Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.a. Clarify Board position re Kiewit property and CoCo San Sustainable Farm proposal0-4 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District April 18, 2013 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: CURT SWANSON, PROVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER FROM: DANEA GEMMELL, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION MANAGERD� SUBJECT: UPDATE ON KIEWIT PROPERTY LAND USE OPTIONS At the April 8, 2013 Enterprise Committee, President Nejedly asked staff to (1) provide clarification as to direction to staff from the February 21, 2013 Board meeting with respect to determining whether a farm on the Kiewit site would be permissible and (2) agendize an item for the next Board meeting to determine where the other Board Members stand on this matter and how to proceed from this point forward. Clarification of Direction on Farm Proposal Staff provided a presentation on February 21, 2013 to update the status of three proposals conceptually endorsed by the Board including (1) the CoCo Sustainable Farm, (2) youth soccer fields for the Pleasant Hill Martinez Soccer Association (PHMSA), and (3) a commercial operation such as a clean fill /dirt quarry. As previously directed by the Board, staff has been working to further develop the proposals. Minutes of the meeting (Attachment 1) note that "President Nejedly objected to staff doing any further work on the farm proposal without a clear indication from the County /airport officials "... and "he was confused by conflicting information." Member Williams concurred with President Nejedly "adding that the farm proposal is a good concept that has been approached from the wrong direction..." and "expressed frustration with the pressure to make a decision without a complete set of facts." Member McGill said that, "while he agreed with President Nejedly and Member Williams' concerns, he suggested waiting for the results of a re- evaluation by airport officials before ceasing further work on the proposal." The minutes also note that "Member Causey echoed the viewpoints of President Nejedly and Member Williams, noting that it is not possible for the Board Members to evaluate the project appropriately because they have yet to receive a written proposal." Staff's understanding of the Board's direction was to try to facilitate receipt of a letter or written clarification from the County and Airport officials on the compatible land use on the Kiewit site. County staff indicated that any requests for clarification of land uses on the Kiewit property come from the District as the property owner. As such staff met with Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development on February 25th to request a written clarification. County staff indicated that the Land Use permit process must be followed in order to provide written confirmation on whether a farm would be permissible on the Kiewit site. Typically the Land Use application submittal would include an application fee and a N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN \DIST- SEC \Position Papers\2013 \4 -18 -13 Kiewit Property Update (6) (2).doc UPDATE ON KIEWIT PROPERTY LAND USE OPTIONS Page 2 April 18, 2013 comprehensive project description. Because of the proximity of Buchanan Fields Airport, the County indicated that the application would likely include certification that the proposed uses (agriculture or industrial) would not impact the airport. The County did agree to hold a Study Session of the Airport Land use Commission (ALUC) to provide feedback on permissible land uses (including the farm proposal) for the Kiewit parcel. Further discussion with the County indicated that a consultant with expertise in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and the emerging changes in design guidelines due to bird strikes would provide the necessary assurances for the property. Staff engaged ESA, planning and environmental experts who recently completed an update for Caltrans' "California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ", to develop an airport land use compatibility evaluation for the Kiewit parcel to identify constraints. Staff determined that the document could assist the District in developing both a Land Use application and Request for Proposal of a mixed use plan for both agricultural and light industrial uses. Dr. Phinney submitted a revised proposal on April 8 which was distributed to the Board. She has informed staff that she is working on subsequent revisions which have not yet been received, and so are not included with this memo. Land Use Information A memorandum from ESA titled "Draft Land Use Concepts for Kiewit Property" (Attachment 2) presented the approximately 23 acres of level property as six areas with varying allowable uses based on noise levels, building intensity, height limitations and runway protection zones. The allowable uses include agriculture, storage yards and light industrial with a variety of constraints. The memorandum titled "Airport Land Use Compatibility and Crop Suitability for Kiewit Property" (Attachment 3) provides discussion of the constraints by ESA biologists and land use planners. Highlights of this document include: • Area in the Runway Protection Zone (approximately 3 acres) is best as vacant land to avoid wildlife attractants and obstructions created by structures. • Crops that attract bird species such as alfalfa, fruits and nuts are prohibited. • Vegetable crops including lettuces, tomatoes, kale are moderately suitable so long as crop habitats are controlled via trapping or other methods to reduce potential prey base for raptor species. Herbs, bee garden species and some flowers are considered highly suitable. • Safety Zone 2 which covers the majority of usable site (17.3 acres), has a density constraint of 30 people per acre. Safety Zone 4 (2.1 acres) has a building intensity of 100 -150 people per acre. • Open waterways or flooded areas like rice crops that encourage waterfowl are prohibited. Wastewater Treatment Plants are strongly discouraged within the Airport N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN \DIST- SEC \Position Papers\2013 \4 -18 -13 Kiewit Property Update (6) (2).doc UPDATE ON KIEWIT PROPERTY LAND USE OPTIONS Page 3 April 18, 2013 Influence Area. As the District proximity is already established and grandfathered use, expansion into new properties is unlikely if they include open waterways. Any wastewater treatment or storage facilities proposed for the Kiewit Property would most likely need to be covered. • The majority of the project site is located within the 65 dB contour with the remainder in the 55 dB and 60 dB ranges. Therefore noise will impact most uses. Acceptable land uses include parking, general manufacturing and cropland throughout the parcel with service commercial, utilities and warehousing within the reduced noise contours. Possible Next Steps County and Airport officials have requested that communications about potential land uses on the Kiewit property come from the District. While staff has received a revised project description from the CoCo San Sustainable Farm proponents, it has not been forwarded to these agencies until direction from the Board is given. The Board may wish to consider the following options for development of the Kiewit property: Direct staff to submit the revised CoCo San Sustainable Farm proposal to the FAA for determination on whether the proposed farm project on the Kiewit site is permissible; if so, staff will return to the Board for further direction. 2. Direct staff to develop an agricultural Request for Proposal (RFP) for the whole site, with allowable uses defined within the document and request that the CoCo San Sustainable Farm proponents submit a formal proposal as part of this process. 3. Direct staff to develop a mixed -use RFP for both agricultural and light industrial uses. The RFP could allow one or both uses on the property. A measure to evaluate proposals would need to be defined to determine priorities between revenue and environmental benefit. The CoCo San Sustainable Farm proponents could submit a formal proposal. 4. Direct staff to prepare a draft Master Plan of District properties for Board consideration and development. 5. Keep the property vacant for future plant expansion projects or a staging area for the Flood Control project which is tentatively scheduled for Fiscal Year 2015 -16. 6. Provide some other direction to staff. Attachment 1: Extract from February 21, 2013 Board minutes Attachment 2: Memo from ESA entitled "Draft Land Use Concepts for Kiewit Property" Attachment 3: Memo from ESA entitled "Airport Land Use Compatibility and Crop Suitability Evaluations for Kiewit Property" N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN \DIST- SEC \Position Papers\2013 \4 -18 -13 Kiewit Property Update (6) (2).doc ATTACHMENT 1 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT Board Minutes of February 21, 2013 6. REPORTS a. GENERAL MANAGER 1) Pollution Prevention Report for 2012 and Pollution Prevention Plan for 2013 Provisional General Manager Curt Swanson stated that each February, as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, staff submits an annual report of the District's pollution prevention activities for the previous calendar year. Assistant Engineer Melody LaBella provided an update on the District's successful Pollution Prevention Program, including highlights from the 2012 Pollution Prevention Annual Report. She also reviewed the 2013 Pollution Prevention Plan, which includes continued tracking of all the same priority pollutants as last year's Plan and the addition of a new study to determine if a local discharge limit is needed, for ammonia in order to assure the District meets the limitations in the NPDES permit. 2) Update on proposals for use of the Kiewit property , Provisional General Manager Curt Swanson stated that on January 24, 2013, the Board conceptually endorsed three proposals for potential use of the District's 33-acre Kiewit parcel, currently used as a buffer property adjacent to the Treatment Plant and located within Safety Zones 2 and 4 of nearby Buchanan Fields Airport. The three proposals conceptually endorsed by the Board were (1) the CoCo Sustainable Farm, (2) youth soccer fields for the Pleasant Hill Martinez Soccer Association (PHMSA), and (3) a commercial operation such as a clean fill/dirt quarry. As directed by the Board, staff has been working to further develop the proposals. Environmental Services Division Manager Danea Gemmell reviewed the written listing attached to her PowerPoint presentation covering each of the proposals and recent meetings with representatives of local airport agencies. With regard to the clean fill operation currently operated by County Quarry on the Kiewit property, Ms. Gemmeil said that testing of soil samples did not reveal any evidence of contamination that would warrant further investigation. As a result,, County Quarry was notified that final grading of the site could commence. It is anticipated that an erosion control seed mix for vegetation will be applied in mid March, after review by a biologist consultant to confirm that the mix will not attract wildlife and impact the airport. This will complete the requirements of County Quarry's current lease for the clean fill operation. Ms. Gemmed recapped recent communications with the Aviation Advisory Committee (AAC), the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Buchanan Airport Director Keith Freitas, among others, in an attempt to find out if the proposals would be viable if situated on the Kiewit property. She explained the origins of the February 13, 2013 letter from Robin Hunt, Manager of the San Francisco Airports District Office of the Federal Aviation Administration Book 62 — Page 143 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT Board Minutes of February 21, 2013 (FAA), to Mr. Freitas (a copy was included with the agenda packet) which concluded with regard to both the farm and soccer proposals that: "The FAA advises against the proposed land uses because they will create an incompatible land use which will conflict with airport design standards, establish a wildlife attractant close to the airport, and may be a violation of FAR 139. The proposed uses will result in a potential hazard to aviation and an incompatible land use. In short, the potential to increase safety risks for aviation should be avoided_" Ms. Gemmell subsequently spoke with Ms. Hunt and learned that the conclusions in her letter could be modified once detailed project description was received. According to Ms. Hunt, farming in and of itself would not be an incompatible use, but what is farmed is of concern and the FAA would want to make sure that proper experts are engaged to assure that all airport regulations are met. Ms. Hunt also said they would need to know what amenities would be on the farm so that human density restrictions were not exceeded. In other words, the planned farm needs to be very clearly defined in order for the FAA to make a determination as to what might be compatible land use on the property. Ultimately, Ms, Gemmell said the County Planning Department would make the final decision on any land use permit, but the County will obtain feedback from the ALUC. Upon learning of the concerns of the AAC and the FAA, Ms. Gemmell said Frank Gorham withdrew the soccer fields proposal on behalf of the PHMSA. Ms. Gemmell summarized a meeting held earlier in the month with Carolyn Phinney and Bethallyn Black, the farm's proponents, to narrow down features of the farm proposal, all of which were set forth in her handout. She also reported that staff would be meeting on February 22, 2013 with a development engineering firm, Harris and Associates, to discuss a proposal for design assistance to submit a land use application. With regard to potential commercial uses of the site, Ms. Gemmell reported that County Quarry is not interested in pursuing another "clean fill" operation but may be interested in leasing the property for additional storage. Another potential use for the property might be as a construction staging area for a 15- to 20 -year highway improvement project involving the Highway 680/4 interchange. In conclusion, Ms. Gemmell said staff has been tracking all its time spent on preparing a plan to submit to the County. In response to a question from Member Williams as to the nature of the "plan" envisioned by staff, Ms. Gemmell said that, because of the environmental processes involved with any operation on the site, the plan would cover several possibilities, including a more detailed farm proposal, potential commercial uses based on results of a Request for Proposal, or a combination of both. Book 62 — Page 144 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT Board Minutes of February 21, 2013 President Nejedly objected to staff doing any further work on the farm proposal without a clear indication from the County /airport officials as to whether a farm on the Kiewit site would be permissible. He said the letter from the FAA was straightforward that the farm proposal was an "incompatible land use," yet he continues to receive numerous emails from Dr. Phinney and others advocating for the farm on that site. He said he was confused by the conflicting information and, absent anything new from the County and airport officials, it appears that staff time is being wasted on something that may be moot. Member Williams concurred with President Nejedly, adding that the farm proposal is a good concept that has been approached from the wrong direction. The District Board has never received from the farm proponents a specific plan, a list of pros and cons related to the project, pertinent facts and figures, clearance from governing bodies, etc. Neither the advocates of the proposal 'nor the County /airport officials have the District's best interests in mind; the District Board is charged with that responsibility. He expressed frustration with the pressure to make a decision without a complete set of facts and agreed with President Nejedly that further staff efforts should cease at this time. Member McGill said that, while he agreed with President Nejedly and Member ti Williams' concerns, he suggested waiting for the results of a re- evaluation by airport officials before ceasing further work on the proposal Dr. Phinney said she spoke with Keith Freitas, who indicated a willingness to take another look at the farm proposal now that the soccer proposal has been withdrawn. She also said the "incompatible land use" conclusions stated in Robin Hunt's letter stemmed primarily from an erroneous assumption that a zoning change would be necessary to accommodate the farm proposal. President Nejedly said a letter from airport officials sanctioning the farm proposal would be needed before he would be willing to move forward to consider the matter. Member Causey echoed the viewpoints of President Nejedly and Member Williams, noting that it is not possible for the Board Members to evaluate the project appropriately because they have yet to receive a written proposal. He expressed frustration from all the hearsay up to this point, which has done nothing to move the project forward. Wendy Kress, a friend and colleague of Dr. Phinney and an attorney, said she is a well- established fundraiser with connections to Governor Brown, Pixar Studios and the George Lucas Foundation, as well as a colleague who would do website design. Ms. Kress urged the Board not to give up on the proposal. Melody Lacey, a ratepayer from Martinez, collected close to 300 signatures at her church in support of the farm. She too urged the Board to make the project come to fruition, and offered to obtain additional signatures. Book 62 -- Page 145 ESA� r Airports memorandum date April 3, 2013 550 Kearny Street, Suite 800 www.esassoc.coni San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900phone 415.896.0332 fax ATTACHMENT 2 to Stephanie Gronlund, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District from Adrian Jones, Environmental Science Associates subject ' Draft Land Use Concepts for Kiewit Property ESA Airports conducted airport land use compatibility evaluations for the Kiewit property using information provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and information contained in the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Caltrans' California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and applicable Advisory Circulars and Orders published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The results of those evaluations and a crop suitability evaluation are summarized in a memorandum transmitted under separate cover. This memorandum presents three draft land use concepts for the Kiewit property. The draft land use concepts are presented on Figures A, B, and C. The land use concepts are not recommended development plans for the Kiewit property, rather they illustrate potential ways the CCCSD could accommodate light industrial and agricultural land uses on the Kiewit property. Table 1 presents summary level information for the three draft land use concepts and lists several development conditions that would apply to the six "zones" shown on each figure. Additional information regarding development conditions applicable to the Kiewit property can be found in the land use compatibility and crop suitability evaluations memorandum. TABLE 1 DRAFT LAND USE CONCEPTS FOR KIEWIT PROPERTY Zone Size (Acres) Concept 1 Primary Use(s) Concept 2 Primary Use(s) Concept 3 Primary Use(s) Aircraft Noise Levels Building Intensity Building Height Limitation Zone 1: Runway 3.12 Vacant Vacant Vacant CNEL 65+ dB No buildings or No buildings or structures Protection structures permitted permitted Zone 2 1.36 Barn Storage yards and Storage yards and CNEL 60 -65 dB 100 -150 people per No more than four habitable floors structure /teaching facility, community light industrial light industrial gross acre above ground level and ten feet gardens below the FAR Part 77 surfaces defined for Buchanan Field Airport Zone 3 0.69 Agricultural storage Storage yards and Storage yards and CNEL 55 dB 100 -150 people per No more than four habitable floors light industrial light industrial gross acre above ground level and ten feet below the FAR Part 77 surfaces defined for Buchanan Field Airport Zone 4 14.06 Crops, community garden, temporary Vacant Crops and temporary CNEL 60 - 65+ dB 30 people per acre or No more than two habitable floors farm stand farm 1 person per 500 above ground level. stand square feet of gross building area Zone 5 3.25 Storage yards and light industrial Storage yards and Barn structure, CNEL 60 - 65+ dB 30 people per acre or No more than two habitable floors light industrial community gardens, 1 person per 500 above ground level. storage square feet of gross building area Zone 6 0.46 Wetlands and buffer Wetlands and buffer Wetlands and buffer CNEL 65+ dB No buildings or No buildings or structures structures permitted permitted CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level FAR Part 77 = Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 SOURCE: ESA, 2013. 2 El ti • �O"Je \R`�o 0 Zone I& v 1 ,�.. j_ • 1 R e .. APN :159140051 �`, Zone 5 t � � Zone 4 ..Zone 1 �•� rz: I Zone 2 Zone 3 - - Site Access O(\Je Mash �• Fence Buchanan Field Airport Leveled A rea Existing Wetland Construction Setback (10:1 slope) Land Use Zones T 0 400 I I Feet SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure A Draft Concept 1 �r1 `cC�CS D,'" ► Waste Water siireatment Plant A. r' I& v 1 ,�.. j_ • 1 R e .. APN :159140051 �`, Zone 5 t � � Zone 4 ..Zone 1 �•� rz: I Zone 2 Zone 3 - - Site Access O(\Je Mash �• Fence Buchanan Field Airport Leveled A rea Existing Wetland Construction Setback (10:1 slope) Land Use Zones T 0 400 I I Feet SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure A Draft Concept 1 Zone '' APN :159140051 Zone 5 , Zone 4 I•I'I r ;�y � : �� � °. °'° ICI• � i � Zone 1 I• i': :+. i • ,��, ° I•� _ e ® Site Access t3 y('' ' ' .• �OCN �.� Fence ^� - ��. •/• ' M -- Leveled Area . ®.. Existing Wetland •I• /'• <`' •I Construction Setback (10:1 slope) r" ••�.�• Zone 2 - 2 Land Use Zones Waste Water �•• Zone 3 ,Treatment Plant r Buchanan Field 0 aoo Airport Feet ODUMUL: UsUA, zulz; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure B Draft Concept 2 °Y::: .. AI qL Zone 6; �- e ' \'` ♦ ( A APN : 159140051 Zone 5 \ '1 Zone 4 ;� .�•� ,.. Zone 1 �•�� / , • `, A Site Access C9l d� ���` •'�� _ 210A Fence \ M Leveled Area Existing Wetland • ♦� Construction Setback (10:1 slope) -'�I •� one Land Use Zones CA D a W ZOO Waste Water E J;reatrnent Plant Buchanan Field ° aoo � I I Airport Feet to iz, Lomra t;osta county, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure C Draft Concept 3 ATTACHMENT 3 b Atrport.S. memorandum date April 3, 2013 550 Kearny Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900phon 415.896.0332 fax to Stephanie Gronlund, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District from Adrian Jones, Environmental Science Associates subject Airport Land Use Compatibility and Crop Suitability Evaluations for Kiewit Property Environmental Science Associates (ESA) is pleased to provide this memorandum summarizing the airport land use compatibility and crop suitability evaluations conducted for the Kiewit property. Draft land use concepts for the Kiewit property are provided under separate cover. Project Site The 33 -acre Kiewit property (APN 159 - 140 -051) is located in north - central Contra Costa County, California, less than a mile northwest of the City of Concord. The Kiewit property (project site) is bounded by State Route (SR) 4 to the south, Imhoff Drive to the north, Grayson Creek to the west, and Walnut Creek to the east (see Figure 1). Land uses near the project site include a quarry to the north, industrial and commercial uses to the east, a waste water treatment facility to the west, and Buchanan Field Airport to the south. The project site is owned and operated by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( CCCSD) and is currently undeveloped. The property is designated as Public /Quasi- Public on the Contra Costa County General Plan land use map (Contra Costa County, 2005) and is zoned Heavy Industrial (H -1) on the County's zoning map (Contra Costa County, 2007). As described in Division 84 of County's zoning code, allowable uses in H -1 zones include a variety of industrial and manufacturing uses and retail commercial districts, general commercial districts, and agricultural districts after the granting of land use permits (Contra Costa County, 2013). The CCCSD is concluding a multi -year lease with County Quarry, a concrete and asphalt recycling center, which has been importing clean fill to the site. County Quarry recently completed final grading of the site, and per the lease terms will be applying an erosion control seed mix. The elevation of the leveled portion of the project site (approximately 22.5 acres) is approximately twenty -two feet above mean sea level (MSL). The elevation of the remainder of the site (i.e., within the fence line) is between 15 feet MSL and 22 feet MSL. Other site features include a small wetland complex in the northwest corner of the site (outside the construction limits) and a sewer line that traverses the southern edge of the property. Proposed Project The CCCSD proposes to lease or release the Kiewit property for mixed use development. Land uses that might be developed on the site include: a sustainable farm (to be managed by CoCo San Sustainable Farms), storage yards, contractor staging areas, and light industrial uses. The sustainable farm proposed by CoCo San Sustainable Farms would include the fallowing elements: • Five acres to grow produce for local schools and a food bank; • Five acres dedicated to for - profit farming; • Two acres of community gardens; • One acre for a barn structure /teaching facility; and • One acre for supporting infrastructure (e.g., parking lot, storage facilities, etc.) and a temporary farm stand on summer weekends. The remainder of the property would be reserved for the non - agricultural uses described above and construction setbacks /buffer areas. Land Use Compatibility Evaluation ESA conducted airport land use compatibility evaluations for the Kiewit property using information provided by the CCCSD, and information contained in the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Contra Costa County ALUCP), Caltrans' California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and applicable Advisory Circulars and Orders published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The following sections describe the land use compatibility evaluations. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Pursuant to its responsibilities set forth under California State Aeronautics Act (PUC Section 21670 et seq.), the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the Contra Costa County ALUCP in December 2000. The Contra Costa County ALUCP is primarily intended to guide the development of new land uses in the vicinity of the County's two public use airports (Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport) so as to reduce or avoid exposing people to excessive aircraft noise levels or risk from an off - airport aircraft accident. The following sections summarize ALUCP- related compatibility issues that are applicable to the project site. Airport Influence Area The project site is located within the airport influence area (AIA) for Buchanan Field Airport, as defined in the Contra Costa County ALUCP (see Figure 2). The Buchanan Field Airport AIA delineates a geographic boundary within which the Contra Costa County ALUC typically reviews projects, and was defined based on specific operating conditions at Buchanan Field Airport and the extent of the noise and safety impacts associated with the airport's operations. Policy 1.3.1(a), Airport Influence Area, of the Contra Costa County ALUCP states that the two AIAs in Contra Costa County consist of "all lands on which the uses could be negatively affected by present or future aircraft operations ... as well as lands on which the uses could negatively affect these airports ". Typically, ALUCs are charged with reviewing updates to general plans or zoning ordinances that affect properties within an AIA, updates to master plans for airports or heliports within their jurisdiction, and any proposal to construct a new airport or heliport. ALUCs can also request to review other major land use actions or projects that meet certain criteria deemed important enough for a compatibility evaluation/consistency review. While implementation of the proposed project described above will not require a general plan or zoning amendment, the proposed project qualifies as a "major land use action" that is eligible for ALUC review. Pursuant to Policies 1.5.2(b)(1) and 1.5.3 of the Contra Costa County ALUCP, the proposed project should be referred to the ALUC for a consistency review due to the: (1) proximity of the project site to Buchanan Field Airport and location with respect to defined safety zones, (2) potential for agricultural and other proposed land uses to attract wildlife (birds) that are hazardous to aircraft /airport operations, and (3) potential for new uses on the site to create visual hazards to aircraft in flight including glint/glare in the eyes of pilots. Safety Safety compatibility policies included in ALUCPs are intended to minimize the risk to both people living and working near an airport and air travelers in the event of an off- airport aircraft accident. To accomplish this goal, the Contra Costa County ALUCP sets forth a variety of safety compatibility policies that are applicable to new development in the vicinity of Buchanan Field Airport. More specifically, these policies apply within geometric areas delineated as "safety zones," which are based on several factors including the size and layout of the runway(s) and how aircraft operate at the Airport. As shown on Figure 3, the project site is primarily located within Safety Zones 2 and 4, associated with Runways 14L and 14R. The majority of the project site is located within Safety Zone 2. This zone is located at the end of Runways 14L and 14R and encompasses a portion of the runway protection zone (RPZI) defined for each runway. Aircraft at Buchanan Field Airport overfly Safety Zone 2 at low altitudes on final approach and during departure /takeoff. According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the majority of off - airport aircraft accidents occur in Safety Zones 1 and 2. Land use compatibility policies applicable to Safety Zone 2 at Buchanan Field Airport include the following: 5.3.3(a) Land uses shall be limited to a maximum of 30 people per acre or 1 person per 500 square feet of gross building floor area. 5.33(a)(1) Hotels, restaurants, shopping centers, theaters, and other places of public assembly typically do not comply with this criterion, but are acceptable if the usage is limited through building design, use permit, and /or other mechanisms. 5.3.3(b) Buildings shall have no more than two habitable floors above ground. 5.3.3(c) Residences, children's schools (through grade 12), day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes are specifically prohibited 5.3.3(d) Aboveground bulk storage of hazardous materials is prohibited with the exception of: (1) On- airport storage of aviation fuel and other aviation - related flammable materials (2) Up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials. 1 The runway protection zone is an FAA - defined trapezoidal area located at the end of a runway. The western portion of the project site is located within Safety Zone 4 (see Figure 3). This zone is located on the sides of the runways and wraps around Safety Zone 2 associated with Runways 14L and 14R. Land use compatibility policies applicable to Safety Zone 4 include the following: 5.3.5(a) Land use intensity is not limited2 other than that buildings shall have no more than four habitable floors above ground. 5.3.5(b) Aboveground storage of more than 2,000 gallons of fuel or other hazardous materials is prohibited in existing or planned residential or commercial areas. Local municipalities use a variety of techniques to determine concentrations of people for specific non - residential land uses. Appendix G of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook presents several techniques that can be used to calculate intensities for nonresidential land uses proposed for development on the Kiewit property. Noise Noise compatibility policies seek to minimize the level of exposure of people living and working in the vicinity of an airport to excessive aircraft noise levels. While noise is generally considered to be the most geographically extensive impact associated with aircraft operations, it is the areas closest to the runway ends, where aircraft are closest to the ground on arrivals and takeoffs, where noise impacts are the greatest. In order to avoid exposing people to excessive aircraft noise levels, noise compatibility policies seek to limit or avoid the development of new noise sensitive land uses (e.g., homes, hospitals, places of worship, schools, etc.) in areas where the potential for exposure is greatest. As shown in Figure 4, the majority of the project site is located within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour, with the remainder of the site located within the 60 and 55 dB CNEL contours. Table 1 on the next page provides an excerpt of Table 3A from the Contra Costa County ALUCP. These noise compatibility policies are applicable to the project site given the proposed use of the project site and the location of the site with respect to the Buchanan Field Airport aircraft noise exposure contours.. 2 The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook recommends limiting non - residential intensities in Safety Zone 4 to 100 -150 people per gross acre in suburban areas. 4 TABLE 1 POTENTIAL NOISE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT SITE CNEL (dB) Land Use Category 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 Public Schools, libraries + + 0 Auditoriums, concert halls + + o Transportation, parking _ ++ _ ++ ++ + Service commercial, wholesale trade, ++ ++ 0 0 warehousing, light industrial General manufacturing, utilities, extractive ++ ++ ++ + industry Agricultural and Recreational Cropland ++ ++ ++ ++ Livestock breeding ++ + 0 0 Land Use Acceptability Interpretation /Comments ++ Clearly Acceptable The activities associated with the specified land use can be carried out with essentially no interference from the noise exposure. + Normally Acceptable Noise is a factor to be considered in that slight interference with outdoor activities may occur. Conventional construction methods will eliminate most noise intrusions upon indoor activities. o Marginally Acceptable The indicated noise exposure will cause moderate interference with outdoor activities and with indoor activities when windows are open. The land use is acceptable on the condition that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide sufficient noise attenuation are used (e.g., installation of air conditioning so that windows can be kept closed). Under other circumstances, the land use should be discouraged. Normally Unacceptable Noise will create substantial interference with both outdoor and indoor activities. Noise intrusion upon indoor activities can be mitigated by requiring special noise insulation construction. Land uses which have conventionally constructed structures and /or involve outdoor activities which would be disrupted by noise should generally be avoided. Clearly Unacceptable Unacceptable noise intrusion upon land use activities will occur. Adequate structural noise insulation is not practical under most circumstances. The indicated uses should be avoided unless strong overriding factors prevail and should be prohibited if outdoor activities are involved. SOURCE: Shutt Moen Associates. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2000 Airspace Protection The purpose of airspace protection policies is to avoid the development of land use conditions which, by posing hazards to flight, can increase the risk of an aircraft accident occurring. The foundation of airspace protection policies is rooted in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77: Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace (14 CFR Part 77 or more commonly referred to as FAR Part 77). FAR Part 77 establishes a set of imaginary surfaces that extend outwards and upwards away from the runway surface in a bowl -like pattern. Both man -made and natural objects such as buildings, antennas, and trees that penetrate these imaginary surfaces are considered potential obstructions to aircraft in flight (FAA, 2011a). Other airspace protection surfaces include the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), which establishes clearance requirements for all en route and terminal (airport) instrument procedures including approach, landing, missed approach, and departure. Unlike FAR Part 77 surfaces, the elevation of which are set relative to the runway end elevations irrespective of surrounding terrain and obstacles, TERPS surface elevations are directly determined by the location and elevation of critical obstacles. By design, neither the ground nor any obstacles can penetrate a TERPS surface (FAA, 2011 b). As shown on Figure 5, the project site is located primarily within/underneath the FAR Part 77 approach surfaces3 associated with Runways 14L and 14R. The remainder of the project site is located under the FAR Part 77 transitional surfaces4. As specified in Policy 5.4.1 from the ALUCP, no objects are permitted to exceed the height limits established by the FAR Part 77 surfaces for Buchanan Field Airport. As such, given the elevation of the leveled portion of the project site (approximately twenty -two feet MSL), buildings and objects near the center of the project site would be limited to approximately 53 feet above ground level (AGL). Other compatibility policies that would limit the height of building and objects on the project site include Policies 5.3.3(b) and 5.3.5(a) of the Contra Costa County ALUCP. These policies restrict the height of buildings to no more than two stories above ground level within Safety Zone 2 or four stories above ground level within Safety Zone 4, respectively. Other Compatibility Factors Beyond the land use compatibility policies included in the Contra Costa County ALUCP described above, the FAA and Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics have established other guidelines and criteria for the development of land on and near airports. These criteria and guidelines should also be considered by the CCCSD as it finalizes the development proposal and land use permit application for the Kiewit property. Runway Protection Zones As shown in Figure 6, a portion of the project site is located within the RPZs associated with Runway 14L and 14R. The RPZ is a trapezoidal area located at ground level prior to the threshold or beyond the runway end. The purpose of the RPZ is to delineate an area that should be clear of all objects and activities, so as to enhance the safety and protection of people and property on the ground (FAA, 2012a)5. The FAA does acknowledge the suitability of some types of activities /uses within RPZs in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design including farming activities when adequate buffers are maintained between the crops and runways, taxiways /taxilanes, and aprons. While the crop buffer guidelines contained in AC 150/5300 -13A could be interpreted as allowing crops within RPZs under certain conditions, the FAA clearly states in Section 322 On- Airport farming that the crop buffer guidelines do not address issues pertaining to hazardous wildlife attractants and that separate evaluations must be performed to determine crop setbacks /buffer zones necessary to prevent wildlife conflicts. FAA guidelines regarding the prevention of wildlife hazards are summarized later in this white paper. The FAA and airport operators do not have direct authority over land uses developed within an RPZ unless the properties within the RPZ are owned by the airport operator. However, as outlined in a memorandum from the The approach surface for both Runways 14L and 14R, which are visual approach runways, slopes upwards and away from the runway ends at a ratio of 20 horizontal feet. l vertical foot. The transitional surface for both Runways 14L and 14R slope upwards and away from the sides of each runway at a ratio of 7 horizontal feet:l vertical foot. As acknowledged in AC 150/5300 -13A, the best way to achieve this goal is through direct ownership of the land within the RPL FAA titled, "Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone," the FAA strongly encourages airport sponsors /operators to take all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incompatible land uses within an RPZ (FAA, 2012b). Furthermore, the County's responsibility, as the owner of Buchanan Field Airport, is to maintain compatible land uses within the RPZ associated with each of the Airport's runways. Since Buchanan Field Airport is a federally funded airport within the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)6, the County is obligated to ensure that the airport's navigable airspace is clear of obstructions.' In addition, the County must attempt to maintain the compatibility of land uses within critical areas such as RPZs. Hazardous Wildlife Attractants Wildlife that is hazardous to aircraft in operation, and the types of land uses that attract them, have become an increasing focus of the FAA and airport operators over the last few years. FAA guidance documents, such as AC 150/5200 -33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, asks airport operators, local planners, and developers to consider whether a proposed land use will increase wildlife hazards. A variety of land use types and activities, including agriculture, have been identified by the FAA as potential hazardous wildlife attractants. The FAA definition of wildlife attractants includes human -made or natural areas, such as poorly drained areas, retention ponds, agricultural activities, and wetlands. The recommended separation distance between agricultural activities and the air operations area (AOA) for airports serving turbine- powered aircraft, like Buchanan Field Airport, is 10,000 feet (FAA, 2007). AC 150/5200 - 33B also recommends against the use of airport property for agricultural production within a 5 -mile radius of the AOA unless the income from the agricultural crop is necessary for the economic viability of the airport. Land use practices which could have the potential to cause wildlife to move into or across the approach or departure airspace are of particular concern to the FAA. Open water and agricultural crops are recognized as being the greatest wildlife attractants in the vicinity of airports. The ALUCP for Buchanan Field Airport also cautions against land uses that may lead to bird strikes. Specifically, Policy 4.3.6(d) states that specific characteristics that should be avoided include "Any use, especially landfills and certain agricultural uses, which may attract an increased number of birds." While certain types of agricultural activities may attract birds and other types of hazardous wildlife, this does not preclude the ability of the CCCSD, as the owner of the property, from developing agriculture uses on the project site. However, adherence to the recommendations set forth in the crop suitability analysis below, as well as coordination with the FAA and airport operator is encouraged. Furthermore, establishment of a hazardous wildlife management plan for the project site should also be considered as a condition for approval7. Other Considerations Additional guidelines regarding the protection of aircraft in flight and airport airspace are described in other FAA documents including AC 150/5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports and Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports (FAA Solar Guide). Land uses with characteristics that could endanger or interfere with the landing, take off, or maneuvering of an aircraft at an airport should generally be avoided. These include: • Uses that create electromagnetic fields /interference with on or off - airport radar systems; I Buchanan Field is designated as a Reliever Airport in the NPIAS (FAA, 2012c). 7 Information on wildlife management can be obtained at www.faa.gov/ airports / airport_safety /wildlife /management/. 7 • Uses that interfere with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft; • Uses that generate thermal plumes or other upward moving air columns into navigable airspace; • Uses that create glare /glint that negatively impacts pilots during arrival or departure operations (e.g., temporary loss of vision) or that impact Air Traffic Control personnel; • Uses that generate smoke or steam or that otherwise impact visibility in the airport vicinity; • Uses with lighting that is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting. As described above, land uses that attract birds and other types of hazardous wildlife should also be avoided including waste disposal sites and solid waste landfills. In accordance with AC 150/5200 -34a, Construction Or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports, new municipal solid waste landfills are prohibited within six miles of airports that receive FAA grants and that primarily serve general aviation aircraft and scheduled air carrier operations using aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats. The guidelines in this Advisory Circular apply to the environs of Buchanan Field Airport. Solar photovoltaic panels are generally compatible with airport operations and several airport operators have installed roof based and ground based solar panels on airport owned property. The FAA is currently conducting additional research into the reflectivity characteristics of solar photovoltaic panels and the potential for solar photovoltaic panels to generate glint and glare in such a way as to cause flash blindness among pilots and air traffic control personnel. Additional guidelines related to the placement of solar photovoltaic panels on or near airports in provided in the FAA Solar Guide. Crop Suitability Evaluation Methodology Compatibility Justification for Rating Compatibility Rating Low suitability Plant species provides highly edible parts (leaves /stems, flowers, fruits, seeds), cover for rodents or ground- nesting birds, or a canopy that provides suitable nesting habitat for birds. Even with active management, species would likely continue to provide suitable habitat or foraging opportunities for species considered hazardous to aircrafts or may attract or support a prey base for those species. Moderately suitable Plant species may provide low amounts of cover, food, and foraging opportunities for wildlife. However, plant species generally does not provide cover, food, or foraging opportunities for large flocks of birds or raptor species. Additionally, plant species would be more compatible for use adjacent to airports with regular maintenance or pest control. Highly suitable Plant species generally does not provide suitable cover, food, and foraging opportunities for wildlife considered hazardous to aircrafts. Additionally, the plant species is not known to attract a prey base for species considered hazardous to aircrafts. The crop suitability analysis was conducted based on a review of available literature and the best professional judgment of ESA biologists. Information on species growth habits, potential for providing habitat or food to wildlife, and suitability for cultivation on lands adjacent to airports were obtained from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR), and literature produced by independent experts or in cooperation with universities. Two key objectives were identified for the analysis of plant species (or farm crops) and their compatibility with airport hazard wildlife management, including (1) identifying plant species that provide low or no habitat or food sources for wildlife and (2) planting native species where feasible to avoid facilitating the spread of potential invasive species. Plant species (or farm crop) characteristics considered during the suitability analysis included: growth height at maturity, seed or fruit production, and known factors that attract wildlife (e.g., suitable nesting substrate or cover for wildlife, attractive and edible vegetative parts, suitable food resource during winter months, and suitable cover for a prey base that supports raptor species). For example, habitat value for wildlife is generally reduced if a plant species provides low cover for rodents, small mammals, and ground- nesting birds (short and /or sparse vegetation), is routinely managed or harvested, and does not produce edible parts, including vegetative parts and seeds or fruits. Additionally, trees and shrubs that are low in height at maturity also provide less suitable nesting habitat for birds. Suitability for cultivation near airports is generally ranked as follows: It is important to note that the complete elimination of wildlife is not possible, especially in an agricultural setting where a wide variety of rodents and other wildlife are known to occur due to the presence of edible crops. Crops are assessed for the potential to attract a prey population and those that have the lowest potential to attract wildlife are considered most suitable and compatible for use in areas adjacent to airports. However, in an agricultural setting such as an organic farm, continual active management of pest species in conjunction with the use of low attractant plant species may be necessary to reduce prey populations for raptor species. An active management plan for controlling rodent populations may include habitat modification and exclusion, proper dripline installation and operating practices, and use of repellants and traps. For example, prior to planting crops, a site assessment for existing rodent populations and site preparation (clearing weeds, ground cover, and litter) may be necessary. Planting species that are not considered weedy or invasive around the perimeter of the site will help to reduce long -term maintenance costs and reduce potential habitat for rodents. If crops are grown for seeds and fruits, harvesting the seeds and fruits regularly will reduce the availability of food for wildlife. Reducing crop residue /waste after each harvest will also reduce food availability for rodents. Additionally, site irrigation should be carefully monitored to reduce potential ponding, which is an attractant to waterfowl and other bird species (e.g., egrets). A common biological control method such as using owl boxes to attract barn owls to reduce rodent populations is not recommended for areas adjacent to Buchanan Field Airport. Crop Suitability Matrix Table 2 presents the results of the crop suitability analysis for a list of crops provided by the CCCSD. The table summarizes current available information for each crop, including its known potential to provide suitable food or habitat for wildlife. The suitability for each crop to be cultivated in the vicinity of Buchanan Field Airport was rated based on available information and the best professional judgment of ESA biologists. TABLE 2 PROPOSED CROPS FOR CULTIVATION AT THE PROJECT SITE • Perennial slow - growing shrub that grows to 3 feet tall; mature plants produce tall (12 -15 feet) flowering spike that attracts hummingbirds; resists deer and rabbits. Mexican marigold (Tagetes lemmonii) Not known to attract wildlife species considered Moderately to highly suitable. • Mounding evergreen shrub that grows hazardous by the FAA. Plant species in the sunflower to 6 feet tall; flowers in the summer. family are known to produce seeds or seed materials that can provide suitable nesting substrate for small birds. Rosemary `Indian Spire' (Rosmarinus Primarily attracts honey bees, bumble bees, and Highly suitable. officinalis) butterflies. 10 Suitability for Cultivation Near Proposed Crop or Plant Species Potential for Wildlife Use Airports Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Many wildlife species use alfalfa for cover (canopy Low suitability. Avoid planting • Perennial forage legume growing to a provides effective cover for feeding, roosting, nesting, alfalfa adjacent to or on airport lands height of 3 feet; valuable crop that is or escaping predators) and foraging (plant is palatable due to the crop's potential for often harvested as hay. to herbivores including rodents; abundant insects). attracting many bird species, Raptors are frequently found soaring above alfalfa fields including raptors. in search of prey. Alfalfa provides excellent foraging habitat for raptor species such as Swainson's hawks, especially if suitable nesting trees are located nearby. Rice (Oryza sp.) Rice is an annual grass species and a flood irrigated Low Suitability. Avoid planting rice • Annual grass species that produces crop that produces seeds. Rice fields, like seasonally crop adjacent to or on airport lands seeds. The crop is planted in the flooded wetlands, provide water and foraging due to the crop's high potential for spring and harvested in the fall. Rice opportunities for shorebirds, wading birds, gulls, and attracting many bird species, grows to 2 to six feet tall, depending on waterfowl. After rice is harvested in the fall, remaining including waterfowl (a group of birds the species cultivated. grain residues provide food for waterfowl and sandhill known to create substantial damage cranes. Pheasants also benefit from rice cropland. to aircraft during collisions). Pineapple guava (Acca sellowiana) In general, shrubs, and particularly taller shrubs, attract Moderately suitable. Birds are not • Evergreen large shrub growing to 20 songbirds. Most songbirds are insectivores during the known to eat the fruit of the feet tall and produces fruit in the winter. breeding season; however, they become fruit or berry pineapple guava plant; however, eaters after the nesting season (e.g., starlings). small bird species may eat the Pineapple guava attracts bees, butterflies, and small flowers. birds (passerines). Small birds may eat the flowers of this plant. Meyer lemon (Critrus x meyen) Literature is generally lacking on wildlife associated with Moderately suitable. Plant is not • Small to medium shrub growing to 6 -10 evergreen orchards except as it relates to pests and known to attract many bird or wildlife feet tall, evergreen; produces fruit in pest control. species. As with most shrubs, small the winter. Evergreen orchard species (such as lemons) do not birds may use the canopy for provide food for wildlife that many of the deciduous fruit nesting. and nut trees provide. True /Sweet bay (Laurus nobilis) This shrub can provide nesting habitat for small bird Low to moderately suitable. Plant • Slow growing evergreen tree or shrub; species. Small bird species such as warblers eat the is known to attract small bird grows to 12 -15 feet tall as a shrub. berries in the winter. species, typically in the winter (due to the presence of berries). Prickly pear or Barbary fig (Opuntia ficus- This plant is a prolific fruit and seed producer and Low to moderately suitable. indica) provides shelter and food for a variety of wildlife Although plant is not known to • perennial cactus shrub growing to 10 species. The fruit is palatable to coyotes, raccoons, attract large raptor species, it could feet tall; produces edible fruit and pads. jackrabbits, and livestock. Many birds, reptiles, and provide suitable food and shelter for small mammals make their nests or dens in or beneath smaller species such as birds and prickly pear plants. rodents that may in turn provide a prey base for larger predators (such as raptors). If fruits are harvested regularly, the plant may provide lower amounts of food resources for wildlife. Parry's agave (Agave parryi ssp. Low potential to provide habitat or food for wildlife Highly suitable. neomexicana) species considered hazardous by the FAA. • Perennial slow - growing shrub that grows to 3 feet tall; mature plants produce tall (12 -15 feet) flowering spike that attracts hummingbirds; resists deer and rabbits. Mexican marigold (Tagetes lemmonii) Not known to attract wildlife species considered Moderately to highly suitable. • Mounding evergreen shrub that grows hazardous by the FAA. Plant species in the sunflower to 6 feet tall; flowers in the summer. family are known to produce seeds or seed materials that can provide suitable nesting substrate for small birds. Rosemary `Indian Spire' (Rosmarinus Primarily attracts honey bees, bumble bees, and Highly suitable. officinalis) butterflies. 10 TABLE 2 PROPOSED CROPS FOR CULTIVATION AT THE PROJECT SITE Suitability for Cultivation Near Proposed Crop or Plant Species Potential for Wildlife Use Airports • Columnar perennial shrub growing to 5 feet tall; fragrant needle -like leaves with blue flowers in the spring. White sage (Salvia apiana) Primarily attracts bees. Highly suitable. • Mounding evergreen shrub that grows to 5 feet tall; leaves have strong aroma; flowers are very attractive to bees. See Garden Plants Yarrow (Achillea spp.) Unless planted in dense stands, this species is not Highly suitable. likely to provide suitable nesting habitat for passerines. The suitability for crop or plant species to be planted or cultivated near airports is based on a review of available information from regulatory agencies (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife), FAA Advisory Circulars, and articles produced in cooperation with Universities. The FAA considers that most (if not all) crops can attract hazardous wildlife during some phase of production; thus, the elimination of conditions that would attract the most hazardous wildlife (waterfowl and raptors) was the overriding goal of this evaluation. 11 Primarily attracts bees. Sage (Salvia spp.) Primarily attracts bees. Mint (Mentha spp.) Primarily attracts bees. Sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima) Primarily attracts bees. Lavender (Lavandula spica, Lavandula Primarily attracts bees. vera, Lavandula intermedia, Lavandula dentate) Wonder of Staffa (Aster frikertii) Primarily attracts bees. California poppy (Eschscholzia californica) Has limited direct wildlife value (provides <5% of small mammal diets and minor cover for small bird). Penstemon `Blue Bedder' Primarily attracts bees. Vegetable crops Salad greens (lettuces) Irrigated row and field crops have reduced wildlife Moderately suitable. Rodents that Tomatoes habitat richness and diversity due to the highly are found in irrigated row and field managed crop rotation system. Some rodents and birds crop habitats need to be controlled Other vegetable crops (e.g., kale) are adapted to this habitat type; however, control via trapping or other methods to methods such as fencing and trapping prevent reduce potential prey base for raptor excessive crop losses. Availability of irrigation water species. during drier months may provide a source of water for wildlife species. Herbs (Basil, etc.) Primarily attracts bees. Highly suitable, Other Flowers Depending on the species, some flowers may produce Suitability varies depending on seeds that attract small bird species. For example, species and extent of plantings. sunflower or species from the sunflower family are known to produce large seeds that are edible to many passerines and moderate -sized birds. Orchard (fruit - producing crops) Orchard species that produce nuts provide food for Low suitability. Fruit and nuts from wildlife species, including birds and California ground orchard trees may provide food for a squirrel. Orchard species that produce fruit crops (e.g., variety of wildlife, including small to cherries, figs, pears, prunes, apples) provide food for medium sized birds. Rodents that birds (scrub jay, American crow, band - tailed pigeon, use orchard habitats may provide a and yellow - billed magpie, among others), California prey base for larger raptor species. ground squirrel, coyote, and raccoon. Small bird species may also nest in orchard trees. The suitability for crop or plant species to be planted or cultivated near airports is based on a review of available information from regulatory agencies (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife), FAA Advisory Circulars, and articles produced in cooperation with Universities. The FAA considers that most (if not all) crops can attract hazardous wildlife during some phase of production; thus, the elimination of conditions that would attract the most hazardous wildlife (waterfowl and raptors) was the overriding goal of this evaluation. 11 References Bjorkman, T. and J.W. Shail, 2010. Cornell cover crop guide for annual ryegrass (Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum). Cornell University. 2pp. Ver. 1.100716. California Alfalfa and Forage Association, 2001. Alfalfa, Wildlife and the Environment: the Importance and Benefits ofAlfalfa in the 21" Century. Novato, CA. Carey, Jennifer H., 1995. Lolium multiflorum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer), www.fs.fed.us /database /feis, accessed on March 7, 2013. Cleary, E. C. and R. A. Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Operators. 2 "d Ed. FAA, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC. Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan. January 18, 2005. Contra Costa County, 2007. Contra Costa County Zoning Map. ca- contracostacounty. civicplus .com/DocumentCenter /HomeNiew /813, accessed on April 16, 2007. Contra Costa County, 2013. Contra Costa County Code, Planning and Zoning: Title 8, Planning and Zoning; Division 84, Land Use Districts. Codified through Ordinance No. 2013 -02, passed February 26, 2013. Earnshaw, Sam, 2004. Hedgerows for California Agriculture: A Resource Guide. Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Davis, CA. FAA, 1987. Advisory Circular 150/5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports. December 14, 1987. FAA, 1998. Certalert No. 98 -05 "Grasses Attractive to Hazardous Wildlife ", September 21, 1998. FAA, 2006. Advisory Circular 150/5200 -34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports. January 26, 2006. FAA, 2007. Advisory Circular 150/5200 -3313, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. August 28, 2007. FAA, 2010. Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports. November 2010. FAA, 2011 a. 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. Updated on January 18, 2011. FAA, 2011 b. Order 8260.313, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Updated on August 31, 2011. FAA, 2012a. Advisory Circular 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design. September 28, 2012. FAA, 2012b. "Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone." September 27, 2012. FAA, 2012c. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) Report. September 27, 2012. Hannaway, David B., C. Larson, and D. Meyers, 2004. Annual Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.). Oregon State University, forages.oregonstate.edu, accessed on March 7, 2013. Mayer, Kenneth E. and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (accessed online via the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR), www. dfg. ca. gov/ biogeodata /cwhr /wildlife_habitats.asp, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Shutt Moen Associates, 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission December 13, 2000. Santa Rosa, CA. 12 Smith, C., 20 10. Plant guide for California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center. Lockeford, CA 95237. Ueckert, Darrell N., 2013. Pricklypear ecology. Texas Natural Resources Server, Texas A &M University, San Angelo, TX., texnat.tamu.edu /library /symposia/brush - sculptors- innovations - for - tailoring- brushy- rangelands- to- enhance - wildlife- habitat - and - recreational - value /pricklypear- ecology /, accessed March 12, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2013. Conservation Plant Characteristics for Barbary fig (Opuntia ficus- indica), plants.usda.gov, accessed on March 12, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013. PLANTS Profile for Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum, Hordeum vulgare, Trifolium incarnatum, and Trifolium hirtum, plants.usda.gov, accessed on March 7, 2013. 13 Q! lie Y R / i t(9 / O. /+�• • Waste Water aTreatment Plant r � 1 _ suuKL;t: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 •k r•• 1.1w APN : 159140051 i ..0 .� �0 . y_ •00 lA �00.� 40 Ot\v e r Fence " - Leveled Area ,t><' �" �•� Existing Wetland construction Setback (10:1 slope) 0 400 i Feet Buchanan Field Airport Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 1 Location of Kiewit Property 1 I ao� Xv 1' . ���.. "� -,, r_o.as � � � e `�,n t :242_ a? i'- •3�?'i, i�_.,� ^. _ �.L_...�,. ' OAirport Infuence Area 0 6,000 I I Feet SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 2 Buchanan Field Airport Airport Influence Area =' r r �R W1011 APN :159140051 _ Project Site A s Q ALUCP Safety Zones r ? O Go Buchanan Field \ y CU o aoo �� x. - Airport Feet A. �sl i JUUKUt: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 3 Buchanan Field Airport Safety Zones r, r r G; r r =' r r �R W1011 APN :159140051 _ Project Site A s Q ALUCP Safety Zones r ? O Go Buchanan Field \ y CU o aoo �� x. - Airport Feet A. �sl i JUUKUt: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 3 Buchanan Field Airport Safety Zones 'r. lie Oe a J► v � f jr C f �.,�rg} a �•�� y..�,� � _ • e" APN : 159140051 Project Site ;.. 065 dB CNEL M60 dB CNEL 55 dB CNEL , c to i ♦> > T i * w 800 - Feet l i JUUXUt: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Z ,\V\. r /A N d� 0 4— r r f Jr ' - r - r r_ r. r ��a Buchanan Field Airport 1Y-: 1161 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 4 Buchanan Field Airport Noise Contours 268 2 ' R €' 0 % o ce r r4. o \ r \ r s 1 " . APN : 1 591 4005 1 -dry M X �, \ s a SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 c0 N r .. F Project Site r -°— Part 77 Surfaces �. Buchanan Field o eoo p - r• ¢g i ire; Feet — J SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 5 Buchanan Field Airport 14 CFR Part 77 Airspace Protection Surfaces F �. Buchanan Field F• - I \A \ - Airport ire; &S[ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 5 Buchanan Field Airport 14 CFR Part 77 Airspace Protection Surfaces s�J •k r N � {.`. �r t� f:�mro��t�Je . t APN : 159140051 Project Site t a >��'� _,lam Runway Protection Zone k" x Buchanan Field f� o eao - - Airport { Tdm : Feet t aUUKL;L: USDA, 2012. Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 130165 Figure 6 Buchanan Field Airport Runway Protection Zones