, and office areas. The A/rport d/strict will be subdivided/nto two subdistricts; Airport-operations (AIR-OP) and Airport-Serv/ce (AI~-SE), each with separate development standards and permitted aviation uses. Significant Environmental Effects of the Project: The IS/MND concluded impacts related to implementation of the project for 2~iological Resources, Cultural t~esources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology/17~ater Quality were found to be potentially significant, but could be rmtigated to less-than-significant levels w/th the m/tigation measures identified in the IS/M31D. Other potential environmental impacts were found to be less-than-significant. Public Comment Period: Public comments on the IS/MND w/Il be accepted by the City of Liverrnore from March 10, 2004 though April 8, 2004. Where to Find the IS: The IS/MND is available for renew at the City of Livermore Community Development Department located at 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA, 94550, the Livermore Municipal A/rport located at 636 Terminal Circle, Liverrnore, CA, 94551, and the Civic Center Public Library located at 1000 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA, 94550. Reference Documents: The technical documents referenced in the IS/MND are available at the City of Livermore, Community Development Department located at 1052 South Livermore AVenue, Livermore, CA, 94550. Address for Submitting Comments: Comments on the IS should be mailed or faxed to: Jennifer Craven Associate Planner City of Livermore 1052 South Livermore A/renue Livermore, CA 94550 fax: (925) 960-4459 Date Linda Barton, City Manager City of Livermore MITIGATED FOR THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CEQA) LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE Prepared for: City of Livermore Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 540-7331 State Clearinghouse No: LSA February 2oozf TABLE OF CONTENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST . 1 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION ............................................... 1 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................. 7 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................... 16 D. REPORT PREPAKATION, REFERENCES, AND CONTACTS .................... 61 FIGURES 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: Regional Location and Project Vicinity ...................... ' ........................ 2 2004 Airport Property and General Plan Designations ............................... '... 4 2004 Airport Property and Zoning Designations ........................... : ........... 5 Proposed Airport Rezoning ....................................................... 6 Airport Layout Plan ............................................................. 9 Analyzed Building Locations ..................................................... 23 TABLES I- 1: Maximum Building Height ........................................................ 24 TECHNICAL APPENDICES APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. 1-580 SCENIC CORRIDOR ANALYSIS CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTATION INFOKMATION GENERAL PLAN AIRPORT POLICIES AND GENERAL PLAN EiR MITIGATION MEASURES LSA A$$OCIAT£$, iNC. Fir {{RUAR¥ LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This page intentionally left blank. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SUMMARY INFORMATION Project Title: Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, General Zoning Change Text Amendment, and General Zoning Change Map Amendment Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Livermore Community Development Department 1052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 Contact Persons and Phone Number: Jennifer Craven Leander Hauri, A.A.E. Associate Planner Airport Manager Phone: (925) 960-4450 Phone: (925) 373-5280 Project Location: Address: 636 Terminal Circle General: The regional location and vicinity of the Livcrmore Airport is shown on Figure 1. The project site is located in the Livermore-Amador Valley in Alameda County. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 580 Cl-580) via Airway Boulevard. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Leander Hauri~ A.A.E. Airport Manager City of Livermore Municipal Airport 636 Terminal Circle Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 373-5280 p:~,,~2~o~ ~b~ f~.~.tv,, 1~15 ~bllc P.,~,,n~ ~3~o4)PUBLIC REVIEW DP./IF~ 1 PROJECT LOCATION LSA SOURCE: CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION 1996; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2001. FIGURE Livermore Municipal Airport Initial Stud3/F, nvironmental Assessment Regional Location and Project Vicinity i:\IMAGES\GRAPHICS~JOBS\CLV132 LIYERMOKE AIRPORTkFIGUKES~IS~IO_i,AI (07118102) LSA A$SOCIATES~ INC. F£BRUARY 2004 LIVERMOR£ MUNICIPbL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NI'~'GATIVE DECLARATION 6. General Plan Designation: General Plan Designation: Community Facilities (CF-AIR), Open Space (OSP), Limited Agriculture (LDAG), Business and Commercial Park (BCP) Zoning Designation: Education and Institutions (E) District, Open Space-Agriculture (OS-A), Light Industrial (I-2), Open Space-Flood Plain (OS-F), Planned Development (PD), Commercial Highway Service (CHS) Overlay Zone: Airport Protection Area (APA) 2004 General Plan designations are shown in Figure 2. 7. Zoning: Currently, six zoning districts encompass the entire Airport site, per the City'of Livermore Zoning Map (Figure 3). The entire site is wholly owned by the City. The facility/operations portion of the Airport is zoned "Education and Institutions" (E). The E district generallY allows public and quasi-public uses, including those associated with airfield activities. A two-acre portion of the Airport property located directly south of Airway Boulevard and west of Isabel Avenue (also known as Kitty Hawk Road) is zoned Light Industrial (1-2). This site currently supports several non-aviation uses in two separate buildings. The 1-2 district generally allows administrative facilities, research institutions, and non-nuisance manufacturing uses. Airport parcels to the west of the runways are zoned "open Space-Agriculture"(OS-A) and "Planned Development" (PD). Airport parcels east of Isabel Avenue are also zoned PD. The open space districts generally allow agricultural commodity production, grazing, and forestry uses. The PD district allows uses consistent with the underlying General Plan designation and provides flexibility in development standards so that the physical characteristics of the site arc considered and incorporated into the site's development. A 2.5-acre, undeveloped parcel located at the southeast comer of the Airway Boulevard and Kitty Hawk Road is zoned Commercial Highway Service (CHS). The CHS district allows uses that serve the traveling public and convention trade (i.e., lodging, food services, and motor fuels). North of this parcel and directly south ofi-580 is another 2.5-acre parcel zoned PD. Directly south of the 2.5-acre CHS-zoned parcel is the Arroyo Las Positas that traverses through this portion of the Airport property and lies within an approximately three-acre parcel designated Open Space- Floodplain (OS-F). An additional 6.4-acre undeveloped parcel zoned PD is located directly south of the Arroyo Las Positas and north of East Airway Boulevard. The existing zoning designations are shown in Figure 3 and proposed zoning is shown in Figure 4. .< 0 0 0 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Livermore Municipal Airport is located in Livermore, California, approximately three miles northwest of Downtown Livermore and approximately two miles east of the City of Pleasanton, see Figure 1. The project site is located immediately south of the Las Positas Municipal Golf Course and Airway Boulevard. Kitty Hawk Road and light industrial office uses border the project site to the north and east. West Jack London Boulevard and vacant/agricultural uses border the project site to the south. The Livennore Water Reclamation Plant is adjacent to the Airport property on the southeast comer. 1-580 and Arroyo Las Positas nm parallel to the Livermore Airport on the north side. Residential uses are to the east and southeast in Livermore and the extreme west in Pleasanton. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) · Federal Aviation Administration · Bay Area Air Quality Management Dislrict · Airport Land Use Commission of Alameda County · Congestion Management Agency of Alameda County · Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region · California Deparunent of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics * City of Livermore B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves an update of the Master Plan for the Livermore Municipal Airport (here- after referred to as the Airport), a General Zoning Change Text Amendment, and a General Zoning Change Map Amendment to implement the updated Master Plan. The Master Plan Update was prepared by Mead & Hunt, formerly Shutt Moen Associates. The Master Plan Update addresses further development of the Airport that would include: development of additional hangar space, office space, limited commercial services directly supporting aviation uses (commercial services); an extension of Runway 7R-25L (the Airport's secondary nmway); creation of a southern parallel taxiway; and other maintenance and safety related airfield improvements. The objectives for implementing the project are to construct facilities (hangars, fueling stations, etc.) to adequately accommodate an anticipated increase in aviation demand (storage, in and out flights, etc.) at the Airport by the year 2020. Implementation of the Master Plan Update aims to relieve anticipated aircraft congestion through 2020, based on aviation trends influenced by industry growth, nearby airports, surrounding airspace, anticipated regional growth, and the Airport's role in the region. Implementation of the Plan does not encourage increased operations (e.g., based aircraft storage, in and out flights, etc.). Figure 5 illustrates the proposed Airport Layout Plan. ~',c~vl32~4 l'~bi~ Rr,4~ ~sus I~l~l~e II~,,t..~l (2~3~o4) PUBLIC REFIEWDR.4FT '] LSA ASSOCIATI~$. INC. F£~IIIUARY ~004 INITIAL The proposed Zoning Text Amendment will implement General Plan policy by establishing an Airport D/strict (AIR) that will provide for aviation and aviation oriented uses and will establish development standards for this district. The Airport District will be divided into two subdistricts; Airport-Operations (AIR-OP) and Airport-Service (AIR-SE), each with separate development standards and permitted aviation uses. The Zoning Map Amendment will amend the City Zoning Map by redesignating the active facilities and operations portions of the Airport from the Education and Institutions (E) zoning district to the new Airport zoning district. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Master Plan Update, Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. The IS/MND provides background information about the project site, a description of the proposed project, and an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts based on established significance criteria per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND specifically addresses the potential program-level physical environmental impacts that may result from the Master Plan Update, rezoning and related projects. Additional environmental review may be necessary as individual projects related to the Master Plan Update and rezoning are implemented. The recently adopted City of Livermore 2003 General Plan contains goals, objectives and policies that describe and address operations and govern maximum development parameters at the Airport. Policy CIR-8.1.P 1 states that future development and operations at the Municipal Airport shall be in conformance with an approved master plan. Proposed land uses within the Master Plan, maximum development intensity and density, and the following maximum growth assumptions were explicitly included in the General Plan (under Policy CIR-8.1.P1) and analyzed in the 2003 Environmental Impact Report (2003 EIR) on the General Plan as follows:' · To the greatest extent feasible, jet flights shall be restricted to approximately five percent of the total annual aircraft operations. · To the greatest extent feasible, annual aircraft operations shall not exceed 370,000 flights in any given year, including itinerant and local operations. · To the greatest extent feasible, the total number of aircraft to be stored/parked at the Municipal Airport shall not exceed 900 in any given year, including hangar and apron space areas. · No more than 60-percent of the Airport area designated Community Facility-Airport (CF-AIR) shall be covered with impervious surfaces, including but not limited to, buildings, taxiways, runways, parking areas, fuel areas, and wash areas. · Night-time flights between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be discouraged to the greatest extent feasible. ' LSA Associates Inc. 2003. Livermore Draft General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report: Volume I Master Environmental Assessment, Volume II Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Technical ,4ppendices, Volume III Final EIR - Responses to Comments. ~,:~,13~4 ~bli¢ I~q~ I$xl~ ~bti= mn. lmk.n~d (~/1~/04) PUBLIC REI/I'EF/D.J~Irf 8 mmm m m mmm mm mmm mmm mm mm mm mmm mm mm m m mm mm mm mm Ill G-) rtl Z I] ..... ~-2J L] [] m C.) C) r-] LSA ASSOCiATeS, FEBRUARY 2004 Aircraft and airport operation noise levels shall be consistent with the thresholds established in the General Plan Noise Element. Additional Airport-specific General Plan policies analyzed as part of the 2003 General Plan update concerning the protection of the Municipal Airport from encroachment of incompatible uses are located in the Land Use Element (LU-4.4.P1, P2, P3) and Public Safety Element (PS-5.1.P1), as follows': · The City shall encourage development of property within the immediate vicinity of the Airport for light industrial and transportation uses to the extent that noise standards and flight clearance requirements are maintained, and environmental impacts are adequately mitigated. · New residential land use designations or the intensification of existing residential land use designations shall be prohibited within the Airport Protection Area (APA), which is shown on Figure 3.4. The APA includes the area located within 7,100 feet west of the western end of runway 7L-25R, 5,000 feet north of the northern edge ofnmway 7L-25R, 5,000 feet east of the eastern end of runway 7L-25R, and 5,000 feet south of the southern' edge ofrunway7R-25L. · Development at the Airport shall be subject to Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Land Use Commission, and City building/slructure height restrictions. · All construction in Livermore shall be consistent with the required setbacks and height restrictions for the Airport Protection Area, as well as policies of a master plan adopted to plan for future Airport operations. Therefore, the projected contribution of vehicular and aircraft trips, air pollutant emissions, noise increases, and jobs associated with the land use type, density and intensity of the proposed projects identified in the Airport Master Plan Update has been included, studied and analyzed in the 2003 El'P,. at a programmatic level. The City of Livermore certified thc General Plan 2003 EIR on February 9, 2004 and adopted Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations concerning project-related and cumulative adverse impacts associated with traffic, air quality and noise. This IS/MND on the Airport Master Plan incorporates by reference the discussion and evaluation of traffic, air quality, and noise contained in the 2003 EIR and the Findings' and Statements of Overriding Considerations regarding adverse impacts associated therewith. Per CEQA Section 15168 (c)(1), the City of Livermore, as the lead agency for the General Plan 2003 EIR and this IS/MND, finds that the Airport Master Plan Update as a subsequent activity of the program was described and is within the scope of the 2003 EIR and will not cause any additional significant environmental effects on the environment regarding traffic, air quality and noise impacts that were not previously examined in the 2003 EIR. Therefore, this IS/MND relies upon the findings of the 2003 EIR with regard to traffic, air quality and noise and focuses its analysis on potential site-specific, localized impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan Update and zoning change map and text ' amendments.. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC- P£1~RUARY LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Background In 1929, the Airport was constructed to provide aviation access to the Livermore Amador Valley. The private airfield was located offof Rincon Avenue on the east side of town. The U.S. Navy took control of the airfield in 1942 during World War II. Its primary role during this period was to supplement operations at the Livermore Naval Air Station, now more commonly known as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From 1945 through 1953, the City of Livermore leased the airfield from the U.S. Navy to maintain aviation access into this part of Alameda County. The City acquired the airfield in November 1953 and continued operations at the Rincon Avenue location until the Airport was relocated to its current location in December 1965.2 When the new Airport was constructed, it encompassed 257 acres and had a 4,000-foot asphalt runway with a parallel.taxiway. The new Airport also included an aircraft parking apron with 100 tiedowns, a rotating beacon, a lighted wind cone, a segmented circle, and 50 based aircraft. In' 1970, aircraft T-hangars and shelters were constructed as well as a control tower in 1973. In 1975, the City commis- sioned an Airport Master Plan to identify needed facility improvements and assess the growing demand in local aviation at the Airport. Results of that study included the implementatio~ of an instrument landing system that was added to Runway 25R (the primary runway) in 1979. In 1982, the City completed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess the feasibility of constructing a 2,699-foot parallel runway to the south in order to ease congestion on the main runway as well as construction of an aircraft apron to the southwest to provide additional parking. Since 1985, the Airport has made over $25 million in facility improvements including: construction of parallel Runway 7R-25L (secondary runway) in 1985 (subject of the 1982 EIR); additional hangars on the south side of the Airport in 1987; an extension &Runway 7L-25R (the Airport's primary runway) to 5,255 feet (an increase of 1,255 feet) in 1989; and property acquisition to enhance the protection of runway approaches2 In March 1991, the City and Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) implemented the Airport Protection Area (A.PA) in recognition of the increase in new land uses surrounding the Airport that are incompatible with aviation activities. The APA serves as an overlay zone to prohibit new residential development and the intensification of existing residential uses. The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements contain policies that encourage appropriate non-residential development within the immediate vicinity of the Airport. Currently, the Airport encompasses 643 acres, with 22 hangar buildings containing 393 aircraft storage units of various sizes and shapes, one shelter building with nine stalls, 249 tie downs, and is home to 594 based aircraft. In 2001, there were 257,500 aircraft operations associated with the Airport.4 2 Mead & Hunt, 2004. Public Review Draft Livermore Municipal,~irport Master Plan Update, Livermore, California. February. 3 Ibid. Ibid. PUBLIC IIEFI£~ DJ[4FT 12 INC. iq'z. In order to finance the operational improvements at the Airport, the City of Livermore has been working with local, regional, State and federal partners including the FAA, the California Department of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. In order to meet federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements associated with obtaining federal funds for expansion of operations at the Airport, an Environmental Assessment CEA) resulting in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared. The FAA is the lead agency for the EA/FONSI. Copies of the EA can be reviewed at the City of Livermore, Community Development Department, 1052 S; Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550, the Livermore Municipal Airport, 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, CA 94551, and at the Civic Center Public Library at 1000 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550. Project Site The-project site is within the City of Livermore, approximately three miles west of Downtown and south of I-580. The project site lies within the existing 643-acre Airport site located at the junction of Airway Boulevard and Kitty Hawk Road (see Figure 1). The Airport is bordered by the L-as Positas Municipal Golf Course to the west and north, light industrial parks to the north and east, the City of Livermore's Water Reclamation Plant immediately adjacent on the southeast, a residential neighborhood further to the east and southeast, undeveloped land designated for industrial and business park development to the south, and open space and aggregate mining pits also to the south and southwest. Immediately to the west is vacant agricultural land owned by the City. Further to the west are residential neighborhoods in Pleasanton. 1-580 and State Route 84 provide regional access to the site. The Airport properly consists of 39 City-owned parcels. The land was largely acquired with federal grants and is primarily "Airport-owned," meaning that the City is obligated to comply with federal grant requirements such as utilizing the site for runway approach protection, a public use airport, and other aviation-related uses. Since the Airport is subject to federal regulations (i.e., unlike City.owned land which can be sold), FAA grant assurances would not permit a sale of Airport-owned land without approval of property release by the FAA. Currently, two buildings on the Airport property are privately owned, and the land is leased via long-term agreements. The FAA tower is federally-owned, and the land is occupied rent free in accordance with federal law. The proposed project would be constructed partially on parcels containing existing facilities and partially on undeveloped parcels on the site. Other public facilities located within a one-mile radius of the site include the Rancho Las Positas Elementary School (approXimately ~ mile southeast of the Airport) and Las Positas College (approximately one mile northeast of the Airport, across 1-580). A residential neighborhood is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the Airport. No other existing noise sensitive uses are located in close proximity (i.e., one mile) of the Airport. LSA ASSOCIATI;$, INC. Fl;It RU ARY '~004 INITIAt '~?IIn¥1MI?I~AT£D NEGATI¥£ I}£CBARATIOI~ Project Characteristics It is the goal of the City of Livermore to preserve and enhance the Airport through implementation of the Master Plan. Update through 2020. The purpose of this IS/MND is to evaluate the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Airport Layout Plan and proposed Business Plan elements contained within the Master Plan Update. It should be noted that physical runway changes will only occur on or adjacent to Runway 7R-25L (secondary runway). No physical changes to Runway 7L-25R (primary runway) are scheduled to take place, beyond routine maintenance. The purpose of the proposed Master Plan Update is to relieve forecasted aviation congestion through 2020 based on aviation trends impacted by anticipated regional growth and not to encourage increased operating capacity. In order to meet the growing aviation demands at the Airport, the City of Livermore intends to implement improvements to the layout of the Airport. Major improvements would include: · Extend Runway 7R-25L (secondary runway) by an additional 1,301 feet to the west. The total length of the runway would be 4,000 feet. · Construct Taxiway M parallel to and south of existing Taxiway L and Runway 7R-25L (secondary runway), approximately 3,900 feet long. · Construct Taxiway E midfield, approximately 410 feet long. · Create new runway safety areas (i.e., the zones around runways kept clear of structures/objects) at both ends of Runway 7R-25L (secondary runway) for aircraft operational safety purposes. The new safety areas would be 500 feet wide nearest the nmway, 700 feet wide furthest from the nmway, and be 1,000 feet long. These new safety areas would increase the current safety area widths by 250 feet nearest the runway and 250 feet furthest from the runway. · Install Medium Intensity Runway Lights along Runway 7R-25L (secondary runway), Taxiway E, Taxiway M, and Taxiway L. The runway and taxiway lights would not be activated on a continual basis, but rather only when the Airport tower deems their use to be necessary (e.g., when the primary runway is closed). · Acquire approximately eight aCres of land in the northwest approach zone area for aimraft approach protection. The eight acres are located between E1 Charro Road and the Las Positas Municipal Golf Course. · Construct approximately 107,950 square feet of new office space for aviation-related uses. · Construct approximately 273,050 square feet of new fixed based operator hangar space (large box, corporate style hangars). · Construct approximately 889,000 square feet of new storage hangar space (box and.T style hangars). · Other improvements outlined in the Business Plan element of the Master Plan Update include routine maintenance of the Airport buildings and runways. New corporate and fixed based operator hangars would be generally located toward the comers of the Airport property proposed to be zoned Airport (AIR) (northwest and southeast), while new general aviation hangars would be located on the south central portion of the Airport property zoned AIR. The LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIP-AL AIRPORT MASTL'R PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MiTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Airport has designated the area immediately west of the terminal as the first location for future development and an ideal location for a full-service fixed based operator. A majority of these new hangar buildings are anticipated to be constructed by private party participants. All Airport-related enhancements outlined in the Master Plan Update will occur within the existing Air- port fence line with the exception of the acquisition of eight acres of land in the northwest approach zone area. The enhancements outlined in Section B of this ISfMND (Project Description) that are based on the Capital Improvement Program contained in Chapter 5 of the Master Plan Update, are organized into short, medium, and long-range projects based on the forecast activity levels at the Airport through year 2020. Figure 5 shows the future Airport Layout Plan in 2020. By 2020, the planning horizon of the Master Plan Update, aircraft operations are forecasted to increase from 257,500 to 370,000, an approximate increase of 44 percent. At the same time, based aircraft at the Airport are' expected to increase from 594 to 898, an increase of approximately 51. percent. Also, the need for transient aircraft parking is expected to double, from 20 to 40 spaces. Many uncertainties facing the general aviation industry make demand forecasting of airport activity difficult. However, the aviation activity forecasts in the Airport Master Plan Update were derived from historical activity levels at the Airport as well as national, State, and local aviation trends.5 The proposed Airport development projects will be implemented by the City. Below is a list of agencies that will provide services to the Airport. · City of Livermore Public Services Department (water, sewer) · City of Livermore Police Department · Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department · Pacific Gas & Electric ° Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. . SBC Ibid. PUBLIC REFIEIF DtMFT 1 ~ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL ST%IDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow/ng pages. ~ Aesthetics ~l Agricultural Resources ~ Biological Resources · Cultural Resources · Hazards & Hazardous Materials · Hydrology/Water Quality [-[ Mineral Resources ~ Noise [-[ Public Services ~[ Recreation ~ Utilities/Service Systems [~ Mandatory Findings of Significance Ak Quality Geology/Soils Land Use/Planning Population/Housing Transportation/Traffic Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. II I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th~ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVI- RONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or ''potentially signifi- cant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRON- MENTAL I1VfPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date / Printed Name For p:'~vmw~4 ~ul~ ~ ~su$ ~b~ie loo, t~.~t Cs.a~lO~) PUBI..IC REVIEIt,' DB. dFT 16 LSA ASSOCIATES, FE{BRUARY 2004 INITIAL {~TUDY/MITI(~ATI~D NEGATIYE DI~CLARATION The following Mitigation Measures identified in this IS/MND shall be incorporated by the project sponsor: Mitigation Measure BI0-.1..a: No more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction related activities, surveys to determine the presence of western burrowing owl on the project site or within 500 feet of the construction area should be conducted by a qualified biologist. If burrowing owls are observed on or near the project site during these surveys, the project shall implement an exclusion zone (i.e., an area where all project-related activity shall be excluded) around the nest or burrow location. Exclusion zones should be 160 feet as a radius from the nest during the non-breeding season of September 1 to January 31. Passive relocation of owls that includes the placement of one way doors over burrow entrances, allowing owls to exit but not return, may be used at that time. During the breeding season of February 1 to August 31, exclusion zones should be at least 250 feet as a radius from occupied burrows. All project related activity will occur outside of the exclusion area until the young have fledged. Mitigation Measure BIO-lb: Surveys to determine the presence ofraptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction related activities. If raptors arc observed nesting on or near the project site during these surveys, exclusion zones shall be established around all active nests. The project applicant shall consult with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to determine the size of the exclusion zone, usually 100 to 300 feet, around the nest location. All project related activity shall occur outside of the exclusion area until the young in the nest have fledged. MitigationMeasure CULT-1 a: Preconstmction archaeological testing shall be conducted to identify cultural resource site boundaries in order to avoid effects to surface and subsurface cultural resources. Mitiga~on Measure CULT-lb: All ground-disturbing activities shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid cultural resources. If resources cannot be avoided, the prehistoric site shall be evaluated to deter- mine its significance. If the prehistoric archaeological site is found to be significant, adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated by measures recommended by a qualified archaeologist and implemented by the City. Mitigation Measure CULT-1 c: All ground-disturbing activities shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid cultural resources. If it carmot be avoided, the historical site shall be evaluated to determine its significance. If the historical archaeological site is found to be significant, adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated by measures recommended by a qualified archaeologist and implemented by the City. Mitigation Measure CULT-2a: A qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbing activities for unknown prehistoric cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-2b: If deposits of prehistoric and/or historical material are encountered during construction activities, it is required that all work within 50 feet be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris; I. SA ASSOCIATI~S, INC. ]~£i~1RUARY 2004 LIVERMORE Mf~NICIEAL _AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL 5TUDY/MITI(~ATED N£~ATIVE DECLARATION culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics and other refuse. Project construction personnel shall not collect or move any cultural material. Mitigation Measure CU~T:3..: Once improvements at the Airport involving excavation commence, the specific project site shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist during ground disturbing activities. If paleontological resources are identified within the project area, project construction activ/fies shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid these resources. If resources cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated to determine their significance. If such paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be mitigated by measures recommended by a qualified paleontologist and implemented by the City. Mitigation Measure CULT-4: Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety. Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human rem~iins are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24-hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 a: In areas where excavation is anticipated, a qualified environmental professional shall collect shallow soil samples and analyze them for organochlorine pesticides and metals in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substance Control Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Soils.6 Depending on the sampling results, additional investigation and/or special health and safety procedures or soil management and disposal procedures during construction activities may be required. Mitigation Measure HAZ-lb: Buildings at the project site constructed prior to 1980, that are proposed to be renovated or demolished, shall have a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing building materials survey performed by a qualified environmental professional. Identified lead-based paint and asbestos- containing building materials in structures to be renovated or demolished shall be abated in accordance with applicable regulations. Mitigation_Measure HYDRO=!a: All project-related improvements to the site shall comply with the Construction Activity General Permit. Construction activities will be regulated by the construction activity general permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) nonpoint source ~ California Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2000. Interim CruidanceforSampling,4gricultural$oils. June 28. PUBLIC REYIE~ DR,~"i' 18 LSA ASSOCIATt"S, INC. FEBRIJAP. Y 2004 LIVERMOJtK MUNICIPAL A_ IRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATI~D NEGATIYE DECLA[~ATION permit). A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required under the general permit and would be prepared by the Airport (or consultants under contract thereto). The construction SWPPP would establish procedures and controls designed to mitigate potential impacts to surface water quality from all phases of the project. The SWPPP must be kept on-site and all workers are required to be trained in the contents of the SWPPP in accordance with the requirements of the General Permit. A properly prepared SWPPP would include some or all of the following Best Management Practices (BM:Ps): Erosion and Sediment Control. BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment basins. The potential for erosion is generally increased if grading is performed during the rainy season as disturbed soil can be exposed to rainfall and storm runoff. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the SW'PPP should specify that the primary BMPs selected should focus on erosion control, that is, keeping sediment on-site. End-of-pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) should be used only as secondary measures. Entry and egress from the construction site shOUld be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash down facilities should be designed to be accessible and functional both during dry and wet conditions. An additional source of information regarding BMPs is the California Storm Water Municipal and Construction Activity BMP Handbooks.7 The selection of BMPs required for a specific project is based on the size of the development and the sensitivity of the area. Construction Storm Water Management Controls. These controls should include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP should specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge of the site supervisors and workers. To educate on-site personnel and maintain awareness of thc importance of storm water quality protection, site supervisors should conduct regular tailgate meetings to discuss pollution prevention. Thc frequency of the meetings and required personnel attendance list should be specified in the SWPPP. The SWPPP should specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. City personnel shall conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and SWPPP. RWQCB personnel, who may make unannounced site inspections, are empowered to levy considerable fines if it is determined that the SWPPP has not been properly prepared and implemented. Post-Construction Storm Water Management. The SWPPP shall include permanent post-construction storm water management controls to reduce storm water pollution associated with post-construction' 7 Storm Water Quality Task Force, California, 1993. California'Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks: Municipal, Construction Activity and lndustrial/Cornmerclal. March. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NIASTKR PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED N~GATIVE D£CLARATION activities at the developed site. Controls may include disconnected gutters, pervious concrete surfaces, painted drain inlets (e.g., "Dump No Waste-Drains to Bay"), and receiving water protection buffers. The most beneficial time to consider post-construction storm water quality features is prior to development of the final grading plan and design of the project. The RWQCB has issued Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs to encourage incorporation of BMPs for post-construction activities into new projects? The proposed project would be considered "Tier 3". Recommended BMPs including education/training, landscape control, labeling storm drains, runoff control, site planning, swales or sand filters, street sweeping, and treatment control will be designed to meet performance goals. ..Mi.tigation Measure HYDRO-lb: Compliance with the General Industrial Permit. The Airport is required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. Airport staff maintain an industrial activity SWPPP, conduct dry and wet weather inspections, and conduct regular sampling of storm water runoff. The General Industrial Permit would require that the industrial activity SWPPP be modified as each new phase of development is completed at the project site. Any new sources of pollutants to storm water runoff wOUld be documented and appropriate BMPs implemented to minimize potential impacts to runoff water q~lality. If any new storm water outfalls are created, these locations would need to be added to the existing sampling/inspection locations. Mitigatio~n Measure HYDRO-2: A building permit shall not be issued for the project until the City of Livermore Water Resources Division reviews and approves the storm water controls for the project. Specifically, the Water Resources Division requires that the project incorporate landscaped features (i.e., grassy swales, bioswales, and/or filter strips) into the drainage design. Approximately 1,200 square feet of swale area is required for every new acre of impervious surface proposed (refer to the City of Livermore Grass Swale Design Guidance document for additional details on swale design requirements). In addition, the City may require that all new roof drainage be directed toward swales or landscaped areas before discharge to the storm drain system. Implementation of these existing requirements would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure ~RO-3: Zone 7 shall require an assessment fee on the project on a per-acm basis for new impervious surfaces (to allow Zone 7 to fund capacity projects, as needed, in Arroyo Las Positas) and may specify on-site controls (e.g., detention basins, erosion control structures) to reduce potential impacts on downstream conveyance capacity? Implementation of the requirements of Zone 7 (an existing regulatory program) would adequately reduce this potential impact. a Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1994. SFBay Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Recornrnendationsfor New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm F/ater Programs. February 24. 9 Gaines, Diana, 2002. Water Resource Engineer, Zone 7. Personal communication with Baseline. March 25. P:.wnv~22~ PuMic ~ Isus Public P. eview.w~ (:L,t 3,'~) PUB,~JC ,~.YIE~"Di~./L~T 20 LSA ASSOCIATE~, INC~ FEBRUARY ~004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT M-ASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MiTIGAT£D NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? There are no scenic resources on the project site, as it has been cleared for aviation activities. Trees and shrubs line the perimeter of the Airport, but this landscaping is not considered a scenic resource. Scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Airport property include views of surrounding hills and farmland from several public viewpoints including 1-580, which is a designated "scenic corridor," and the Las Positas Golf Course. Proposed improvements at the Airport, including aircraft hangars and office buildings, have the potential to obstruct these views. Section 3-05-270(c) of the Livermore Zoning Code limits building heights to 40 feet within 5,000 feet of the Airport runway. The new Airport zoning district, however, will allow Airport buildings to exceed 40-feet in height, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, if the building is to be used for the storage ofaircrafL All other Airport buildings and structures shall be restricted to a maximum height of 40-feet. Because the Airport is located within the I- 580 scenic corridor, buildings approved to exceed 40-feet in height to facilitate the storage of aircraft, shall be required to comply with the established view angle, as discussed in I.b, below. All proposed construction would be located around pre-existing buildings and would not visually infringe upon large areas of open space or undeveloped hillsides that constitute a significant visual resource. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buiMings within a State scenic highway? Policies and actions in the General Plan specifically seek to preserve and protect scenic views within the City-designated 1-580 Scenic Corridor through control of grading, landscaping, and building height. The 1-580 Scenic Corridor is defined as the area within 3,500 feet of thc freeway centerline and visible from the roadway. Specifically, the Community Character Element of thc General Plan establishes line of sight "view angles" within which development can occur. View angles along the 1-580 corridor are not uniform, but are specific to the height of thc hills or other prominent scenic resources at a given point along the corridor. The Scenic Corridor has thus been divided into "Subareas" and "Subparts" containing a range of view angles. As a general rule, buildings cannot break the viewplane established P:~,,122~ Pubfic ~ zaus hb~ I~e~,w~ (2/t2~o4) Pt Jill. JO RE¥1E~/DiOiFT 2 ] LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORK MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MAST]'~R PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NI~GATIYE DECLARATION by these angles? The Airport is located within the Scenic Corridor Subarea 6, straddling Subparts 6A and 6B, which have an adopted view angle of 2.2 degrees,n In order to determine the maximum building height permitted by the 2.2-degree view angle for the pro- posed building sites, data gathered from topographic maps was input into a computer aided design (CAD) program which produced a series of cross-sections corresponding to each building to illustrate the maximum potential building height under the view angle. Figure 6 shows the building locations that were analyzed. This analysis was completed by Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) in August 2001, and is included in Appendix A. Table I- 1 shows the maximum building heights for each building location that would result from application of the 2.2 degree angle. PMC determined that the maximum building heights possible under the view angle ranged from 78 to 162 feet. Development proposed in the Master Plan Update would need to comply with the view angle, and therefore, would not conflict with Scenic Corridor policies nor would it substantially damage other scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings w/thin a State scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the project site and its surroundings. While more development would occur on the site with full implementation of the Master Plan Update, the resulting change in visual character would not be adverse or substantially degraded. The Master Plan Update does not constitute the development of a new land use on the site, but, rather, would build on a pre-existing pattern of development. The site plan would be consistent with the existing character of the site and its surroundings. The architectural style of the new buildings would fit into the existing architectural context of the Airport. As part of the approval process, evaluation of Airport. project site plans, architecture, and landscaping will be required. When the projects come before the City for required approvals in the future, more specific information will be made available, and the City will undertake a more detailed consideration of aesthetics at that time. l0 City of Livermore, 2004. City of Liverrnore General Plan 2003-2025. February. u Pacific. Manicipal Consultants, 2001. 1-5805cenic Corridor Analysis for the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, Liverrnore, C.~. August 15. I,:~::~ z22~M hblic ~ 1S~S hbllc I~nv.,n~ ~l~t0~l) PUBLIC ~EI/IE~DP,.~FT 22 ASSOCIATES, INC. LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL_AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table I-l: Maximum Building Height Average Eye Elevation Maximum Freeway (4' Above Distance Grade Building Building Number and Location Elevation Freeway) From Freeway Elevation Height 1. FBO Complex 402.60 406.60 1,345 380 78 '~'. FBO (Sierra) ......... 412.74 416.74 1,780 ~90 ................. 95' 3. Corporate Hangars 418.40 422.40 3,370 400 151 4. Executive & T Hangers 402.94 ' 406.94 3,420 390 148 5. FRO & Corporate 402.60 406.60 3,420 385 152 6. FBO &.C0.rp?..rate 402.60 406...60 ........... .3.,420 375 162 Note: All data expressed in feet. Source: Pacific Municipal Consultants, Inc., August 2001. d) · Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Implementation of the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare, although there would be lights associated with Runway 7R-25L, Taxiway E, Taxiway M, and Taxiway L for safety and security purposes. In addition, it is likely that other lighting fixtures would be installed around the new hangars and in parking areas for the purposes of safety. Implementation of the project could result in a slight increase in light intensity in the vicinity of the site. However, the runway and taxiway lights would not be activated on a continual basis, but only when the Airport tower deems their use to be necessary (e.g., when the primary runway is closed)? The project must comply with the performance standards established by the City's Zoning Ordinance, which prohibit glare beyond the boundaries of the site and require project lighting to be directed and shielded. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whe- ther impacts to agricultural resources are significant environ- mental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultaral Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact it Mead & Hunt, 2004. Public Review Draft Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, Livermore, California. February. PUBLIC REFIEW DR~Ir';7' 24 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIP-AL ~IRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIV~ DECLARATION a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Impomnce (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act conm~ct? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? PotEntially Significant PotEntially Unless Less Than Signlfieant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? The proposed Airport projects are located on land classified by the California Department of Conservation as "Urban and Built-up Land." Implementation of the project would develop additional land classified as Urban and Built-Up and so would not lead to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The portion of the Airport lands that are proposed for development (i.e., the operation area) under the Master Plan Update are not zoned for agricultural use or subject to a Williamson Act contract. However, large portions of Airport-owned land west of the runways is designated for agricultural use. The proposed project, however, will not prevent the continued use of this area for agriculture or conflict with the existing zoning of these lands. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Any new construction that would occur as part of the project would be located on Airport property on land designated for non-agricultural uses. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 1004 LIVERMOR£ MUNICIPAL .AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact impact AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [] · [] · a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As noted in the Project Description, growth assumptions, land use changes, the increase in aimrafl and vehicular trips, and any resulting air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan Update were specifically included, evaluated and addressed as part.of the 2003 EIR on' the Livermore Draft General Plan. The background study for the 2003 General Plan EIR, as it relates specifically to the Airport related air quality issues, is available for review at the City of Liverrnore Community Development Department, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The increase in aircraft and vehicular trips, construction emissions, and any resulting short-term, project- related or cumulative air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan Update were specifically included, evaluated and addressed as part of the 2003 EIR on the Livermore Draft General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not lead to any greater or different air quality impacts associated with violating any air quality standard or contributing substantially to an air quality violation than those impacts identified in the 2003 EIR. r:xovl ~ v~l,~ ~d~ iaaa ~bli~ I~ieav.~ (~'l:~o~) PUBI~C P,.~ViIZR/DR.~IFT 2 6 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY '~004 LIVERMORE MUNICIF~.L AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NK-GATIVE DECLARATION Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? See response III.b. Criteria pollutant increases related to the proposed project were considered in the General Plan 2003 EIR's analysis of criteria pollutants. The Bay Area region is in non-attainment status for Ozone (State and federal), and Suspended Particulate Matter (State). implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not lead to any greater or different air quality impacts for the criteria pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment than those cumulative impacts identified in the 2003 EIR, and therefore no impact would result. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The location of sensitive receptors and their potential exposure to pollutant concentrations related to future operations were considered in the General Plan 2003 EIR's analysis of criteria pollutants. Future operations at the Airport would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. During the construction of improvements and buildings envisioned by the project, nearby sensitive receptors and on-site workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. Fugitive dust would also be generated as construction equipment travels on unpaved roads or .on the construction site. The 2003 EIR addressed construction-related impacts and cited BAAQMD's approach of emphasizing implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than requiring detailed, quantified emission forecasts. The 2003 EIR analyzed construction emissions and identified these control measures on pages 156 to 157 in Volume II: Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Construction operations at the Airport would also comply with the Air Quality General Plan policies and control measures identified in the 2003 EIR and no impact would result. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Activities undertaken at the Airport are not of the type or scale that would create objectionable odors. Exhaust from aircraft and other vehicles associated with Airport operations would disperse over a wide area before reaching any sensitive receptors such as the residential neighborhood to the east of the Airport. No impact would result. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Le~s Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ImpaCt Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: P:'~lvl~O~ }~bti~ aeAe~ I~I$ l~bl~ ~ad,r~.,~l ¢~1~0~) PUBLIC REFI£~ DRAFT 2 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY ~o04 INITIAL STUDY/MITICATED NECATIVE DECLARATION a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either dffectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than · Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ' Incorporated Impact Impact C3 · C3 · Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Implementation of the project could result in impacts to biological resources in the form of two species: burrowing owls and raptors nesting in trees on the project site. To reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level, the following two-part mitigation measure is recommended for incorporation into the proposed project. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMOR~ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT M~,ST]~ PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NI~:GATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measure BIO-la: No more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction related activities, surveys to determine the presence of western burrowing owl on the project site or within 500 feet of the construction area should be conducted by a qualified biologist. If burrowing owls are observed on or near the project site during these surveys, the project shall implement an exclusion zone (i.e., an area where all project-related activity shall be excluded) around the nest or bun'ow location. Exclusion zones should be 160 feet as a radius from the nest during the non- breeding season of September 1 to January 31. Passive relocation of owls that includes the placement of one way doors over burrow entrances, allowing owls to exit but not return, may be used at that time. During the breeding season of February 1 to August 31, exclusion zones should be at least 250 feet as a radius from occupied burrows. All project related activity will occur outside of the exclusion area until the young have fledged. Mitigation Measure BIO-lb: Surveys to determine the presence of raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction related activities. Ifraptors are observed nesting on or near the project site during these surveys, exclusion zones shall be established around all active nests. The project applicant shall consult with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to determine the size of the exclusion zone, usually 100 to 300 feet, around the nest location. All project related activity shall occur outside of the exclusion area until the young in the nest have fledged. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The California Department ofFish and Game reports seven sensitive habitats in the general Livermore area: alkali meadow, alkali seep, els-montane alkali marsh, sycamore alluvial woodland, valley needlegrass grassland, and valley sink scrub. None of these sensitive habitats occur within the Airport activity area. None of these habitats have been reported from or were observed nearby. The project will not result in impacts to riparian habitat'or other sensitive communities. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water ~tct (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? Appendix B contains a Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Delineation of the Airport property. Waters of the United States within the Airport activity area include a small section of Arroyo Las Positas. LSA investigated a drainage ditch, several shallow swales and a small wet area, all of which were found not to meet jurisdictional criteria. The total area of waters of the United States on the Airport property is 2,000 square feet (0.05 acres), all of which is located in the Arroyo Las Positas. The proposed project does. not include activities in or along Arroyo Las Positas and will not result in significant impacts to any areas defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. LSA AS~OCIATI~,$, INC. FKERUARY ~004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATI'~D NEGATIVE DECLARATION Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The proposed project includes the modification of an existing Airport facility, which is already fenced. Wildlife will still be able to cross or bypass the site in a manner similar to the present conditions. The ability of wildlife to move around and through the project site will not be significantly changed by the project. In the summer of 2003, Rhodes & Jamieson applied for permits for aggregate extraction expansion in areas owned by them to the south of the Airport. At the end of the aggregate extraction period (expected to be completed by 2030) the mined areas would be filled with water that could attract waterfowl that may create hazards for aircraft?3 Currently, aquatic resources are located in the vicinity of the Airport (e.g.., water'filled gravel pits, Del Valle Reservoir, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir); however, bird collisions with aircraft has not been a problem at the Airport with only two reported incidents in the past five years? Implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not interfere substantially with the movement of native or migratory species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Implementation of the projects associated with the Airport Master Plan Update would not conflict with any policies contained in the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element or City ordinances that protect biological resources. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans associated with the Livermore Municipal Airport site. The Independent. 2003. Strong Stand Against Quarrie~. September 25. Hauri, Leander, Airport Manager, City of Livermore. Personal communication with LSA, November 2003. PUBLIC RE¥1£F/ DP~IFT 3 0 LSA A~$OCIATE$, INC, FEBRUARY ~004 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would thc project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of~] [] a historical resource as defined in § 15064,5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of~ [] an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.$? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ~ [] resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ~ [] outside of formal cemeteries? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5Z Two archaeological resources, a possible prehistoric site and the scattered remains of a possible farm- stead, were identified in the project area. Appendix C contains correspondence related to cultural resources. If the identified historical resources cannot be avoided by eventual construction activity arising from the project, the following three-par~ mitigation measure is required for incorporation as par~ of the proposed project to lessen any potential adverse impacts to a less-than significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-la: Preconstruction archaeological testing shall be conducted to iden- tify cultural resource site boundaries in order to avoid effects to surface and subsurface cultural resources. Mitigation Meas~e. CULT-lb: All ground-disturbing activities shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid cultural resources. If resources cannot be avoided, the prehistoric site shall be evaluated to determine its significance. If the prehistoric archaeological site is found to be significant, adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated by measures recommended by a qualified archaeologist and implemented by the City. Mitigation Measure ..CU~T-lc: All ground-disturbing activities shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid cultural resources. If it Cannot be avoided, the historical site shall be evaluated to determine its significance. If the historical archaeological site is found to be significant, adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated by measures reeornmended by a qualified archaeologist and imple- mented by the City. There is a high possibility of unknown prehistoric cultural resources within the project area. The follow- ing two-part mitigation measure is recommended for incorporation as part of the proposed project to Public Review Ib,lS Pub~ l~w.~ 12/12n~1 pllBl,[C IiEVI£W DP,,4FT 31 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FI~BRUARY'2004 LIVERMORK biUNICIP. AL AIRPORT bi'ASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/bi1TIGATEI) N~GAT1VE O£CLARATION lessen any potential impacts associated with encountered subsurface cultural resources to a less-than- significant level. Mitieation Measure CULT-2a: A qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbing activities for unknown prehistoric cultural resources. Mitieation Measure CULT-2b: if deposits of prehistoric and/or historical material are encountered during construction activities, it is required that all work within 50 feet be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil ot%n containing heat affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics and other refuse. Project construction personnel shall not collect or move any cultural material. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 3~ 15064.5? See Section V.a. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The geology of the Airport consists of Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium; late Miocene to Pliocene Livermore Gravels; and Green Valley and Tassajara Formations. The Holocene and Pleistocene deposits are composed of extremely friable, fine-to-coarse, moderately sorted sand and silt with coarse sand and gravel deposited in an alluvial fan environment. These Pleistocene deposits are known to contain fossils of such Rancholabrean animals as bison, mammoth, horse, camelids, turtle, and ducks. No invertebrate fossil localities were identified at the California Academy of Sciences within a two-mile radius of the Airport. However, five vertebrate fossils were collected near the proposed project site and documented at the University of California Museum of Paleontology. These fossils were identified as late Pleistocene vertebrate land mammals and identified as the following: · Mammut cf. M. americanum: mastodon · Paramylodon cf. P. harlani: ground sloth · Bison cf. B. antiqu~: bison · Equus sp.: horse · Mammuthus sp.: mammoth PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFt 3 2 LSA AS$OCIATE$~ INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMOR£ MUNICIPAL A-IRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION There are at least seven fossil localities in the Livermore Valley area, five of which are within approxi- mately two miles of the Airport. These vertebrate fossils are typically found in Pleistocene deposits similar to those which underlie the proposed project site. There is a high possibility that similar paleontological resources exist within the proposed project area. While no paleontological resources have been identified within'the immediate project site, there is a high possibility of encountering fossil bearing Pleistocene deposits buried by alluvium within the project area during ground breaking activities. To reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the following mitigation measure is required for incorporation into the proposed project. Mitigation Mca,ute CULT-3: Once improvements at the Airport involving excavation commence, the specific project site shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist during ground disturbing activities. If paleontological resources are identified within the project area, project construction activities shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid these resources. If resources cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated to determine their significance. If such paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be mitigated by measures recommended by a qualified paleontologist and implemented by the City. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The potential to uncover human remains exists at locations throughout California. At the Airport, the probability of ground disturbing activities uncovering such remains is increased because the project area is likely to contain prehistoric and/or historical cultural resources. If human remains are found during construction, their impact would be significant and the following mitigation measure is required for incorporation into the project to lessen any potential adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-4: Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedi- cated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has det~,ained whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority, if human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24-hours of this identifi- cation. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. LSA A~$OCIATI~$, iNC. FEBRUARY 2004 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? LIYERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTlgR PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGAT~'D NEGATIVE D~CLARATION ~otentially Significant Unl~ L~s Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact 0 m = = , =-= ' = = · Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? d) 0 0 0 · e) 0 0 0 · Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture ora known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence ora known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 Faults that arc in close proximity to, but do not intersect Livermore Municipal Airport include the active Calaveras Fault, the potentially active Verona Fault, and the inactive Maquire Peaks Fault. The Airport is not located within the currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, there are r:~Clvl:mm ~l,~i~ R~ew igls ~i~ Re~oe.,,~t O~t at0,*) PLIBLiC REFIE~; DRAFT 34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMOR]~ MUNICII~AL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED N~GATiYE DECLARATION I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I at least two faults that intersect the Airport, or the immediate Airport vicinity. These include the Liver- more Fault and the Parks Fault. The Livermore Fault, for which potential activity is considered uncer- tain, hms in a southeast to northwest direction and intersects Kitty Hawk Road east of the Airport. The Parks Fault, which is considered inactive, runs east-west and crosses the intersection of I-580 Eastbound Ramps and Airway Boulevard. The risk of fault rupture at the project site is considered to be low? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? The project site is located in a seismically active region and, like all construction in the San Francisco Bay Area, would be subject to potentially severe ground shaking during a major earthquake on an active fault in the region. The project would result in an increase in the number of people, structures and improvements exposed to seismic hazards. Because of the proximity of the project site to nearby active and potentially active faults, moderate to strong ground shaking could occur at the site as theresult of an earthquake on any of these faults. The aggregate probability of the occurrence of one or more magnitude 6.7 plus earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area over the next 30 years is estimated at 70 percent26 The improvements at the Airport to be developed would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code, conform to Title 24 specifications for seismic design, and adhere to local building codes that require measures be incorporated to reduce potential ground shaking impacts. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project site has a low potential for liquefaction due to the fact that the water table is relatively deep in locations where there are loose, granular soils that would be susceptible to liquefaction? iv) Landslides? The project site and surrounding properties are located on flat ground in thc Livermore Valley, with no risk of landslides or mudslidcs. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Due to the relatively high clay content and fiat site topography, earthwork would be expected to be mini- mal and limited to preparation of the site for development.~8 As a condition of development approval, interim and final erosion and sediment control plans would be submitted with the public works improve- ment plans. The drainage/erosion control plans must be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of ~s Livermore, City of, 1995. Isabel Extension Project Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. January. ~ Michael, A.J., et. al., 1999. Major Quake Likely to Strike Between 2000 and 2030 - Understanding Earthquake Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Region. USGS Fact She~ 152-199. ~7 Livermore, City of, 1995. Isabel Extension Project Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. January. ~a Ibid. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICII'AL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Con- trol Measures and would include measures to minimize surface erosion and sedimentation of down- stream drainage facilities. Also, the conditions of approval of required grading permits would include measures that would minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as 'a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The soils that underlie the site have low potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence,, or collapse. The project site and surrounding properties are flat with no risk of landslides or mudslides. It is not anticipated that unstable earth conditions would be encountered during ground disturbing activities at the project site. Applicable construction codes and requirements will be followed during the .entire period of the project to eliminate or minimize any potential problems related to unstable earth conditions, per the requirements of the California Uniform Building Code and applicable Title 24 specifications. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils expand when they are wet and shrink when they are dry. The soils that underlie the site are stable soils with low to moderate shrink-swell potential? There would be a low risk to life or property from such conditions after implementation of the project. Applicable construction codes and requirements will be followed during the implementation of the entire project to eliminate or minimize any potential problems related to expansive soils. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The Airport is served by the City of Livermore sewer system. Implementation of the project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. VII. HAZ~S. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Ibid. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) Create a significant hazard to the Public or the environment tlarough reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous crrdssions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ~A mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sect/on 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to thc public or the environment? c) For a project located within an a/rport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public usc airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located within thc vicinity of a private airslrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people res/ding or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Signifiennt Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lneorporated Impact Impact Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? New development at the project site would include additional Airport-related activities. Aviation fuels, oil, and small quantities of other hazardous substances, such as paints and janitorial supplies, would be used at the project site. Facilities, such as the Airport, that use, store, or handle hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500-pounds, 55-gallons, or 200-cubic feet are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). An HMBP is required by the Sate of California and is implemented by the Livermore- Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD). HMBP's must remain current and at a minimum must be reviewed LSA ASSOCIATI~$, INC. FEBRUARY ~004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIR]'ORT MASTI~R PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGAT~+D NI~-~ATI¥£ D£CLARATION every three years. As future development projects are approved to implement the Airport Master Plan, the HMBP will be updated. The most recent HMBP submitted by the Airport to the LPFD (dated January 30, 2004) states that the Airport maintains an average of 26,000-gallons of aviation fuels in underground storage tanks (LISTs), with a maximum capacity of approximately 45,000-gallons. The Airport also maintains an average of 200 gallons of diesel fuel in a 450-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) and approximately 252-quarts of new aviation engine oil. The Airport generates approximately 7,500-gallons of waste aviation engine oil and 200-gallons of waste aviation fuel each year; the waste is collected and removed from the site every 45 days. The HlVlBP includes an Employee Training Plan and an Emergency Response Plan, 'which details procedures for preventing and minimizing the effects of hazardous material releases. All fuel storage and dispensing facilities are inspected on a daily basis. The inspection include checking for exterior leaks, interior leaks in valves or piping (as indicated by leak detectors installed in the system) and the general condition of the facilities. Any routine or corrective maintenance is documented on the appropriate inspection forms, which are kept on file in the Airport administration building. Employees whose duties include refueling are trained on procedures for safe handling of fuel and proper response to a hazardous material spill. Spill response kits are stored near fueling areas. Because of the volumes and location of above ground storage tanks (ASTs), the Airport is also required to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Compliance Plan (SPCC Plan). The Airport's SPCC Plan is dated February 25, 2000, and describes tank containment information, spill prevention measures, and personnel training procedures. Adherence to applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., requirements of HMBPs, including employee training and emergency response, hazards communication training, and injury and illness prevention plans) would mitigate potential impacts from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Although these plans and engineering controls would not completely eliminate the potential for a hazard- ous materials release, they would reduce the potential severity of a release to a less-than-significant level. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? During operations at the project site, existing hazardous materials regulations would reduce the potential impact of a hazardous materials release to a less-than-significant level (see Section VII.a, above). A Phase I hazardous mater/als investigation was performed for the project site by Baseline Environmental Consulting, Inc. This document is available for review at the City of Livermore Community Development Department, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore Memorial Airport, 636 Terminal Circle, and Civic Center Public Library, 1000 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550. The Phase I investigation performed for the project site identified two potential issues that could PUBliC ~'FIE~/ DI~4FT 3 8 LSA ASSOCIAT$$, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE D£CLARATION result in releases of hazardous materials during construction at the project site: (1) agricultural chemical residues in site soils, and (2) lead and asbestos contained in building materials at the site? As the project site was under agricultural cultivation from the date of earliest historical records until the late 1960s, when the Airport was constructed, there may be a potential for agricultural chemical residues to be present in site soils. Many agricultural chemicals that could potentially have been used in the past, such as inorganic compounds containing heavy metals or chlorinated organic compounds, are highly per- sistent, and do not readily break down to non-toxic compounds under ambient conditions. If residues of these compounds were present in shallow soils at the project site, then construction workers could be ex- posed to them during development at the project site, and excavated soils could require special manage- ment and disposal procedures. Future Airport improvements may involve the demolition of existing buildings at the project site. Build- ings constructed prior to 1980 may potentially contain lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos-containing building materials (ACMs). Based on available historical information, there is a potential for LBP and ACMs to be present in the main terminal building, FAA Control Tower, buildings in the North Hangar Complex, and the Instrument Landing System (ILS) building which were built prior to 1980. Although LBP and ACMs in good condition would not be expected to present an immediate health risk, lead and asbestos particles could potentially be released to the air during building demolition, which could pose a health risk to construction workers. Implementation of the following two-part mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts due to release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-la: In areas where excavation is anticipated, a qualified environmental professional shall collect shallow soil samples and analyze them for organochlorine pesticides and metals in accordance with Califomia Department of Toxic Substance Control Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Soils? Depending on the sampling results, additional investigation and/or special health and safety procedures or soil management and disposal procedures during construction activities may be required. MitiGation Measure HAZ-Ib: Buildings at the project site constructed prior to 1980, that are pro- posed to be renovated or demolished, shall have a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing building materials survey performed by a qualified environmental professional. Identified lead- based paint and asbestos-containing building mater/als in structures to be renovated or demolished shall be abated in accordance with applicable regulations. 20 Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2001. Phase 1 Site /Issessment for the Livermore Municipal Airport, 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, C~. October. California Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2000. Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Soils. June 28. taus hbt~ ~-,~*,,.,n~ {~n~4) PtJBLIC J~VI£~/ DIOlFT 3 9 LSA ASSOCIATe'S, iNC. FEnRUARY 2004 LIVERMOR~- MUNICIP.AL AIRPOET M~.$TK/t PLAN INITIAL ~;TUDY/MITIGATEB N~'GATIYE D£CLARATION Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an ~isting or proposed school? No schools are located within ¼ mile of the project site. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site is listed on State and local lists of sites with reported releases from a petroleum underground storage tank. A release of jet fuel was discovered during the removal of a UST in August 1991. The release was determined to have affected soil only. Affected soils were excavated and disposed of off-site. As this release did not impact groundwater, the released jet fuel would not be expected to migrate away from the UST area, and therefore proposed new development at the project site would not have the potential to be affected. A Phase I site assessment performed for the project site in October 2001 identified 19 total sites asso- ciated with the use, storage, disposal, or release of hazardous mater/als within 1 mile of the project site. Based on site locations and details, the Phase I report concluded that none of the sites identified would be likely to affect subsurface conditions at the project site.2= For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ora public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? All proposed improvements at the project site would be in accordance with current FAA regulations. These regulations would reduce potential safety hazards to a less-than-significant level. For a project located within the vicinity ora private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No private airstrips are located in the project vicinity. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan ? Proposed development at the project site would not interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. "Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2001. Phase 1 Site Assessment for the Livermore Municipal,dirport, 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, CA. October. PUBLIC RlrFI£P, r DRAFT 40 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUAn¥ 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPOnT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Land uses adjacent to the project site include a municipal golf course, a horse ranch, a water treatment plant, and commercial and light industrial properties. No wildlands are located in the project vicinity. Potentially Significant Potentially ' Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant impact Incorporated Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter thc existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substaatially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runofN. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact · LSA ASSOCIATES, IPaC. FEBRUARY ~o04 LIYERMOR~- MUNICIPAL _AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure ora levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Consmaction and grading on those portions of the site that would be developed would require temporary disturbance of surface soils and removal of vegetative cover, if present. During the construction period, grading and excavation activities would result in exposure of soil to runoff, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sedimem in the runoff. Soil stockpiles, cuts, and fills would be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in storm sewers or drainages at or outside the project site. The accumulation of sediment in culverts or drainages could result in blockage of flows, potentially resulting in increased localized ponding or flooding. There is also a potential for chemical releases at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents could be transported to nearby drainages and Arroyo Las PoSitas and/or groundwater in storm water runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. New construction and intensified land uses at the project site would also result in increased vehicle use and potential deposition of associated pollutants to the ground surface. Leaks of fuel or lubricants, tire wear, and fallout from exhaust contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters (although many of these Airport activities would be conducted within the buildings and hangars). Landscaping maintenance may involve the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; residues of these substances could be incorporated into the runoff from the site and be discharged to receiving waters. Implementation of the project may require excavation below the depth of groundwater to accommodate foundation construction and utility installation. Groundwater may have been affected by petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds from on- and off-site historical land uses. If groundwater dewatering during construction were to be required, pretreatrnent of groundwater may be required to meet discharge requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (if discharged to the storm drain or surface water) or the City of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (if discharged to the sanitary sewer). To reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level, the following twO- part mitigation measure is required for incorporation into the proposed project. ~Mitigati0n Meas.ure HY~RO-..1..~: All project-related improvements to the site shall comply with the Construction Activity General Permit. Construction activities will be regulated by the P:~Ovl~0~ PubZk l~dew l~S hb~ Ecvlc~.~ (?./z:s/o4) PUBLIC P~E~TEWDI~IF~ 42 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ['EBRUAR¥ 2004 LIVERMORI~ MUNICII~AL AIRPORT M'ASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION construction activity general permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) nonpoint source permit). A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required under the general permit and would be prepared by the Airport (or consultants under contract thereto). The construction SWPPP would establish procedures and controls designed to mitigate potential impacts to surface water quality from all phases of the project. The SWPPP must be kept on-site and all workers are required to be trained in the contents of the SWPPP in accordance with the requirements of the General Permit. A properly prepared SWPPP would include some or all of the following Best Management Practices (B/vIPs): Erosion and Sediment Control. BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may in- elude, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment basins. The potential for erosion is gener- ally increased if grading is performed during the rainy season as disturbed soil can be ex- posed to rainfall and storm runoff. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the SWPPP should specify that the primary BMPs selected should focus on erosion control, that is, keeping sediment on-site. End-of-pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) should be used only as secondary measures. Entry and egress from the construction site should be carefully eonlrolled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equip- meat wash down facilities should be designed to be accessible and functional both during dry and wet conditions. An additional source of information regarding BMPs is the California Storm Water Munici- pal and Construction Activity BMP Handbooks? The selection of BMPs required for a specific project is based on the size of the development and the sensitivity of the area. Construction Storm Water Management Controls. These controls should include prat- rices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP should specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge of the site supervisors and workers. To educate on-site personnel and maintain awareness of the impor- tance of storm water quality protection, site supervisors should conduct regular tailgate meetings to discuss pollution prevention. The frequency of the meetings and required personnel attendance list should be specified in the SWPPP. The SWPPP should specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. City personnel shall conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and SWPPP. RWQCB personnel, who may make unannounced site inspections, are ~a Storm Water Quality Task Force, California, 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks: Municipal, Construction Activity and Industrial/Commercial. March. p:~lvt33,~t v~t,~ ~ I~$ ~ l~.q~.~ (~/13to~) Pt. IBIJC RE.F/ER/DR/IFT 43 LSA ASSOCIATES, FEBRUARY 200~ LIVERMORE MUNICIP-AL AIRPORT M~STS'R PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MI'rlGATI~D N£CATI¥£ DECLARATION empowered to levy considerable fines if it is determined that the SWPPP has not been properly prepared and implemented. Post-Construction Storm Water Management. The SWPPP shall include permanent post- construction storm water management controls to reduce storm water pollution associated with post-construction activities at the developed site. Controls may include disconnected gutters, perv/ous concrete surfaces, painted drain inlets (e.g., "Dump No Waste-Drains to Bay"), and receiving water protection buffers. The most beneficial time to consider post-construction storm water quality features is prior to development of the final grading plan and design of the project. The RWQCB has issued Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs to encourage incorporation of BMPs for post-construction activities into new projects.24 The proposed project would be considered "Tier 3". Recommended BMPs including education/ training, landscape control, labeling storm drains, runoff control, site planning, swales or sand filters, street sw~eeping, and treatment control will be designed to meet performance goals. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-lb: Compliance with the Gencral Industrial Permit. The Airport is required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. Airport staff maintain an industrial activity SWPPP, conduct dry and wet weather inspections, and conduct regular sampling of storm water runoff. The General Industrial Permit would require that the industrial activity SWPPP be modified as' each new phase of deve- lopment is completed at the project site. Any new sources of pollutants to storm water runoff would be documented and appropriate BMPs implemented to minimize potential impacts to runoff water quality. If any new storm water outfalls are created, these locations would need to be added to the existing sampling/inspection locations. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No use of groundwater is proposed at the project site, although some dewatering could Potentially be required during construction activities. Any dewatering activity would be expected to be temporary and affect only the uppermost water-bearing zone, not the regional water supply aquifer. The project would increase the percentage of impervious surfaces (e.g., paved surfaces, buildings) at the project site. The 643-acre project site is currently covered with approximately 254 acres (39 percent) impervious surfaces. The proposed project could increase the impervious cover by as much as 55 acres ~ Regional Water Quality Con~'ol Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1994. SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. February 24. PUBLIC REFIEIF DR. AFT 44 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FI~BRUAR¥ 2004 LIVERMORE MUNIC]P~kL blRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGAT1V]~ DECLARATION (or 83 acres when the aviation reserve area is included), increasing the percentage of impervious cover to 48 percent (or 52 percent with the aviation reserve). The increase in low permeability cover could reduce infiltration of precipitation and interfere with groundwater recharge at the site. Although the site is not located in a designated recharge area, maintenance of basin-wide infiltration capacity is important for aquifer recharge and watershed health. However, the loss of area available for infiltration and groundwater recharge could be substantially mitigated by incorporation of site design practices that would promote infiltration and reduce the area of impervious cover. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation M$.~ure HYDRO-2: A building permit shall not be issued for the project until the City of Livermore Water Resources Division reviews and approves the storm water controls for the pro- ject. Specifically, the Water Resources Division requires that the project incorporate landscaped features (i.e., grassy swales, bioswales, and/or filter strips) into the drainage design. Approximate- ly 1,200 square feet of swale area is required for every new acre of impervious surface proposed (refer to the City of Liverrnore Grass Swale Design Guidance document for additional details on swale design requirements). In addition, the City may require that all new roof drainage be direct- ed toward swales or landscaped areas before discharge to the storm drain system, Implementation of these existing requirements would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the altera- tion of the course ora stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? A small portion of the Arroyo Las Positas (approximately eight feet in width by 250 feet in length) crosses the northernmost portion of the Airport lands. Because no development is proposed in the vicinity of the Arroyo Las Positas on Airport lands, no impacts would occur to the Arroyo Las Positas that would result in erosion or siltation. Any grading activities associated with project implementation would be expected to be conducted on relatively fiat areas. Construction-period storm water controls described in Section VIII.a above would minimize the potential for erosive runoff events from the project site during construction. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the altera- tion of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on~ or off-site? Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of low permeability surface at the project site and therefore could affect the rate and amount of surface runoff at the site. A grading/ drainage plan (in accordance with the City's Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual) would be prepared by the applicant for review and approval by the City of Livermore and Alameda County. Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits, and Zone 7, if an additional outfall were necessary. Currently, storm water drainage at the site discharges directly into Arroyo Las Positas through outfalls or open drainage ditches. Runoff does not pass through any trunk sewers of the City storm drainage system. Pipe capacity of City conveyances would not be affected by the project ASSOCIATES, INC. P£BRUARY 2004 LIVERMORK MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED N]~GATIVE DECLARATION (discharges from the site drain directly into Arroyo Las Positas). However, an increase in impervious surfaces and associated increase in discharge to the Arroyo Las Positas would trigger City review for water quality and quantity impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3: Zone 7 shall require an assessment fee on the project on a per- acre basis for new impervious surfaces (to allow Zone 7 to fund capacity projects, as needed, in Arroyo Las Positas) and may specify on-site controls (e.g., detention basins, erosion control structures) to reduce potential impacts on downstream conveyance capacity? Implementation of the requirements of Zone 7 (an existing regulatory program) would adequately reduce this potential impact. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoJ~. Existing regulatory programs that would ensure that the project does not'exceed the capacity of down- stream storm water conveyance systems are described in Section VIII.a above. The potential for the project to add substantial sources of pollutants to runoff is described in Section VIII.a above. JO Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Aside from potential impacts related to construction activities and post-construction site uses (Section VIII.a above), the project would not affect water quality. Place housing within a l O0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No housing is proposed for the project. h) Place within a l O0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows ? The portions of the project site proposed for development are not located within the 100-year flood hazard zone as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure ora levee or dam? Gaines, Diana, 2002. Water Resource Engineer, Zone 7. Personal communication with Baseline. March 25. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California. City of Livermore. Community Panel Number 060008 0005 B. September 17. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORIg MUNICIPAL AIIRPORT M'ASTlgR PLAN INITIAL 8TUDY/MITIGATI~D NEGATIVE DECLARATION The portions of the project site proposed for development are not located within the lO0-year flood hazard zone as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency? The western portion of the project site is located within mapped dam failure inundation area for Lake Del Valle? Lake De Valle, which has a capacity of 77,100-acre-feet, was constructed in 1968.29 The dam at Lake De Valle, a 222-foot-high earthen dam, is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DWR). Existing dams under DWR's jurisdiction are periodically inspected to assure that they are adequately maintained and to direct the owner (in this case, the California Department of Water Resources) to correct any deficiencies found. Regular inspectiOns and required maintenance of the dams substantially reduce the potential for catastrophic failure. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No surface water bodies likely to be affected by seiches are present in the project vicinity. Given the surface elevation (approximately 400 feet above sea level) and distance from the coast (over 20 miles from the Bay and Carquinez Strait), the project site would not be affected by tsunamis. As the project vicinity is relatively level, no impacts from mudflows would be expected. Potentially Significant Potentially Unle~ Le~s Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited m the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an enviromnental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? 2, Ibid. z* Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995. Hazard Map Dam Failure Inundation Areas, Livermore, CA. 2~ California Department of Water Resources, 1993. Technical Data for Del Valle Dam, website: h..t~p//elib,cs.ber,keley, edu/kopec/bl 7/hTnl/1-056.html. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIYERMOaE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED-NEGATIYE DECLARATION The proposed development in the project would be located on the site of the existing Airport. Activities associated with implementation of the project would result in the on-site construction of new buildings and the expansion of existing infrastructure and would not disrupt or divide an established community. Also, the project would not result in any significant changes in the current land uses or development patterns of the surrounding area. No existing business or residential structures would be displaced as a result of the project. However, one general purpose aircraft hangar in the northeast comer of the Airport is located within the building restriction area, and will remain in this area with a currently active waiver from the FAA. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal pro- gram, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Airport is designated as a public/quasi-public Community Facilities-Airport on the General Plan Land Use Map (see Figure 2) and the operations portion is zoned Education and Io_ stitutions (E) (see Figure 3), which allows governmental buildings and facilities, such as public airports, as a permitted use? The new Airport District zoning (see Figure 4) will, however, clarify specific uses permitted and conditionally-permitted at the Airport. The land use at the Airport would remain the same after implementation of the project. Development would take place in accordance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. No land use incompatibilities or conflicts with existing plans or policies would result from the project. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is not subject to, and development there would not conflict with, any habitat conserva- tion plan or natural community conservation plan. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact 3o Livermore, City of, amended 2003. City of Livermore, Planning and Zoning Code. Public l~'vi~ IS~S )~ab);" Rod~-st,nvgd (2/I ~4) P[JB~JC REFIEFYDR~FT 4~ LSA ASSOCIATES, ~NC, ]~EBRUARY 20D4 LIVEnMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUn¥/MiTiGATKD NI~ATI¥~ nECLARATION b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Ineorpornted Impact Impact Result in the loss of availability ora known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? There are no known valuable mineral resources in the area. However, because of its proximity to Arroyo Las Positas and its location within the Livermore-Amador Valley Aggregate PrOduction District, it is likely that the Airport is underlain with sand and gravel that has some economic value to the region. According to a Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology report, the District contains the largest reseawes of sand and gravel suitable for use in portland cement concrete in the South Bay Region?~ The proposed project would take place on land that is already developed and inaccessible to quanTing operations. Therefore, implementation of the project would not constitute additional loss of availability of a known, valuable mineral resource. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The Airport is not designated as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site in any local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan Potentially Significant Potentially Unless L~s Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive I ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.* ~t Livermore, City of, 1995. Isabel Extension Project Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. January. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEaRIJAR¥ '~004 LIV£RMORE MUNICIPAL ~..iRPORT MASTI~R PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVt~ D£CLARATION Pntentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? As noted in the Project Description, the City's recently adopted General Plan contains goals and policies that describe and address operations and govern maximum growth at the Airport. The background study for the 2003 General Plan EHL as it relates specifically to Airport noise issues, is available for review at the City of Livermore Community Development Department, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550. The General Plan also contains a Noise Element that contains standards regarding the. exposure of persons to noise. Airport growth and development assumptions, land use changes (e.g., the extension of nmway 7R-25L), the increase in aircraft and vehicular trips, and any resulting increase in noise associated with implementation of the Master Plan Update were specifically included, evaluated and addressed as part of the 2003 EIR on the Livermore Draft General Plan (refer to Appendix D and pages 167 to174 in Volume II: Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2003 EIR). The 2003 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-GP-2 specifically addresses reducing future aircraft operation noise impacts on nearby residences. While noise was previously analyzed and mitigated in the 2003 General Plan EIR, this mitigation measure will be implemented through build out of the 2004 Airport Master Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not lead to any greater or different noise impacts associated with exposure of persons to noise levels than those impacts identified in the 2003 Enl.. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? PUBLIC RE¥1F.~ DP, AFT 5 0 LSA ASSOCIATl~g;, INC, FEBRUARY 2004 5 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL_AIRPO{~iT MASTJR PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATt"D NIZGATIVE DECLARATION The 2003 EIR addressed groundbourne vibration impacts related to potential development (refer to pages 166 to 167 in Volume II: Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2003 EIR). At the Airport, the vehicles arriving at and departing from the Airport and aircraft operations would not result in any measurable increase in or exposure of ground borne noise or vibration in areas adjacent to the project site. No impact related to groundboume vibration would result. c) A substantialpermanent increase in ambient noise levels in theproject vicinity above levels existing without the project? See discussion in IX.a. Implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not lead to any greater or different noise impacts related to substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels than those impacts identified in the 2003 EIR (refer to pages 165 to 174 in Volume II: Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2003 EiR, see also Appendix D of this document). d) - A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? See discussion at IX.a. Implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not lead to any greater or different noise impacts related to substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels than those impacts identified in the 2003 EIR (refer to pages 165 to 174 in Volume II: Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2003 EIR). For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ofa public airport or public use airport, wouM the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project would occur at the existing City of Livermore Municipal Airport. The Airport facilities themselves are not noise sensitive and would not be exposed to significant noise impacts, either from vehicular traffic or aircraft operations. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, wouM the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not within the vicinity of any private airstrip. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 200~1 LIVERMOaE MUNICII~AL A, IRPORT M'ASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITiGATED N~,GATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact ImpaCt XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating thc construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastruc- ture)? The project includes plans for the construction of new taxiways and hangar buildings that would accommodate an improvement in Airport operations. This development would have the potential to attract new support commercial land uses to the vicinity of the Airport, which could lead to a small increase in the local population. However, because of the relatively small scale of the project improvements, it is unlikely that such an indirect effect would lead to substantial population growth in the area. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No housing exists within the project site. No displacement would occur, and no replacement housing would be necessary. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? See Section XIi.b. P:~:lvI32~o4 ~talc P,~ z~s ~ubzi~ aevio,.vnxi (~/z~) PUBLIC P~P'I£FP DRAFT 5 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL, AIRPORT MASTER PLAN - INITIAL STUDYIMITJGATED N~GATIVE DECLAnATION XIH. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically ahered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serv/ce ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which couM cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities ? A combined aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility (ARFF) is located in the northeast comer of the Air- pon along Airway Boulevard. This station, which is operated by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Depart- ment, is equipped to respond to both aircraft as well as building emergencies. This facility is also equipped with dual bay doors that allow direct vehicular access to the airfield as well as Airway Boulevard. The equipment and personnel at the ARFF exceed FAA standards for the type of aircraft fi'mt utilize the Airport?~ The implementation of the project would result in increased demand for public services such as fire and police protection. As noted in the Project Description, growth assumptions, land use changes, and any resulting public services impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan Update were specifically included, analyzed and addressed as part of the 2003 EIR on the Livermore Draft General Mead & Hunt, 2004. Public Review Drafl Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, Livermore, California. Febma~. LSA AS~OClATES~ FEBRUARY LIVERMORE MUNICIP-AL_AIRPORT MASTI~R PLAN INITIAl. STUDY/MITIGATED NI~GATIVE DECLARATION Plan (refer to pages 129 to140 in Volume II: Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2003 ERR). As noted in the EIR, the demand for police and fire services are expected to increase in association with projected growth. However, as identified in the El[R, new facilities that would be required to maintain adequate service ratios would be funded through developer fees, bond monies, and taxes on new development. It is anticipated that service providers would regularly review growth trends and conduct long-range planning to adequately provide public services for future growth. Additionally, General Plan Policies INF-5.1.P3 and INF-6.1 .PS would ensure that the City reviews armual police and fire staffing levels to ensure the availability of adequate fire and police manpower, and service facilities. Implementation of these policies would ensure that adequate capital improvements are made to accommodate the increased demand for police and fire protection services. In 2002, the City was meeting its goal of 1.25 police officers per 1,000 people and a fire company response time of 7 minutes 90 percent of the time. However, due to .increased funding, a traffic light retrofit, and the relocation of a fire station, the City expects to show continued improvement in its police and fire services in the near future.33 Because the project would not result in a substantial increase in population, there would be no increase in demand for police and fire protection services from that source. Nor would school or park space be impacted. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department and the Livermore Police Department have reviewed the project site plan and have indicated that serving the project would not have an effect on service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. For all of these reasons, implementation of the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated impact Impact XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recrea- tional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Because implementation of the project is not expected to result in a substantial local increase in 3~ LSA Associates, Inc., 2003. General Plan EIR, Volume I, Master Environmental Assessment. Livermore, California. ~:~:lvill~o~ ~;~ ~t~q~ ~sus l~sli~ ~,...w..,~ (~t x, to~) PUBLIC REVIEW DP~FT ~ 4 LSA ASSOCIATI~S, INC. FEBRUARY ~004 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATE~) NEGATIVE DECLARATION population, the proposed expansion would not increase demand for existing recreational facilities or involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? See Section XIV.a. xv. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless L~s Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact TRANSPORTATION/TRAF~C. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadeqUate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) No Impact Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? As noted in the Project Description, growth assumptions, land use changes, the increase in aircraft and vehicular trips, and any resulting traffic and level of service impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan Update were specifically included, analyzed and addressed as part of the 2003 EIR on the Livermore Draft General Plan (refer to pages 95 to104 in Volume II: impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2003 EIR). Therefore, implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not lead to any greater or different traffic impacts associated with a substantial increase in traffic than those impacts identified in the 2003 EIR. LSA AS$O(~i ATES, LI¥1~RMORE ~4UNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITiGATED N~'GAT]¥£ DECLARATION Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? See explanation XV.a. Implementation of the Airport Master Plan Update would not. lead to any greater or different individual or cumulative impacts associated with an exceedance of a level of service standard established by the Congestion Management Agency than those impacts identified in the 2003 EIR. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Currently, the Airport has two east-west runways (7R-25L and 7L-25R). Aircraft entering the Class D airspace surrounding the Airport are required to communicate with the FAA-Livermore air traffic control tower (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) or with other aircraft on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) when the tower is closed. Approaching aircraft utilize a left traffic pattern for mn- ways 7L and 25L and a right traffic pattern for runways 7R and 25R. Implementation of the project will not alter the air traffic patterns. Air traffic levels at the Airport are not forecasted to increase as a result °fthe project. Forecasted increases in air traffic levels will occur regardless of the project due to aviation trends impacted by industry, availability of nearby airports, surrounding airspace, anticipated regional growth, and the Airport's role in the region. The Master Plan Update calls for increasing the number of hangars for based aircraft as well as the number of transient aircraft parking spaces. The Plan also proposes extending Runway 7R-25L (the Airport's secondary runway) by 1,301 feet to serve a wider variety of small aircraft and to serve larger aircraft when the primary runway is closed for maintenance. Additionally, the Master Plan Update anticipates the development of a new fuel-service fixed base operator (FBO) to accommodate the expected increase in aircraft and operations at the Airport. As a result, the Master Plan Update has been developed to safely accommodate the increased level of air traffic anticipated in the future. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The improvements called for in the Master Plan Update will occur on the Airport property and are primarily intended to address anticipated congestion from aircraft operations at the Airport. Vehicular access to the site will continue to be provided via Airway Boulevard and W. Jack London Boulevard. The Airport is an existing land use with existing vehicular circulation, and implementation of the project would not create any hazards or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? A fire station is located on the Airport property, on the northeast side. In addition, 12 existing entrance/ exit gates provide emergency access to all areas of the Airport and as a result, adequate emergency access will be maintained. Result in inadequate parking capacity? The City of Livermore Planning and Zoning Code does not contain a specific parking requirement for p:R22v 13~04 P~bllc 1~4cw I~I$ I~bt~ Itevt~,~nl (~'~04) P~f~L~C REI//EiY DP~4FT 5 6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, FEBRUARY 200d LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED Ni~,GATIVE DECLARATION airports. Parking at thc Airport is provided north of thc aircraft terminal and across Terminal Circle. Currently, there are 120 parking spaces and there is an additional dirt lot which could be paved if addi- tional parking becomes necessary. Many patrons of the Airport are private pilots with aircraft based at thc Airport. Most &these pilots park their vehicles in their airplane parking space or in close proximity to thcir aircraft on the Airport property. Additionally, fixed base operators provide parking at their loca- tion of business. As the Airport develops, thc proposed development standards for the Airport zoning district require that it bc demonstrated that an adequate supply of parking exists to provide for all existing and new aviation and aviation-related uses. If additional parking is required, it will bc provided with the new aviation development. According to Master Plan Update, however, thc available parking is more than adequate to meet future demand,j` As a result, thc parking lot located near the terminal area is not heavily used. Therefore, it not anticipated that additional parking will be required to accommodate the Airport Master Plan Update. Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? The project is consistent with adopted policies and regulations supporting alternative transportation, including policies and programs of the Liverrnorc Community General Plan Circulation Element per- mining to transportation systems management (TSM) and transit, intermodal, rail and air transportation. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the 'project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requi~ments of the applicable Regional Water Quality Conlxol Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater Ireatment facilities or expansion of cxisting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in thc construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ~ Mead & Hunt, 2004. Public Review Drafl £ivermore Municipal ~4irport Master Plan Update, Livermore, California. February. LgA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVI~RMORE MUNICIP.~I. _AIRPORT I~IASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION e) Result in a determination by the wastewater trea~nent provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commiWaents? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) c] 3 [] c) [] c) [] a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 'Board? Utilities at the Airport, including wastewater treatment, tie into existing service mains, and implementa- tion of the project would not require new or significantly altered systems. Currently, the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) has a planned influent capacity of 11.1 million gallons a day (mgd), and an export capacity of 8.5 mgd. Over the past few years, the average daily inflow to the WP,_P ranged between 6.23 and 6.5 mgd? There is a projected near term (within two to five years) shortfall in City wastewater disposal capacity. The General Plan Draft ErR identifies several alternatives to provide additional wastewater disposal capacity; each has associated issues that require further analysis, studies, staff actions, or voter approval to be implemented (see pages 121 through 127 of Draft General Plan ErR, Volume Ii. Impacts and Mitigation Measures). City staff is considering each alternative until the City Council makes a final policy decision regarding which one(s) to pursue. General Plan Policies (see INF-2.1.P3 and P4) address the shortfall issue by conditioning approval of new development on the availability of adequate disposal, requiring the implementation of a wastewater disposal master plan, and not granting development entitlements once the average dry weather flow reaches 7.0 mgd at the WR_P. Implementation of the project would not generate significant amounts of wastewater, and any increases in wastewater generation could be handled by the existing capacity of the WRP. Therefore, with implementation of General Plan policies, the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which couM cause significant environmental effects? Zone 7, the water wholesaler that supplies water to the entire Tri-Valley area, including the City of Livermore, projects that it will be able to supply water in sufficient quantity to meet area demand ~5 Livermore City of. 2003. Draft General Plan EIR, Volume I. Master Environmental Assessment. Prepared by LSA Associates. June. Page 127. r:~vt 2~ P~bzi~ ~.~,~, ,sas P~b:~c ~..~1 (~l~a~) PUBLIC REI'7E~ DI~AFT 5 8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC+ FEBRUARY 2004 LIVERMORr. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTKR PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION through 2020. This will be facilitated by several means: 1) purchase of new water supplies; 2) expansion oftream~ent facilities; and 3) construction of new transmission facilities.36 The project, which will not substantially increase water demand, will not require the construction or expansion of new water treatrnent facilities beyond those that are already planned. As noted above (XVI.a), implementation of the project will also not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which couM cause significant environmental effects? Development of the project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities as the project would not significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. See response VIII.d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project as the growth in demand for water resulting from implementation of the project would be minimal. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Adequate wastewater capacity is available to serve the project as the Airport would generate only minimal mounts of additional wastewater with the implementation of the project. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No significant increase in solid waste generation is expected as a result of project implementation. Solid waste collection and disposal services would be provided by Waste Management of Alameda County, inc. on an "enterprise" fee-for-service basis. The project would not generate a significant amount of solid waste. The Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. has enough capacity to serve any new solid waste generated by the project. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to solid waste. Ibid. ~nvl3~O~ P~Mic ~ Is~s ~ ~e~.~ (~o*) PUBLIC RE¥1EI~ DIbIF'l' ~ 9 L~A ASSOCIATES. INC. FERRUARY 2004 LIVERMORE MUNICIP~AL AIRPORT M'ASTER PLAN INITIAt $TUDY/MITIGATI~D NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY HNDINGS OF SiGNIHCANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elirainate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does.the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? This IS/MND has determined that no fish or wildlife habitat, or animal or plant community, or examples of California history or prehistory would be degraded by the proposed project, once recommended measures are incorporated into the project. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) This IS/MND has determined that implementation of the project would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? This IS/MND has not identified any potential environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. P:'~vl~3~o~ Pubic P~i~w ~SuS Public R~ie*.wp4 (2/12~) PUBLIC REVIEP/DR,,IFT 60 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY ~004 Li¥£RMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATI~D NEGATIVE DECLARATION D, REPORT PREPARATION, REFERENCES, AND CONTACTS Report preparation, references, and contact information are contained in this chapter. 1. Report Preparation LSA Associates, Inc., Prime Consultant: Project Management and Report Production; NEPA and CEQA Assessments and Conclusions. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 David R. Clore, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Judith II. Malamut, AICP, Project Manager Sue Smith, Word Processing Skip Shimmin, Graphics Manager Patty Linder, Graphics and Production LsA Associates, Inc.: Cultural Resources; Biological Resources. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 Christian Gerike, Associate George McKale, Archaeologist Scan Lohmarm, Wetland Ecologist David Muth, Biologist LSA Associates, Inc.: Traffic; Noise; Air Quality. One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvinc, CA 92614 Tony Petros, Principal Tony Chung, Ph.D., Associate Meghan Macias, Traffic Engine=r Keith Lay, Noise/Air Quality Engineer Baseline Environmental Consulting: Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608 Yane Nordhav, Principal Todd Taylor, REA, Environmental Associate Bruce Abelli-Amen, Senior Hydrogeologist Pacific Municipal Consultants: Visual Corridor Analysis. 225 K Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Tad Stem, Principal Jason Chafin LSA A$$OCIAT£S, INC. F~BRUARY ~004 '505 LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2. References American Ornithologist's Union, 1998. Lawrence, KS. Check-List of North American Birds. 7th edition. Allen Press, Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995. Hazard Map Dam Failure inundation Areas, Livermore, CA. Altamont Commuter Express, 2002. ACE Train Schedule. Website: www.acerial,com/schedule.html Association of Bay Area Governments, 1999. Projections 2000: Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2020. December. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2000. 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1997. BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, A_ssessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. April. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 2002. BART Schedule and Service Map. Website: ~,bart,gov Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2001. Phase I Site Assessment, Livermore Municipal Airport, 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, CA. October. Bolt, Beranek, & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants. Brown, William M. III, 1988. Historical Setting of the Storm: Perspectives on Population, Develop- ment, and Damaging Rainstorms in the San Francisco Bay Region, in Landslides, Floods, and Marine Effects of the Storm of January 3-5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. Stephen D. Ellen and Gerald F. Wieczorek, Eds. U.S. Geological Survey ProfesSional Paper 1434. California Air Resources Board, 1999. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. California Air Resources Board, 1992. Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants. California Air Resources Board, 1996-2000. Summary of California Air Quality Data. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2000. Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Soils. June 28. California Department of Fish and Game, 2002. California Natural Diversity Data Base search of the USGS 7.5-minute Altamont, Livermore, Tassajara, and Pleasanton quadrangles. California Department ofFish and Game, 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Memo to Div. Chiefs from C.F. Raysbrook, Interim Director. Sacramento, CA. October 17. ],:*o~ Publi,~ ~ ISUS ~bli~ i~i~,w~t ('2;1~u04) PUBLIC I~VI£~F DI~41;T 62 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIVKRIMOI~E MUNICIPAl. AIRPORT MKS?ER PLAN INITIAI~ STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION California Depa~i~x~ent of Transportation, 1989. 4-ALA-580, Sheets 31 and 32. Compiled by Olympic Mapping System. California Department of Water Resources, 1993. Technical Data for Del Valle Dam, website: htta://elib.cs.berkele¥.educ'~o.~ec/bl 7/htm.1/!-056.html. California Native Plant Society, 2002. CN-PS Electronic Inventory search of the USGS 7.5 minute Altamont, Livermorc, Tassajara, and Pleasanton quadrangles. California Office of Historic Preservation, 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California Office of Historic Preservation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California Office of Historic Preservation, 1992. Points of Historical Interest. Stale of California ' Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California Office of Historic Preservation, 1996. California HistoricalLandmarks. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California Office of Historic Preservation, 1999. California Register and National Register: .4 Comparison. Technical Assistance Series 6. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Chancy, Ralph W., 1951. Prehistoric Forests of the San Francisco Bay Region. In Geology Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties: History, Landscape, Geology, Fossils, Minerals, Industry, and Routes to Travel, prepared by OlafP. Jenkins, pp. 193-202. Division of Mines, Bulletin 154. State of California Department of Natural Resources, San Francisco, CA. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, 1977. Mean Seasonal Isohyets Compiled from Precipitation Records 1879-1973. Drummond, G.B., 1975. Real Estate Development in Livermore History. Livermore Heritage Guild, Livermore, CA. Federal Aviation Administration, 1985. Environmental Handbook. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California. City of Livermore. Community Panel Number 060008 0005 B. September 17. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California. City of Livermor¢. Community Panel Number 060001 0115 B. February 19. Federal Highway Administration, 1977. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FttWA RD-77-lO& Foothill Associates, 2000. 1-580 Scenic Route Element Update. Aerial Photograph, Roseville, CA. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 200,1 LIYERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Helley, E.$., L,R. LaJoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair, 1979. FlatlandDeposits of the San Francisco Bay Region-- Their Geology and Engineering Properties and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Professional Paper 943. U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. Herd, D.G., 1997. Geologic map of the Las Positas, Greenville and Verona faults, Eastern Alameda County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 77-689. Institate of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Trip Generation. Sixth Edition. Livermore, City of, 2004. City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025. February. Livermore, City of, 2001. Historical Resources Inventory. Livermore, City of, 1995. Isabel Extension Project Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. January. Livermore, City of. Website: www.ci.livermore.ca.us. Livermore Municipal Airport, 2004. Long Form Hazardous Material Business Form. Submitted to City of Livermore Fire Department. January 30. Livermore Municipal Airport, 2000. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Compliance Plan. February 25. LSA Associates Inc., 2003. Livermore Draft General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report: Volume III Final EIR - Responses to Comments. September. LSA Associates Inc., 2003. Livermore Draft General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report: Volume I Master Environmental Assessment, Volume II Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Technical Appendices. June. LSA Associates Inc. 2002. Air Quality Analysis for the Livermore Airport. July. LSA Associates Inc. 2002. A Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study of the Livermore Municipal Airport. September. LSA Associates Inc. 2002. Noise Impact Analysis for the Livermore Airport.' July. Margolin, Malcolm. 1978. The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area. Heyday Books, Berkeley, CA. Mead & Hunt. 2004. Public Review Draft Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, Livermore, California. February. (Note that Shutt Moen Associates changed their name to Mead & Hunt in 2003, and this publication is listed under both names). PUBLIC P~VI~,~r DRAFT 64 FEBRUARY 2004 LIVi~RMOR£ MUNICIPbL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGAT£]~ N~-~ATIYI~ DgCLARATION Michael, A.J., et. al., 1999. Major Quake Likely to Strike Between 2000 and 2030- Understanding Earthquake Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Region. USGS Fact Sheet 152-199. Milliken, Randall. 1995. Time of Little Choice. Ballena Press Publication, Menlo Park, CA. Moratto, Michael J., 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. National Park Service, 1998. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Branch, Inter-agency Resources Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2001. 1-580 Scenic Corridor Analysis for the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, Livermore, CA. August 15. Rantz, S.E., 1971. Mean Annual Precipitation and Precipitation Depth-Duration-Frequency Data for the San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 3019-12. 'October. Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB), 1994. SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. February 24. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Plan. June 21. Shutt Moen Associates, 2002. Public Review Drafl Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, Livermore, California. July. (Note that Shutt Moen Associates changed their name to Mead & Hunt in 2003, and this publication is listed under both names). Shutt Moen Associates, 2001. Draft Airport Layout Plan, Livermore, California. September. Shutt Mocn Associates, 2001. Draft Business Area Plan, £ivermore, California. September. Storm Water Quality Task Force, California, 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks: Municipal, Construction Activity and Industrial/Commercial. March. The Indcpendcnt. 2003. Strong Stand Against Quarries. September 25. Tibor, D.P., 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publication #1, 6th Ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Census, 2000. Census 1990 and 2000. United States Department of Transportation, 1994. Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.' Website: www.fhwa.dot.eov/envirokn~ent/index.htm LSA A~SOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 LIYERMORE MUNICli~AL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITiGATED NI~GATIVE DECLARATION United States Geological Survey, 1985. Water Quality Conditions and an Evaluation of Ground-and Surface-Water Sampling Programs in the £ivermore-.dmador Valley, California. Water Resources Investigations, Report 84-4352. Welch, Lawrence E., Richard C. Huff, Richard A. Dierking, Terry D. Cook, Leland A. Bates, and Wells F. Andrews, 1966. Soil Survey of the .4lameda .4rea, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. N.p. Wilbur Smith Associates and 2M Associates, 2001. City of Livermore Bikeways and Trails Master Plan. December 11. Williams, D.F., 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife Management Division Admin. Report 86-1. California Department offish and Game. June. Zone 7 Water Agency (Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District), 1997. Mem- orandum: Spring 1997 Groundwater Level Contour Map, Fall 1996. Available on the Zone 7 website: httm//www.zone7water.com/Lavout-2.~df. 3. Contacts Abelli-Amen, Brace, 2001-2002. Senior Hydrogeologist, Baseline Environmental Consulting. Personal Communication with LSA Associates. Craven, Jennifer, 2001-2004. Associate Planner, City of Livermore Planning Department. Personal Communication with LSA Associates. Dietz, David, 2001-2004. Director of Planning Projects, Mead & Hunt (formerly Shutt Moen Associates). Personal Communication with LSA Associates. Franklin, Barry, 2002-2004. Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration. Personal communication with LSA Associates. Frost, Susan, 2001-2004. Senior Planner, City of Livermore Planning Department. Personal Communi- cation with LSA Associates. Gaines, Diana, 2002. Water Resource Engineer, Zone 7. Personal communication with Baseline. March 25. Hauri, Leander, 2001-2004. Airport Manager. Personal communication with LSA Associates. APPENDIX A 1-580 SCENIC CORRIDOR ANALYSIS PACIFIC MUNICIPAL August 15, 2001 Carmen Borg LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 Subject: 1-580 Scenic Corridor Analysis for the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, Livermore, CA Dear Carmen: This report presents the results off a Scenic Corridor Analysis conducted on six (6) potential building sites within the Livermore Municipal Airport planning area. This report has been prepared pursuant to your request, in support of the environmental documentation for the update to the airport land use plan. MONTEREY 225K Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93840 Phone (531] 644-9174 Fax (831) 373.0733 MT. SHASTA P.O. Box 1132 309 A N. Mt. Shasta Blvd. Mt. Shasta, CA 96087 Phone{530) 9264059 Fax (530) 926-4279 CHICO 140 Independence Circle, Suite C Chico, CA 95973 Phone (530) 894.3469 Fax (530) 894-6459 SACRAMENTO 10461 0Id Placerville Road Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone (616) 361.8384 Fax (916) 361-1574 SAN JOSE 101 Park Center'Plaza Suite 1375 San Jo,.,, CA 95113-2260 Phone (408) 620-0900 Fax (408) 975-9007 Introdudion The City of Livermore General Plan Scenic Route Element establishes policy regarding the preservation and enhancement of scenic resources adjacent to and visible from scenic routes within the City. The portion of Interstate 580 within the City's jurisdiction has been designated as a locally recognized 'scenic corridor." Within the corridor, views of the distant hills to the north and south are protected through a series of policies governing land use, building heights, and building design. Specifically, the Scenic Route Element establishes line of sight *view angles" within which development can occur. View angles along the I-.580 corridor are not uniform, but are specific to the height of the hills or other prominent scenic resources at a given point along the corridor. The corridor has thus been divided into #Subareas" and ~Subparts" containing a range of view angles. As a general rule, buildings cannot break the viewplane established by the angle. While the intent of the policies is to protect views of the distant hillsides and ridgelines, the 1- 580 Scenic Corridor is defined as the area within 3,500 feet on each side of the centerline of 1-580. Building sites further than 3,500 feet from the freeway's centerline are not subject to scenic corridor policies. Study Area The Livermore Municipal Airport is located along 1-580 within the scenic corridor's Subarea 6, straddling Subparts 6A and 68, which have an adopted view angle of 2.2 degrees. Page 2 August 20, 2001 Methods The analysis utilized CalTrans-produced topographic maps at scale 1 ",- 100 feet depicting elevation data in 2*foot contours along the 1-580 Scenic Corridor; including the study area, to determine the elevation of 1-580 at locations parallel to the proposed building sites at the Livermore Municipal Airport. The CalTrans maps only include data along the interstate and an area approximately 1,000 feet north and south of the interstate. The proposed Livermore Airport layout plan, scale 1 ~= 300 feet, contains topographic data in 5-foot contours and also includes the interstate. Since the Livermore Airport layout plan includes the interstate, the distance between the interstate and the proposed building sites and grade elevations of the proposed building sites were Obtained from the airport layout plan. In addition, PMC's database includes scaled aerial photographs that were used to confirm the information contained on the Livermore Airport layout plan. In order to determine the maximum building height permitted by the 2.2 degree view angle for the proposed building sites, the data gathered from the topographic maps were input into a computer aided CADD program which produced a series of cross-sections corresponding to each building to illustrate the maximum potential building height under the view angle. The cross sections are shown on Figure 2a to 2c. Results Table 1 below shows the maximum building height for each proposed building site based upon the established 2.2 degree view angle as stated in the Scenic Route Element of the General Plan. Maximum allowable building heights range from 78 to 152 feet. Table 1: Maximum Building Height City of Livermore Scenic Route Subarea 6, 5ubparts 6a & 6b View An~le: 2.2 de~rees Eye Elevation Average Freeway Distance from Grade Maximum Elevation (4' above Freeway Elevation Building Height freeway) ........... Building 1: ....... FBO 402.60 406.60 1345 380 78 Complex ................. Building 2: 412.74 416.74 1780 390 95 FBO (Sierra) ... Building 3: Corp. 418.40 422.40 3370 400 151 Hangars ......................... Building 4: Exec & T 402.94 406.94 3420 390 148 Hangars ...... Building 5: FBO & 402.60 406.60 3420 385 152 Corporate Building 6: FBO & 402.60 406.60 3420 375 162 Corporate ..... All data expressed in feet. · Page 3 August 20, 2001 Discussion and Conclusions The analysis determined the maximum potential building heights for future buildings relative to their distance from the right-hand travel lane of 1-580. As stated above, the maximum building heights are determined by the established view angle - 2.2 degrees at this location - that creates a development envelope. In addition to developmental restrictions in place by policies of the Scenic Route Element, the proposed building sites are within the Livermore Municipal Airport, which contains additional height and safety restrictions. Policy 3-05-270(c) of the Livermore Zoning Code restricts the height of any structure located within 5,000 feet of the airport runway to 40 feet. As shown in Figure 1, Buildings 4 through 6 are located almost exactly on the boundary of the scenic corridor's restricted development area, which would exempt them from policies protecting the scenic corridor. In addition, the maximum building heights, ranging from 78 to 152 feet, exceed the height restrictions established by Policy 3-05-270(c) of the Livermore Zoning Code limiting building heights to 40 feet within 5,000 feet of the runway. Therefore, it is determined that environmental impacts relative to policies of the Scenic Route Element of the proposed building sites are less than significa~, as they are either outside the corridor's boundary or superceded by more restrictive height limitations. If you have any questions or comments relative to this analysis, please give us a call. Sincerely, PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS Tad Steam, Principal c: Jason Chafin, PMC ix' .[ 0 0 I I I I I I I APPENDIX B CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2197 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: File Number 27729S LSA ASSOClATE , SEP 2 9 2003 Be~eley SEP 2 4 2003 LSA ^SSOC~AT[S iNC. PT RICHMOND OFFICE Mr. Eric Brown City of Livermore Planning Division 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, California 94550 Dear Mr. BrOwn: We received a submittal from LSA Associates, Inc. on your behalf, dated July 16, 2003, requesting confirmation of the extem of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction at the L_ivermore Municipal Airport, located south of Airway Boulevard and west of Kitty Hawk'Road in the City of Livermore, Alameda County, California. Enclosed is a map showing the extem.and location of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction on the property. We have based this jurisdictional delineation on the currem conditions of the site, as described by the Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Delineation submitted by LSA Associates, Inc. and confirmed by a site visit conducted on August 18, 2003, by Holly Costa and Bob Smith of our Regulatory Branch. A change in those conditions may also change the extent of our jurisdiction. This jurisdictional delineation will expire in five years from the date of this letter. However, if there has been a change in circumstances that affects the extent of Corps jurisdiction, a revision may be done before that date. All proposed discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be authorized by the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States generally include tidal waters, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), and wetlands. You arc advised that the Corps has established an Administrative Appeal Process, as described in 33 CFR Part 331 (65 FR 16,486; Mar. 28, 2000), and outlined in the enclosed flowchart and "Notification of Administrative Appeal Options, Process, and Request for Appeal" form (NAO-RFA). If you do not intend to accept the approved jurisdictional determination, you may elect to provide new information to the District Engineer for reconsideration or submit a completed NAO-RFA form to the Division Engineer to initiate the appeal process. You will relinquish all rights to appeal, unless the Corps receives new information or a completed NAO- RFA form within sixty (60) days of the date of the NAO-RFA. -2- If you have any questions, please call Holly Costa of our Regulatory Branch at telephone 415-977-8438 or by email: Holly.N.Costa~spd02.usace.army.mil. All correspondence should reference the file number at the head of this letter. Sincerely, Enclosure .Copy Furnished (w/maps only): Scan Lohmatm, LSA Associates, Inc. LSA 5~o.:z36.68~o 51o.236.348o July 16, 2003 Mr. Ed Wylie, South Section Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 333 Market Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 AsSOCiATES, iNC. JUL 18 t003 Berkeley Subject: Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Delineation at the Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, California. Dear Ed: We are writing on behalf of the City of Livermore to request verification of our assessment of potential waters of the United States, including wetlands, at the above-referenced site. The Livermore Municipal Airport is proposing several facility improvements, and wishes to confirm the extent of Clean Water Act jurisdiction in the project vicinity. Our determination is that a small section of Arroyo Las Positas that traverses a narrow part of the project site :is the only feature on the site that clearly qualifies as a water of the United States pursuant to CWA jurisdictional criteria. There are also a number of artificial swales and ditches providing drainage for the property with questionable CWA jurisdictional status. SITE DESCRIPTION Location The Livermorc Municipal Airport project site is located just south of I-580 in the City of Livermore, near the intersection of Sack London Road and Kitty Hawk Road. The project site is bordered by the Las Positas Golf Course to the west and north, light industrial properties to thc north and east, the City of Livermore's Water Reclamation Plant to the east, and undeveloped agricultural land to the south. The study area lies in the unsecfioned lands of Township 3 South, Ranch 1 East, within the former boundaries of Rancho Santa Rita. The location of the airport property and wetland study area are illustrated on Figures 1 and 2, attached. Structures The 590-acre project site contains runways, buildings and associated facilities, as well as several undeveloped peripheral lots. Airport facilities include two runways, three taxiways, 21 hanger buildings, an aircraft storage shelter, a corporate-style hanger building and the airport terminal. The 7/2/03 (p:\CLV 132\wetlands~2003 d¢ln¢ovltr.wpd ) peripheral undeveloped lots are composed of level fields supporting non-native annual grassland. These open fields are subject to periodic discing or mowing. Hydrology The Livermore Municipal Airport is located on the floor of the Livermore Valley within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed. A small section of Arroyo Las Positas runs through a narrow strip of the project site that extends north from the primary airport parcel. This part of the site lies just west of Air~vay Boulevard. Artificial drainage ditches run along the northern and southern perimeter of the core airport facility area, collecting storm runoff from most of the property. These ditches merge into a single ditch at the western end of the site, which continues west from the site along the southern boundary of the Las Positas Golf Course and eventually drains to Arroyo Las Positas. A third ditch runs along the northern edge of the site, parallel to Club House Drive. This ditch has no apparent connection to any other surface hydrologie feature. Several shallow swales run through the grassy median strips separating the nm~vays, taxiways, and hangar areas. These swales collect runoff from the paved areas and convey it to culverts that connect with the peripheral drainage ditches described above. Vegetation The non-developed portions of the site consist mainly of ruderal/non-native grassland. These areas are dominated by annual grass species including wild oats (Arena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromu~ diandrus), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum). A number ofruderal introduced weed species, such as yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragu~) and field bindweed (Convolvulu~ arvensis), are also present in this vegetation type. Most of these ruderal/non- native grassland areas had been mowed prior to the LSA site visit, either for harvest of hay or as part of fire management practices. The vegetation within the drainage ditches is dominated by foxtail barley, bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioidies), Kentucky rescue (Festuca arundinacea), six-weeks rescue ( Yulpia bromoides), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). The median strip swales are dominated by Italian ryegrass (£olium rnultiflorurn), foxtail barley, broad-leaf filaree (Erodium botrys), coyote brush (Bacchar~ pilularis), and field bindweed. Vegetation within the small segment of Arroyo Las Positas includes cattail (Typha sp.), hairy willow-herb (Epilobiura ciliatum) and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Soils The Natural Resources Conservation Service (Iq'RCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) mapped three soil series that cover the majority of the site in 1966. These series include Sunnyvale clay loam, Sycamore silt loam, and Yolo loam and gravelly loam. 7/2/03(P:~CLV 132\wetlande~2003delncovltr.wpd) 2 Sunnyvale soils consist of poorly-drained, deep to very deep, calcareous soils that are found on level valley floors. Sycamore series soils are found on level valley floors and consist of moderately well drained, very deep, light brownish-gray, calcareous soils. Yolo series soils consists of well-drained, moderately deep to very deep, loamy soils on nearly level valley floors. Smaller areas of Rincon clay loam, Zamora silt loam and Livermore gravelly loam are also found on the project site. A majority of the site has been disturbed from previous leveling and grading activities and many areas have been excavated and/or graded with fill material. Much of the site contains compacted soils resulting from previous construction activities. None of the soils listed above are on the Alameda County hydric soil list maintained by the NRCS. METHODS A team of LSA wetlands biologists visited the project site on September 25,200.1 to identify' potential waters of the United States on thc site. All investigated features and sample points are indicated on Figure 3. Little rain occurred during the 7- and 30-day periods prior to the site visit. ArrOyo Las Positas held water at the time of investigation, all other investigated features were dry. Areas potentially subject to CWA regulation were identified by the presence of depressed topographic features, and by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Sample points were established within each potential wetland area. Field data sheets for these sites are attached, and their locations are shown on Figure 3. RESULTS Arroyo Las Positas A small section of An'oyo Las Positas runs through the northernmost section of the site, adjacent to Airway Boulevard. The stream enters the property from the east under Airway Boulevard and flows west into the Livermore Municipal Golf Course. The average width of the stream segment on the airport project site is approximately 8 feet wide, and the segment is 250 feet long. Arroyo Las Positas is a perennial stream, and flowing water was present during our site visit. Dominant vegetation in the streambed is cattail and hairy willow-herb. Black mustard was dominant along the upper streambank. Thc total jurisdictional area of Arroyo Las Positas on the project site is 2,000 square feet (0.05 acre). Drainage Ditches The site contains two main drainage ditches that nm between the airport facilities and the perimeter of the property. The drainage ditches collect nmoff from the runways, taxiways, and median strip 7/2/03 (P:~CLV 132\wetlands~2003delncovltr.wpd) 3 swales in the center of the site, as well as from the hangar/terminal areas north of the runways. Marginally hydrophytic vegetation occurs in the northern ditch where the ditch passes close to the Las Positas Golf Course. Thc golf course lies immediately to the north of the project site, and irrigation runoff from the course reaches the ditch. The marginally hydrophytic plant cover is promoted by the irrigation runoff. There is no evidence of scour in the ditch. Sample Sites 1 and 2 were taken along a ditch segment where hydrophytic vegetation was most prevalent. Both sites failed to meet wetland criteria. Sample Site 1 was dominated by marginal wetland vegetation (FAC plants) but showed no sign of scour or any hydric soil indicators. Sample Site 2 featured close to 100 percent bare ground, and the vegetation that was present was not dominantly hydrophytic. There were no hydrologic indicators within the ditch, other than slight soil crusting with small cracks. No redoximorphie soil features were present in the ditch soil. A third drainage ditch segment parallels Golf Club Road. This ditch is unremarkable, with no wetland characteristics or visible evidence of stormflow. The ditch does not connect to the other on- site ditches, nor to any other surface hydrologic feature. The drainage ditches were artificially created in dry land with the consmaetionof the airport, to serve as the primary storm drainage system for the property. These drainage ditches do not hold water for any significant amount of time, and the only occurrences of wetland vegetation in the ditches are maintained by irrigation rm-off. Drainage Swales Several shallow swales run through the center of the property, separating runways, taxiways, and buildings. These areas collect runoff from the surrounding paved areas. Water that collects within the swales is conveyed to the primary drainage ditches through culverts. Less distinct swales and drainageways also occur elsewhere in the developed and undeveloped parts of the project site. None of these swales was dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, none exhibit more than minimal evidence of stormflow, and none were found to meet federal wetland criteria. Sample sites 3, 4, and 5 were taken at representative locations within drainage swales. All three sites failed to meet jurisdictional wetland criteria. Indistinct drainage swales occur at numerous locations about the project site, and have not been individually mapped on the delineation map. None of these swales are likely waters of the United States. CONCLUSIONS " Waters of the United States on the Livermorc Municipal Airport consist only of a small segment of Arroyo Las Positas, with a total area of 2,000 square feet (0.05 acre). This feature is mapped on Figure 3. LSA investigated several drainage ditches on the perimeter of the site and several shallow swales in the un-paved median strips of the airport, and all were found not to meet CWA jurisdictional criteria. 7/2/03(P:\CLV i 32\wetland,=",2OO3,d"lncovltr.'.vpd) ~" On behalf of the City of Livermore, we request written verification of these results at your earliest convenience. Please have your staff contact me at 510-236-6810 if you wish to arrange a site visit. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Project Manager Attch: Figures 1-3 Data Sheets 1-5 cc: Erie Brown, Planning Manager City of Livermore Planning Division, 1052 South Liverrnore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550 Leander Hauri, Airport Manager Livermore Municipal Airport, 636 Terminal Circle, Liverm0re, CA 94551 Judith Malamut, David Clore LSA Associates, Berkeley 7/2/03(P:~CLV132\wetlands~O03 delncovl~'.wgd) 5 Sonomo ' County Matin County Napa County Solana County Contra Costa County LSA 0 MILE~ 10 San Mateo County Santa Cruz '., County 0 Project Area Alameda County Santa Clara County FIGURE i Liver'more ~unicil~al Air~ort Regional Location p:XCL¥ 132~g~ayAreaRg$ion.¢dr (9/3/02) :enter / Wells Il: Study Area II Well .SA O 2000 III , FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.5' QUAD - LIVERMOP. E, 1980 FIGURE 2 Livermore Municipal Air~ort Delineation Study Area P:\CLV 132~8kStu~'yArea.odr (7/I 6/03) ,DATA.FORM: ROUTI]~rE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Ma,.nu~l) .;~,. Applicant' ~ Date: ' Sept, 25,2001 nvcsti at~s)' Davis Moth, Jon Ma~ard ~ Loca~iom Live~o~ I g - ~' ~c~ a .... ;~,-~ lac 157 Park Place, Poim Richmond, CA 94801 [ Count: Ala~da VEGETATION ~ote ~hose svecies obs~cd m have ~ bolo ~cal ~da snorts m w~ ~ % Cover Indicator Ass~i~ted Pl~nt Species % Cover lndic~t~ 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. 7. % dominant species th'~"~l are OBL, FACW or FAC (except FAC-). ~% Bare ground Field observations: ~ (in.) D~pth of surface water: l~pth to free water in pit: ~ (in.) Depth to saturated soil: .~I'D:L (in.) Approximate slope: 0 Within lO0-ycar floodplain? ~ Below OHWM or High Tide Linc? Yes ~ Physiographic position of site/Remarks: ~1~_ Wetland hydrology indicators: Inundated ~ Saturated in upper 12' ~ Water marks mn Organic dufflayer ~ Sediment deposits ~ Dnainage patterns in w~tlands 'i, Suppressed vcgc~sgon ~ Oxidi2.~d tool channels Matting (algal or oth~) ~ Other (explain in renm~rks) Map unit name: Taxonomy (subgroup): Soil series perrncabili~ (from NRCS survey): Field observations confirm mapped: soil series? Yes No Depth Matrix Color Rcdoximorphic .o ao. : -ois0 . co,o A/o c.<-o ,0 Additional Abunda~Contrast (texture, conc~:tions, pomsily, crc.). Hydric Soil Indicators: Abundant rhizospheres Olcying ~ Reducing conditions "~ Non-mollie, Iow--chrorm colors - High organic content in surfacc layer iron or Mn mottles ~ Deplemd mottles or matrix Sulfidic odor Probable nquic moistur~ regime Concretions Listed on county hydric soils list Other (explain in remarks) Wetland hydrology present Yes ¢ No~ Rcrnarks: · DATA. FORM: ROUTI.NE WETLAND DETE, I~..~INATION.'...~1987 CO..E Wetlands Deline93!,on Man~?) , /[ Proj~c~Sit~: Liv~ Applicant: lnvesXigam~s): D~vis Muth, Jon M~rd LSA Associates, Inc., 1~7 Park Place, Point Richm~d, CA 94801 Have v:g~tadon, soils, ~ hydrology been distu~dT Yes ~ Is the a~a a potential F~obl~ Ama? Yes ~... ... . .. ~ . % Cowr ~. Sample Site No.: [ Date: ' Sept, 25, 200i J Location: Livermore J County: Alameda ~ State: CA Indicator Associated Plant Species 5. 6. 7. dominant species that ar~'OBL, FACW or FAC(except FAC-). ~% Bare ground % Cover Indicator HYDROLOGY Field observations: {~ (in.) Depth of surface w~ter: ,, D~pth to free water in pit: '~Y~ (in.) D~pth to saturated soil: ,, '~ ~1 (in.) A~mxi~t= sl~: ~ Within l~-yenr fl~dpl~in? ~ Below OHWM ~ High Tide Line~ Yes ~ Physio~aphic position of site/Remarks: SOILS Map unit name: Taxonomy (sobSroup): Wetland hydrology indicators: Inundated Water maTkS Sediment deposits ..~_. Suppressed vegetation M~aing (nJBal or oth~) Ot~ (explain in ~s) Saturated in upper 12# Organic duffisyer Drainage patterns in w~tlands Oxidized root channels Soil series perm~abiliD' (from NRCS survey): Field obseceations confirm mapped soil s~es? Yes HO" Depth Matrix Color Redoximorphic Horizon (moist) Colo~ (moist) inches) Abundance/CohO'asr Hydric Soil indicator~: Abundant rhizo~pheres ~ Reducin8 conditions ~ High organic content in surface layer D~pleted mottles or matrix Gleying Non-mollic, low-chrome colors ~ Iron or Mn mottl~ Sulfidic odor Probable aquic moisture regime Concretions Listed on county hydric soils list Other (explain in remarks) es ls th~s sampling point vathm a wetland'~ Yes Hydric soils priest ~ ~ : W,,etland hydwlot~/p~¢~I , {~ No ' ' Rcn'~rks: oo~'~/O I P:~CI N 132\wetform.w~) · DATA'FORM:, ,, ROUTINE,,, , WETLAND DETERMINATION,,,, : , (1987=_ COE Wetlands Delineation ManuaD Pro'ec~Sit~' L ve~o~ [[A plicanr~ ' Date: ' Sept. 25,2001 1[ l~vesti~ator(s): Daws Muth, Jon Ma~ o ' ti LSA Associates, Inc., 157 Park Place, Point Richmond, CA 94801 C0un~: Alameda 11 Have vegeX,ion, sot]s, or hydrology been disturbed'?. Ye, ~ S~tc: CA T1ON ole those ~ ecics obse~cd to h~~cal E~~ wetlands ~th a*) ' Dominant Plant Species % Cover Indicator Associated Plant Species % Cov~ Indicator Lgo 1.. % dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (except FAC-). ~% Bare ground RemarkS: Field observations: Depth of surface water: Depth to free water in pit: Depth m saturated soil: Approximate slope: Within 100-year floodplain? Below OHWM or High Tide Line? Yes No Yes No (in.) (in.) (in.) Physiographic position of site/RemarkS: Wetland hydrology indicators: ~ Inundated Water marks ~ Scdirr~nt deposits "' Suppressed vegetation Matting (algal or other) ~ Other (explain in remarks) Saturated in upper 12" -- Organic: duff'layer , _Drainage patterns in w~tlands Oxidized ~oot channels Map unit name: Taxonomy (sub~'oup): Soil series permeability (from NRCS survey): Field obstTvations confirm mapped soil series? Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Ma~-ix Color Redoximorphlc (moist) Colom (moist) YK · Abundance./Contrast Additional observations (texture, concretions, porosity, etc.) Hydric Soil indicators: Abundant rhizosphetes Reducing conditions ~ High organic content in surface layer ~ Depleted moltlcs or matrix Gleying Non-mollic, Iow--chrome colors lmn or Mn mottles Sulfidic odor Probable a~ulc moisture r~girne Concretions Listed on county hydrlc soils list Other (explain in remarkS) Y PY ..... Hydric soils present Yes W. etland hydrology present Yes ~ ...... ' ' -- Remarks: s, ote uso no/9,;/Ol p:\CLV 132\wetform. wpd) % Cove~ Indicator Associated Plant Species % Cover Inclica~or Dominant Plant Species , 4. 7. ?' ' ..___.~_.% dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (except FAC-)..~..~_;~% Bare ~und ~ IYDROLOGY .~(in.} (in .) (in.) Field ohsm-vations:. Depth of surface water: Depth to t'tee water in pit: Depth to saturated soil: Approximate slop~: Within ! O0-year floodplain? Below OHWM or High Tide Line? Physiographic position of site/Remarks: Wetland hydrology indi~;ators: Inundated ~ Water marks ~ Sediment depositS "Suppressed veBetation Matting (algal or otheO Saturated in upper 12' ~ Organic dufflaTet _ Drainage patterns in wetlands ~ Oxidi~e.d root chennels Other (explain in SOILS Map umt name: Taxonomy (subgroup): Soil series pen-meability (from NRCS survey):_ Ficld observations confirm mapped soil series? Depth Matrix Color Redoximorphic (inches) Horizon ~ Colors (moist) (~ --Yg ... AbundanceJConmast Hydric Soil lndlcato~: Abundant rhi~ospheres ...... Reducing conditions ~ High organic content in surface layer ,. ~ Depleted mottles or matrix Gleylng Non-mollic, Iovt-chroma.color~ lron or Mn mottles Sulfidlc odor Probable aquic moisture regime Concretions List~ on county hydric soils list Other (explain in remarks) Remarks: WETLAND Hydrophytic vegetation present Yes Hydric soils present Yes Yes , Is this sampling point withi~ a wetland? Yes 4,-¢,',~a~ q,.,':, #:/.¢~,:' ?'.~,,,.'- .r >";4 ,.'"¢,4 ~ ",.~:,..,-* o4' f~ ~,/',,., 'DATA' FORM: ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION, (1.,987 C..O~ Wellan, ds D.e,!:ineat!,on M~nual) i ~ . ,.i; ~ ' ' ' ' / ' ': ' Applicant: . . I ~cafion: Livc~e- vest~ amr s D~vis Muth, Jori ~aynaro In 'g (): ............ mond CA94801 ~ CounW' Ala~da ~A Associates, mc., l ~/tarn rlag~, ~olnt. K~cn , Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been distu~ed? YeS No ] State; CA me those species obse~ed to have ~cal adaptations t0 wetlands with '~hme s~c~s ~ac~;u ~ Associated Plato S~;cies % Cover Indicator Fo Cover l~OlCator Dominant Plant Species .. 4. 5. 6. 7. ~ 0 % dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (except .FAC-). q,~ % Bare ground Remarks: HYDROLOGY Field observations: D~th of surface watvr: Depth to free water in pit: Depth to saturated soil: Approximate slope: Within IO0-year floodplain? Below OHWM or High Tide Line? ~ (in.) ..~.~ (in.) (in.) Yes <I~ Yes t~ Wetland hydrology indicators: Inundated Water marks Sediment deposits ~ Suppressed vegetation Matting (algal or oth~) Other (enplain in remarkS) Saturated in upper 12" Organic duff layer _Drainage patterns in wetlands Oxidized root channels Physiographic position of site/Remarks: L~OuO O~C~a~ ~, C.("~/ep~-~ ~O~ Map unit name: Taxonomy (subgroup): Soil series petrr~ability (from NRCS survey): Field observations confirm mapped soil s~.-ries? Ilo Ma~x Color Redoximorphic Depth (inchcs) Horizon (moist) Colors (moist) Abundance/Contrast Additional observations (texture, concretions, porosity, crC.) Hydric Soil Indicators: Abundant rhizospheres __ Oleying Reducing conditions ~ Non-mollie, Iow-chroma colors High organic content in surface layer ~ Iron or Mn mottles Depicted mottles or matrix Sulfidic odor Probable aquic moisture regime Concretions Lis~d on county hydrJc soils list Other (explain in re~atks). So~\, Hydrophyfic vegetation present Yes ~ I Is this sampling point within a wetland'?. Yes ~ Wetland h~tdrology present Yes.. '~ ' . , ' '~ . ~7/~3of APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTATION INFORMATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P,O, BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO, CA 94296-0001 (916) 653-6624 Fax: (916) 653-9824 calshpo @ ohp.parks.ca,gov wv~v.ohp.porks.co.gov Joseph R. Rodriguez Supervisor, Environmental Planning and Compliance Federal Aviation Administration San Francisco Airports District Office 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: Barry Franklin ~- ' 600! ' OoA i~ 6¢2, ~ 'II 603 610 612~ RE: Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Enhancements Alameda County, California Dear Mr. Rodriguez: GRAY DAVIS, Governor FEB 1 Thank you for your submittal of November 18, 2002, which continues the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) consultation with me regarding the undertaking referenced above. The FAA is consulting with me pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The City of Livermore is proposing to expand its airport facilities in connection with the Livermore Airport's Master Plan. The Master Plan includes future development at the airport, including additional hangar space, office space, limited commercial services directly supporting aviation uses (commercial services), extension of one of the existing runways, and related improvements. At the present time, the FAA is requesting my concurrence on their finding of "No Adverse Effect" for the proposed undertaking, which implements portions of the Master Plan. In a previous letter dated January 14, 2002, FAA's cultural resources consultants, LSA Associates, requested my comments regarding the need for an archaeological survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed airport expansion. In my response letter, dated March 5, 2002, I recommended that a systematic pedestrian survey of the APE be undertaken, due to the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites in similar environmental settings in the immediate vicinity. Your most recent submittal of November 18 documents such efforts with the following study: A Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study. of the Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California, by LSA Associates, September 5, 2002. Background research for the survey revealed no known sites within the undertaking's APE, while field survey of the area idontified one site (designated as "Livermore Airport Prehistoric/Historic Site"). The site is characterized as "a possible prehistoric site and the scattered remains of a possible farmstead." Observed materials that are potentially prehistoric in nature include an obsidian biface and "vesicular basalt, fine-grained basalt, and obsidian." Observed historic-period remains include bricks, chunks of concrete, metal fragments, ceramics, glass, a shell button, and two piles of concrete pieces. In a telephone conversation with John Sharp of my staff on January 6, 2003, FAA Environmental Protection Specialist Barry Franklin conf'n-med that this site is located within an aviation (bird) reserve area, that will not be physically affected by the proposed undertaking. The spatial relationship between the site and the project APE was further confirmed by an APE map faxed to my office on January 16, 2003. Page 2 of 2 While the identified site lies outside of the APE, three local Native Americans (Steve Soto, Kathy Perez, and Andrew Galvan) have expressed concerns regarding the possibility that previously undiscovered archaeological resources could be discovered within the APE once excavation commences. The FAA is therefore proposing to have all ground<listurbing activities monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a representative of the local Native American community. In the case of a discovery that cannot be avoided through project re-design, the site "shall be evaluated to determine its significance" (pursuant to § 800.4(c)). If the discovered site is found eligible to the National Register or Historic Places, "adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated by measures...implemented by the City" (pursuant to § 800.5-6). After reviewing the submitted materials, I am able to concur with the FAA's finding of "conditional No Adverse Effect" for the proposed undertaking. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Sharp, Staff Archaeologist, at (916) 653-2716 or at jshar@ohp.parks.ca.gov. · Sincerely,~ /~ State Historic Preservation Officer U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration November 18, 2001 ASSOCIATES INC San Francisco Airports District Office 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 Bnrlingame, California 94010 Dr. Knox Mellon State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, California 94296-0001 Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Enhancements at Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California Dear Dr. Mellon; The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead federal agency responsible for an environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed enhancement at the Livermore Municipal Airport. The City of Livermore is the local lead agency responsible for an environmental determination in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FAA has federal oversight for the implementation of the proposed Airport Master Plan improvements. All existing and proposed development must be depicted on'an approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Pursuant to implementation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended December 2000, the FAA has determined in accordance with 36 CFR 800, that the federal undertaking is for an ALP approval and/or federal funding for the proposed new airport construction. The airport development may adversely affect cultural resources that may be located within the axea of potential effect (APE): Based on your letter of March 5, 2002, it indicated that the proposed airport development would be constructed in an environmental setting considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological properties in close proximity to Arroyo Las Positas. Al[er coordination with The Native American Heritage Commission, it recommended that LSA not only do a search of the sacred lands file for any Native American cultural resources that maY be affected by the proposed development project, but names of Native Americans that may have information or concerns about the proposed project area. Several Native Americans responded to the ISA inquires and their recommended mitigation measures are indicated in enclosure (1). Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Enhancements at Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California In accordance with 36 CFR 800,5, it was determined by enclosure (1) that the proposed project does not meet the criteria of an adverse effect as an undertaking that may alter, directly or indirectly any characteristics of a historic property that qualify for inclusion in the National Register. Although no cultural or paleontological resources were identified within the APE, there is a high possibility of subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits within the Livermore Airport property. The following mitigation measures are proposed for associated ground disturbing activities and will be implemented during the construction phase of the project. ~: Ground disturbing activities could result in the disturbance of fossil- bearing Pleistocene deposits buried by alluvium soils. Proposed M.ifi. gation Measure-l: Once 'improvements at the Airport' involving excavation commence, the specific project site shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist during ground disturbing activities. If paleontological resources are identified within the project area, project construction activities shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid these resources, ff they cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated to determine their significance. If such paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be mitigated by measures ree6mmended by a qualified paleontologist and implemented by the City. Imoact 2: Ground disturbing activities could result in the disturbance of the possible prehistoric cultural resource. Prooosed Mitigafion. Measure-2a: Preconstruction archaeological testing shall be conducted to identify cultural resource site boundaries in order to avoid effects to surface and subsurface cultural resources. Proposed Mitigation Measure-2b: All ground disturbing activities shall be planned so as to attempt to avoid prehistoric cultural resources. If it .cannot be avoided, the prehistoric site shall be evaluated to determine its significance. If the prehistoric archaeological site is found to be significant, adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated by measures recommended by a qualified archaeologist and implemented by the City. !moact 3: Ground disturbing activities could result in the disturbance of unknown prehistoric cultural resources. Proposed Mitigation. Measure-3a: A qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbing activities for unknown prehistoric cultural resources. Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Enhancements at Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California Prop°se~ Mitieation Measure -3b: If deposits of prehistoric and/or historical material are encountered during construction activities, it is recommended that all work within 50 feet be halted until an archaeologist, can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Preh/storic materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls and other structural rvmains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics and other refuse. Project construction personnel shall not collect or move any cultural material. Proposed Mitigation Measure-3c: Section 7050.5 of the California Health ai~d Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or .any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until thc coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. m~_~p_~_~: Ground disturbing activities could result in the disturbance of the identified historical cultural resource. Proposed Mitigation Measure-4a: implemented for this impact Mitigation MeaSure CULT-2a shall be ~o~osed Mitigation Measur.~4b: The cultural resource shall be avoided by ground disturbing activities. If it cannot be avoided, the historical site shall be evaluated to determine its significance. If the historical archaeological site is found to be significant, adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated by the City and a qualified archaeologist. 3 Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Enhancements at Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California The FAA has determined that 36 CFR 800.5 Co) is the criteria that applies for the proposed undertaking. It is concluded that the associated development and the incorporated mitigation measures, is not likely to effect historic or archaeological resources eligible for listing on the National Register. We request your concurrence in this determination of no adverse effect. If you have any further questions or comments regarding this project, please contact Mr. Barry Franklin at (650) 876-2795. Sincerely, ~anning and Compliance Enclosures: (1) A Cultural and Paleomological Resources Study of the Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California cc: LSA, Judith H. Malamut, AICP U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration November 26, 2002 :..; AS$OC!.gTES, INC. - 2 2002. ~erkele~.,~ San Francisco Airports District Office 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 Burlingame, California 94010 Dr. Knox Mellon State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Itistoric Preservation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, California 94296-0001 -Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Enhancements at Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California Dear Dr. Mellon; This letter is being submitted to correct a statement made in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) letter dated November 18, 2002. The statement read "Although no cultural or paleontological resources were identified within the APE, there is a high possibility of subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits within the Livermore Airport property." The statement should read "Although no cultural or paleontological resources were identified within the APE as a result of the background research and literature review, one historical and prehistoric cultural resource was identified by field study." There is no proposed construction or operational activities scheduled for the area identified in Figure 3 ora Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study of the Livermore Municipal Airport, Livermore, Alameda County, California. If you have any further questions or comments regarding this project, please contact Mr. Barry Franklin at (650) 876-2795. Sincerely, ', ~ental Planning and Compliance cc: LSA, Judith H. Malamut, AICP ]=SA ASSOCIATES, INC, Consultations The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Environmental Handbook Order 5054.4A (1985) state that "the State Historic Preservation Officer must be consulted for advice... If the State Preservation Officer recommends the need for a professional cultural resource survey of the environmental impact area.., the FAA... should follow the recommendations of the State Historic Preservation Officer if the Officer provides good reason for believing that previously unidentified eligible historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural properties are within the area of the 'proposed action's environmental impact" (Chapter 5 paragraph 47e(8~)Co)(1 a and b)). Dr. Knox Mellon, State Historic Preservation Officer for the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) was contacted by letter requesting a determination of the necessity of a cultural resources survey. Ann Marie Medin, OItP responded by a letter dated March 5, 2002, stating that a cultural resources survey was advised. The Native American Heritage Commission ('NAHC) in Sacramento was requested to review the sacred lands files for any Native American cultural resources that might be affected by the proposed project. Also requested were the names of Native Americans who might have information or concerns about the project area. Ms. Debbie Pilas-Treadway, Associate Governmental Program Analyst at NAHC, responded in a fax dated August 23, 2001 that a review of the sacred lands file showed no known Native American concerns regarding the proposed project. She also provided a list of Native American contacts. LSA wrote letters to all of the Native American contacts provided by the NAHC. Follow-up phone calls were made to all persons and organizations to whom the letters were sent: Irene Zwierlein of the Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band, Jakki Kehl, Thomas Soto, Andrew Galvan of the Ohlone Indian Tribe, Ella Rodriguez, Ramona Garibay representing the Trina Marine Kuano Family, Anne Marie Sayer of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Marjorie Arm Reid, Michelle Zimmer of the Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band, and Katherine Erolinda Perez. Anne Marie Sayer of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Marjorie Ann Reid, Michelle Zimmer, and Jakki Kehl had no telephone numbers or numbers that were disconnected with no new number offered, and therefore, could not be reached by phone. No response was received from Irene Zwierlein of the Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band or Kamona Garibay representing the Trina Marine Ruano Family. Steve Soto, responded in a faxed letter dated March 25, 2001 that the proposed project area is likely to produce Native American artifacts and recommends that a survey be conducted on future projects and that Native American monitors are present. Ella Rodriguez, and had no specific concerns but would like to be informed if prehistoric sites are identified within the Proposed project area. Katherine Perez felt that the project location is sensitive for Native American cultural resources and that burials may be present within the study area. Ms. Perez also recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. Andrew Galvan also expressed concern regarding possible Native American burials within the project area and recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground- disturbing activities. The Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society Museum was contacted by letter on August 16, 2001, for any information or concerns that the museum may have in regards to historical sites in the study area. No response was received from the museum. I I LSA pT. ~IC~IMO1'4~, CALlIO~[~IA ~4~0! 51o.236.348o January 14, 2002 Dr. Knox Mellon, State Historic Preservation Officer California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94286-0001 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Dr. Mellon: The City of Livermore Airport is proposing to expand its airport facilities. The 143-acre project area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livcrmore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Livermore, California 7.5-minute topographic map. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Environmental Handbook Order 5054.4A (1985) state that "the State Historic Preservation Officer must be consulted for advice... If the State Preservation Officer recommends the need for a professional cultural resource survey of the environmental impact area.., the FAA. · · should follow the recommendations of the State Historic Preservation Officer if the Officer provides good reason for believing that previously unidentified · eligible historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural properties are w/thin the area of the proposed action's environmental impact" (Chapter 5 paragraph 47e(8)Co)(1 a and b)). LSA Associates, Inc. conducted a records search (#01-810) of the study area at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rolmert Park, on August 8~ and 28~, 2001. The files at the NWlC contain no record of cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the Livermore Airport. The records search at the NW1C indicated that one short linear, cultural resources study had been conducted within, and five other cultural resource surveys adjacent to, the Livermore Airport project area. No cultural resources were identified as a result of these studies within or adjacent to the Livcrmore Airport. The review of the base maps at the NWlC indicated that several prehistoric sites are within 1.5 miles of the Liverrnore Airport. These prehistoric sites are situated along Arroyo Mocho or Arroyo las Positas. Arroy° Mocho is west and south of the Livermore Airport, while Arroyo Las Positas is immediately north of the Livermore Airport. Three prehistoric archaeological sites, CA-ALA-394,.- 414, and -413, were encountered during construction excavation along or near the Arroyo Moch° (I-Iolman 1983). A cluster of prehistoric archaeological sites, P-00-49-2199 through -2203, have been identified along Arroyo Las Positas, Cayetano Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Arroyo Las 1/14/02(P:~CLV 132\CulturaBSHPO.wl~l) Positas one-mile west of Cayetano Creek. These archaeological sites are found at the surface and below surface in environmental settings similar to that of the study area. We hereby request your determination of the necessity of a cultural resources survey of the City of LiYermore Airport. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via e- mail at george.mckale~lsa-assoc.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, iNC. Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group enclosed maps 2 1/14/02(P:\CLV 132\CulturalL$ HPO.wpd) Marin County Sonomo County Napa County Solana County LSA 10 San Morea County Santa Cruz County Contra Costa County Study: Area * Alameda County Santa Clara County FIGURE 1 Livcrmore Airport Expansion Regional Location LSA o 2000 SOURCE: USGS ?,ff QUAD - bi vERMOR£, 1950 Livermore, Municipal Airport Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study Area P:\CLV132[g~qtudyAt~cdr (9/18/01) GRAY DAVIS, Governor ~ORNIA- THE RESO_URC._ES..A2ENCY In rcply rcfgr to: FAA020115A George McKale LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Pt.. Richmond, CA 94801 RE: Livermore Airport Expansion, Livermore, Alameda County (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Mr. McKale: I have received your letter regarding the above-referenced undertaldng. You explain you are consulting with me because Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)guidance requires consultation with the SI-IPO to determine "...the need for a professional cultural resources survey of the environmental impact area..." for any undenaldng. LSA conducted a records search of the project area at the Northwest Information Center. The records search indicated that no previously reCorded archaeological or historic properties were identified within the study area and that only a small portion of the study area had been previously surveyed. You explain that records indicate that several prehistoric sites are situated 'within 1.5 miles of the Livermore Airport, in similar environmental settings. The proposed undertaking is situated in an environmental setting considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological properties, particularly due to its proximity to Arroyo Las Positas. In my opinion, a systematic pedestrian survey of accessible areas of the project is warranted to identify any potential historic properties. Should such properties be identified, I would be glad to consult with the FAA on their National Register status. in addition, you should consult with interested Native American groups or individuals. A list may b~ obtained by contacting the Native American Heritage CammissJon at (916) 653-4.082. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Anmarie Medin, Staff Historical Archaeologist, at (916) 653-2716 or at a~medi. @ ohp.p .arks.ca. [ov. ,! Sincerely, / / Dr. Knox Mell~ State Historic Preservation Officer LSA OTHER 510.2,56.65]O T'r;.. 'r,]E~..F.,~L~Y _ 510.2~,6.3450 FA:( I'gVl N E R O CF.~IN August l6,2001 Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: (Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California) (LSA Projec~ CLV132) Dear Mr. Myers: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. Please review the sacred lands files for any Native American cultural resources that may be within or adjacent to the study area. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T.3S/R.1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Liverrnore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resource concerns within the study area. We also request a list of Native American individuals and organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via e-mail (christian.gerike~lsa-assoc.com). We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Neal Kaptain, Associate Cultural Resources Group 3/13/01 (p:\CLV 132\CulturalXNAHC Letlcr.wpd) NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COt4MISSION SACR~M~IITO~ C:A 95B14 (s~ 6) ~s~-4oaz F~ (~1~) 6S7-5~90 Web ~ Augu~ 23, ~001 N~ K~p~in ~ $7 ~ RE: Uve~e A~ ~p~ JnJ~ml S~, AI~ ~ ~ . ~mr ~r. ~i~ Encl~ ~ a .... ..... J= ~-~ ~ ~rO~ ~er Si~ere~, , ~ ~ ~, NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS Ala~a CounH - _ Augu~~ ~, ~1 .... d ~~n Tflb~ ~ ~~?,..,on L--~.00' ~lo.~~ ~v~e .5130 Ohlo~~-- I C A (4~) 3~-1391 - Home 1411 Ohlon~~ irme Zwi~n, PO ~x ~ ~* Im 7~ ~ada R~ ~l~mm in~ ~a~ ~uj ~ - - ~ - In~ ~n M~n ~ J~ · ~n~~O~ ~n M~e 8~, Ch~~ ._ _ ~1 ~ver ~ ~'=14 ~ P.O. ~x 28 ~ ~~~no~ ~ymn, c A ~ ~i~, c A s5o~4,o (9~) 51~ 670 (510) ~7~2S8 . i ~~ ~a ~,~ ~~ A~rew Ga~ _ . 1~ Luna ~e ~ ~'~,~ Vok~ ~ ~x ~152 Oh~n~~ ~n. ~ ,~,~.~,,, .=~ - ' ' C A 94539 (510)6~07~ ' F~ ~~A~m T~ M~ Ru~ F~ ~m~ P. ~ .... ~_~ R~ona G~bay, Repre~n~ _ . ~ ~x 269 --~31 ~on~ 37974 ~nyon ~s. D~ve ~0 367~ ( ) ' ' i I 14085169671 2002-03-25 21:53:23 (GMT), page 2 I Cultural Resource Consultants George McKale LSA Associates 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 (S~ 0) X~,-6S~ 0 Sent via fax: 510-236-3480 In regards to LSA Project # CLVI32 it is our opinion that this site is likely to produce Native American artifacts. It is my understanding that neither the airport site or adjacent local sites have had a comprehensive survey completed to review the areheological content contained in rite area. Given the location, geographical features and the lack of previous surveys it is our recommendation that a survey be conducted on future projects and that Native American monitors are present. CNA would be please to n.~i~t in the moultorin~ Sincerely, Steve Soto, CNA Cultural Resource C°nsultants PO Box 56802 * Hayward, CA 94541 * (510) 733-6045 * Fax (510) 733-6158 Customer Service & Sales (408) 605-0010 * Fax (408) 516-9671 LSA 5~o,:~36.65~o TEt 510.2~,6.5450 }'AX i It¥11,1 £ lOC:ir. LIN February 28, 2002 The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan P.O. Box 3152 Mission San Jose, CA 94539 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Mr. Galvan: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if:the-proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS £ivermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa-assoc.com). I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA AssOCIATES, INC. George McKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2/28/02(P;\CLV132\Cultural~Nafive Amerieans\Galvan.wpd) I_SA 51o.236.68~0 TEL ~O.2~6.3480 February 28, 2002 Trina Marine Ruan° Family Romona Garibay, Representative 37974 Canyon Heights Drive Fremont, CA 94536 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Ms. Garibay: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the-proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Livermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale@lsa-assoc.com). I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. George McKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2/28/02(P:\cLVi 32\Cultural\Native Americans\Oaribay.wpd) LSAI I~T. ~[IC~MO~4D, CAI. iFO~I~]A ~4~0~ ~1o.236,68xo 'r~ ~1o.236.348o February 28, 2002 Jakki Kohl '5461 Beaver Lane Byron, CA 94514 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California CLSA Project # CLV132) Dear Ms. Kehl: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The stud~ area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Liverrnore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS £ivermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa~assoc.com). I look forward to heating from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. George McKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2/28/02(P:\CLV 132\Cultural'uNativ¢ AmericansLKehl.wpd) LSA I~OC~LIN February 28, 2002 Katherine Erolinda Perez 1234 Luna Lane Stockton, CA 95206 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Ms. Perez: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the .proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study-area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Li~ermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa-assoc.com)- I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. George McKale, M.A., KPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2/28/02(PSCLV132\Cultural\Native Arr~ficans~P~rez'WPd) LSA L$~ A,$$ OCIATI!:$, IS? PAP, K, pLACE PT. It]CHMOND, CALII~'OEI~$A 94801 51o.236,681o T£~- Slo.236.3480 }-Ax OT~£R OFFICES; iiV£~$1DI February 28, 2002 Marjorie Anne Reid 19279 Lexington Lane Redding, CA 96003 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Ms. Reid: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terrninal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Liverrnore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa-assoc.¢om). · I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. George McKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2F28/02(P:\CLV 132\Culturalh'qativ¢ Am~ricans~R¢id.wpd) ~'/..A I"I N I lq O [ ~- N v l i}. 0 H M F.. iii ,,t A t $clI;lq C£8 I I) ES101q LSA RI¥~R$1D/ R OCli. L1~; February 28, 2002 Ella Rodriguez P.O. Box 1411 Salinas, CA 93902 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dea~ Ms. Rodriguez: LSA AssOciates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the.proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Liverrnore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Livermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of, . the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within thc study area. Please notify Us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa'ass°c'c°m)' I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. George MeKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2228/02(P:\CLV 132~CulturalhNative Americans\Rodtigucz.wPd) 1. LA]~ 14 2 I~ O J E~4 ¥ l ~O ~qb[ Z~qTA I- 5 ClEI~C:~$ OZslOlq LSA LSA Aq$OCIAT'~ I~C. 1~7 pARle. ~LAC~ ~'g. ~ICI~MO]gl)~ CA'~I~O~IA ~4~0~ $~0.2~.~450 ~AX ~,0 C~.LIN February 28, 2002 Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayer, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA 95024 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Ms. Sayer: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the-proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, TBS, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Livermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa-assoc.com). i look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. George McKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2/28/02('P:\CLV 132\CulturallaNativ¢ Am~rican$~aycr,~d) LSAI 51o.236.681o 51o.2~6.348o February 28, 2002 Thomas P. SOto P.O. Box 269 Foresthill, CA 95631 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Mr. Soto: LSA Associates, Inc. is conduCting a cultural resources study to determine if the_ proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS £ivermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale@lsa-assoc.com)- I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA AssOCIATES, INC. George McKalc, M.A., RPA Archacologist Cultural Resources Group 2/28/02(P:\CLV 132\Cultural~lative Americ~ns~Soto.wpd) LSA/ 51o.z36.68~o TEL 5~o.:Z~6.348o ~zx. February 28, 2002 Amah/Mutsun Tr/bal Band Michelle Zimmer · 4952 McCoy Avenue San Jose, CA 95130 Subject: Livcrmore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Ms. Zimmm': LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the ~roposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Livermore 7.5' wpographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa'ass°c'c°m)' I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA AssOCIATES, INC. George McKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources Group 2/28/02(P:\CLV132\Cultural\Native Arnericans~Zimrr~r.wpd) L'SA 5~o.:z36.681o T~L 5tO.~36.3~.s~O TAX February 28, 2002 Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 789 Canada Road Woodside, CA 94062 Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California (LSA Project # CLV132) Dear Ms. Zwierlcin: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if th~ proposed City of Livermorc Airport Expansion project might, affect cultural resources. The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Livermore, Alameda County, T3S, R1E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on thc accompanying portion of thc USGS Livermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resources concerns Within the study area. Please notify us if you have any information or concerns about the study area. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (george.mckale~lsa-assoc.com)- I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Oeorge McKale, M.A., RPA Archaeologist Cultural Resources C_~roup 2/28/02(P:\CLV 132\CulturalXlqativc Americans',Zwierlein.wpcl) LSA · T. ~ICHJdOIqD, CALiI~O~L~qIA ~4801 ~i~T~i~L~¥, ~]¥t~ ~,$zDtr I R~; i ~q T. ]LO August 16, 2001 Amador-Liverrnore Valley Historical Society Museum 603 Main St. Pleasanton, CA 94566 Subject: (Livermore Airport Expansion Initial Study, Livermore, Alameda County, California) (LSA Projec~ CLV132) Dear Historical Society: LSA Associates, Inc. is conducting a cultural resources study to determine if the-proposed City of Livermore Airport Expansion project might affect cultural resources. 'The study area is at 636 Terminal Circle, Liver-more, Alameda County, T.3 S/R. t E, Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian, as depicted on the accompanying portion of the USGS Livermore 7.5' topographic map. The purpose of the study is to identify cultural resource concerns within the study area. Please notify us if your organization has any information or concerns about historical sites in the study area. This is not a request for research; it is solely a request for public input for any concerns that the historical society may have. To reach us, please contact me at the address and phone number above or via email (christian.gcrike~lsa-assoc.com). I look forward to hearing from you. Thank yOU. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Neal Kaptain, Associate Cultural Resources Group APPENDIX D GENERAL PLAN AIRPORT POLICIES AND GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MEASURES CITY OF LIVERMORE, GENERAL PLAN AIRPORT POLICIES Goal CIR-8 Support and protect safe and efficient aviation operations at the Municipal 'Objective CIR-8.1 Ensure that aviation operations, uses, and devdopment are protected from incompatible adjacent land uses, as well as meet the needs of the local and regional economy. Polities Pl. Future devdopment and operations at the Munldpal Airport shall be in conformance with an approved master plan. The overall scale of operations at the Munidpal Airport shall not exceed the thresholds listed bdow. (a) Livermore Munidpal Airport is a general aviation airport. Scheduled passenger service flights shall be prohibited. (b) To the greatest extent feasible, jet flights shall be restricted to approximately five percent of the total annual aircva~ operations. (c) To the greatest extent feasible, annual aircraft operations shall not exceed 370,000 operations in any given year, including itinerant and local operations. (d) To the greatest extent feasible, the total number of aircraft to be stored/parked at the Munidpal Airport shall not exceed 900 in any given year, including hangar and apron space areas. (e) No more than 60-percent of the Airport area designated Community Facility- Airport (CF-AIR) shall be covered with impervious surfaces, including but not limited to, buildings, taxiways, runways, parking areas, fuel areas, and wash (f) N'zght-time flights between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be discouraged to the greatest extent feasible. (g) Aircraft and airport operation noise levds shall be consistent with the thresholds established in the General Plan Noise Element. P2. To protect the Munidpal Airport from encroachment by incompatible uses, the City shall encourage development of property within the immediate vicinity of the Airport for light industrial and transportation uses to the extent that noise standar& and flight clearance requirements are maintained, and environmental impacts' are adequately mitigated. LSA A$$OCIATES~ JANUARY 2004 LIVi~RMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT APPENDIX D P3. New residential land use designations or the intensification of existing residential land use designations shall be prohibited within the Airport Protection Area, as shown on Land Use Element Figure 3-4. A~ons A4. Develop and periodically update a master plan for the airport to implement Policy CIR-8.1.P1. Objective LU-4.4 rises. Protect the Municipal Airport from encroachment by incompatible Polities Pl. P2. The City shall encourage development of propexty within the immediate vicinity of the Airport for light industrial and transportation uses to the extent that noise standards and flight clearance requirements are maintained, and environmental impacts are adequately mitigated. New residential land use designations or the intensification of existing residential land use designations shall be prohibited within the Airport Protection Area (.&PA), which is shown on Figure 34. The APA includes the area located within 7,100-feet west of the western end of runway 7L-25R, 5,000-feet north of the northern edge of runway 7L-25R, 5,000-feet east of the eastern end of runway 7L-25R, and 5,000 feet south of the southern edge ofmnway7R-25L P3. Development at the Airport shall be subject to Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Land Use Commission, and City building/structure height restrictions. IGoal PS-5 Minimize risks associated with aircraft operations at the Livermore Municipal Objective PS-5.1 Regulate land use within the vicinity of the Livermore Municipal Pl. All construction in Livermore shall be consistent with the required setbacks and height restrictions for the Airport Protection Area, as well as the polities of a master plan adopted to plan for furore Airport operations. -'"9°=t ~))c) 5o~'