HomeMy WebLinkAboutREAL ESTATE, ENVIRONMENTAL & PLANNING ACTION SUMMARY 12-18-15SPECIAL MEETING OF
CENTRAL CONTRA
SANITARY
l .: DISTRICT
REAL ESTATE,
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Friday, December 18, 2015
9:30 a.m.
2"d Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California
Committee:
Chair Tad Pilecki
Member Mike McGill
Other quests:
Tom Terrill, Diablo Country Club (left after Item 3.)
Hank Salvo, Diablo Country Club (left after Item 3.)
Andrew Scott, Moraga Country Club (left after Item 3.)
® j 1
BOARD OT' DIRECTORS:
MICHAEL R. MCGILL
President
TAD J. PILECKI
President Pro Tem
PAUL H CAUSEY
JAMES A. NEJEDLY
DAVID R. WILLIAMS
PHONE: (925) 228-9500
FAX: (925)372-.0192
www.centralsan.org
Staff.•
General Manager Roger Bailey
Deputy Genera Manager Ann Sasaki
Director of Engineering and Technical Services Jean -Marc Petit
Planning and Development Services Division Manager Danea Gemmell
Communication Services and Intergovernmental Relations Manager Emily Barnett
Environmental Compliance Superintendent Tim Potter (left after Item 6.)
Senior Engineer Dan Frost
Senior Administrative Technician Cindy Granzella
1. Call Meeting to Order
Chair Pilecki called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m
2. Public Comments
None.
Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Action Summary
December 18, 2015
Page 2
3. Receive update on scalping plants within the District
This item was taken out of order, after Item 4.
Ms. Gemmell introduced the guests from Diablo Country Club (DCC) and Moraga
Country Club (MCC), and explained that she has been working with DCC to develop
a framework for the DCC scalping plant. Staff and DCC have been meeting to
discuss possible scenarios regarding the financing, ownership and operation of the
project, and will look for policy direction from the Board at a later date.
Mr. Petit said that staff is looking at developing a global approach with respect to
scalping plants to achieve a consistent program when considering proposals from
other country clubs and customers who have expressed or may express similar
interest in the future. Member McGill stated that DCC is county zoning, and MCC is
town zoning, which would have different permitted uses. He advised staff to be
flexible when developing a global program because each scalping plant may have
different needs based on location.
Noting that Mr. Scott was in attendance to observe and obtain information with regard
to MCC's interest in a potential scalping plant, Mr. Bailey suggested that Mr. Scott
begin by contacting East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), MCC's water service
provider, to gain permission and concurrence for a scalping plant similar to the DCC
project.
Mr. Bailey also explained that county land use permits are completely different when
it comes to ownership. If the District owns the plant, no land use permit is required.
Chair Pilecki asked if the District needs to own the land in order to own and operate a
scalping plant. Ms. Gemmell explained that the District could lease the land. She
also explained that she recently went to Sacramento with DCC to meet with the State
about options and opportunities for financing. The State Revolving Fund (SRF)
would be an option for a loan mechanism, and the District would need to be the lead
agency in order to qualify for a SRF loan. Public funding of private projects should be
available, but procedures will not be in place until next fall. More than likely, it will be
3-5 years before this is an established practice. If the District wishes to act sooner,
the most expedient option would be to own the facility.
Member McGill asked if the SRF was available if the District maintained the facilities
and if there were limits on how often the District could apply for funds for other
projects. Ms. Gemmell explained that each site and project would be considered an
independent project.
Chair Pilecki questioned how the District applying for loans would affect the District's
future borrowing capacity. Mr. Bailey explained that any current outstanding debts
would have to be reviewed, and the revenue requirement may have to be adjusted
accordingly.
Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Action Summary
December 18, 2015
Page 3
Chair Pilecki and Member McGill recommended proceeding with the planning grant
application for DCC.
Ms. Barnett raised the question of names for scalping plants, saying that "scalping"
and "satellite" have been used interchangeably. She would like clarification for
consistency. It was agreed to start using the term "water reclamation facility" or
"WRF" from this point forward.
Member McGill and Chair Pilecki said they would be in support of the District owning
and operating the DCC WRF, and pursuing State funding.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update and provided input to staff.
4.* Receive update on CoCo San Sustainable Farm
This Item was taken out of order, immediately following Item 2.
Ms. Gemmell explained that the County land use permit will hopefully be approved at
the hearing scheduled for on Monday, December 21, 2015. She reviewed the.
updated term sheet (attached). Until the land use permit is approved, no planting can
be done on the land. She explained that, as the owner of the land, the District had to
apply for the permit.
With regard to the recycled water hydrant for the commercial fill station, the County
has requested that the driveways be paved up to 100 feet from each apron. This is
not part of the Farm, as it is open for public use. Ms. Gemmell stated that staff is
planning to asphalt the entire circle to comply with the Country's request, as well as
help control dust and avoid soil erosion.
In response to a question regarding the progress of the Farm, Ms. Gemmell stated
that teaching associated with the Farm has taken place, but no actual farming has
been done, pending issuance of the permit. Fencing cannot be put up by the Farm
without the permit. Once approved, the Farm can proceed with installing the fence
around their site, as well as implementing the requirements of the land use permit
and then farming is expected to begin. Ms. Gemmell is expecting AgLantis' annual
report by April 2016.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update.
5. Receive update on management of the Kiewit property
Ms. Gemmell stated that seeding has been done for erosion control, at a cost of
approximately $14,000.
Member McGill addressed the fact that many different types of birds are on site, and
asked if that was a concern. Ms. Gemmell stated that a report regarding the Kiewit
Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Action Summary
December 18, 2015
Page 4
property and birds was being prepared, and noise boxes can be installed once the
seeding is done. The report will be discussed and agendized for future meeting
discussion.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update.
6. Receive update on recently adopted Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the
District's support of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program
Mr. Potter stated that the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit was renewed in
November 2015. The permit conditions, such as ambitious numeric trash reduction
goals, and numeric Polychorinated Biphenyl (PCB) mass reductions, generated major
concerns by the cities and counties subject to the permit. The permit does not
directly affect the District, but staff implementing the interagency stormwater
inspection agreement participates in trash reduction by inspecting trash areas, and in
PCB reduction by expanding inquiries related to PCB units, such as age of buildings
and equipment and will need to coordinate more closely on these program activities.
One good change is the reduction strategy for PCBs, copper and mercury. The
Regional Board is no longer specifying reduction strategies or plans with regard to
these pollutants. In particular, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
no longer specifies stormwater diversions to the sanitary sewer as a potential control
strategy for PCBs and mercury. Staff continues to coordinate clean water efforts for
mercury and copper reductions (e.g. issue pool permits to control copper discharges
to the storm drains).
Related to industrial/commercial inspections, a major change for cities is the reporting
and tracking of potential violators. The District has already been tracking and
documenting corrective actions for potential violations so this change will not affect
the District's workload, but the Regional Board wants verbal warnings tracked as well.
Staff will seek clarification on tracking and reporting verbal warnings.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update.
7. Standing Items
a. Receive monthly update on:
1) Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWMP)
A presentation was made at the December 17, 2015 Board meeting so
no further discussion or presentation was made on the CWMP.
Ms. Barnett stated that focus groups and customer research have
completed, and she will bring the results to the Board on January 28,
2016.
Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Action Summary
December 18, 2015
Page 5
2) Residential Fill Station
Ms. Barnett stated that a representative of EBMUD has contacted her to
ask about the fill station, stating that they may be providing recycled
water to customers in 2016.
3) Contractor Hydrants - no report.
4) Household Hazardous Waste Facility - no report.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the updates.
8. Announcements
a. Future scheduled meetings:
Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the announcements.
9. Suggestions for future agenda items
Chair Pilecki suggested contacting West County Wastewater District and Delta
Diablo to see if they would be interested in participating in the Pollution
Prevention Awards with Sustainable Contra Costa. Ms. Barnett offered to
contact them.
10. Adjournment - at 11:25 a.m.
* Attachment
t.
40
Term Sheet
CoCo San Sustainable Urban Farm
Project Location
The approximately 33 acre parcel of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
(District) land, is bounded by Grayson Creek on the west, Imhoff Drive on the
north, Walnut Creek on the east, and Highway 4 on the south (see Site Plan on
Attachment 1).
The property is currently vacant. A clean -fill project was recently completed that
raised the grade of the property to the current elevation. A small wetlands area is
located in the northwest area of the property, and it is outside of any areas
designated for development.
The proposed project is located north of Buchanan Field Airport across Highway 4,
with access from Imhoff Drive. The proximity to the Airport places the property in
an Airfield Influence Area ("AIA") of Buchanan Field Airport and under the
jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission.
I` • • • - : •)tW71T-.i>ff
ESA Biological Resources and Land Management conducted an evaluation of the
impacts of this designation to development options for the District. Their
memorandum titled "Airport Land Use Compatibility and Crop Evaluations for
Kiewit Property" dated April 3, 2013, is attached (see Attachment 2). The various
protection zones identified in the memorandum are included in Attachment 1 Site
Plan.
A community sustainable farm is proposed on the west side of the property. Total
area of the farm is approximately 15 acres. The lessee for this project plans to
use the farm to teach community members urban farming and related science,
demonstrate the use of recycled water, and harvest produce for use by
community food banks or schools. Uses of the area will comply with Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) protection zones shown on the included Site Plan.
Hours of Operation: Primarily daylight hours, except for special events. Normal
hours will be between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. (usually 9 am to 5 pm) 7 days per week.
Occasionally on very hot days, planting and harvesting may start at 6 am. Noisy
equipment (i.e. tractors, leaf blowers, mulchers and generators)
would only be used during times permitted by the County (8-5 weekdays).
Special events may be held which extend into evening.
Fencing: The farm is currently fenced with chain-link fence that is just short of 6'
height. Barb -wire fencing would be placed along the top of the fence to extend the
height to about 8-9 feet. This could be large barbed -hoops or an angled
extension. This is to keep humans and deer and other large mammals off the
property. Traps will be placed along the interior of the fence and around the farm
to catch animals that burrow. All traditional farmland operations will be fenced. The
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) will be fenced to keep visitors out of the area.
Irrigation: The farm will be sourced from recycled water produced by Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The recycled water line will be
extended to both the northern and southern portions of the proposed farm for
connection to a future irrigation system. Spray irrigation will be used for cover
crops and drip irrigation for row crops. There will be no flood irrigation.
Beekeeoina: Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association will be placing and maintaining
hives on the farm near the Grayson Creek fence line in Safety Zone 2. The bees will
pollinate crops.
New Structures: Per Article 6.1 (b) "Alterations and New Construction" of the executed
Lease between the District and AgLantis, "No Improvements shall be undertaken until
the Tenant shall have obtained all required permits and authorizations of any federal,
state or local government or departments or subdivisions of any of them, having
jurisdiction." In addition, the heights of all proposed structures shall not exceed height
of two stories above ground level within Safety Zone 2 or four stories above ground level
within Safety Zone 4, as noted in Attachment 2. Typically all proposed structures (i.e.
barn, temporary office, and greenhouse) are 25 -feet high or less.
Airspace Protection' -
Basis for Height Limits — To protect the airspace necessary for the operation of
aircraft approaching, departing, or otherwise flying in the vicinity of airports, limits
must be set on the height of objects on the land below. The basic criteria for
limiting the height of structures, trees, and other objects near airports are set by
federal regulations: Part 77, Subpart C, of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR); the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS);
and applicable airport design standards.
(a) Unless specific exceptions have been evaluated and determined not to
adversely affect air navigation, these criteria as applied to Buchanan Field Airport
shall be used as the basis for setting limits on the heights of objects in the vicinity
of the airport.
Safety Compatibility Criteria
Safety Zone 2
(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.
(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.
(b) Buildings shall have no more than two habitable floors above ground.
1 Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (December 2000) — Section 4.3
(c) Residences, children's schools (through grade 12), day care centers,
hospitals, and nursing homes are specifically prohibited.
(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 non -aviation flammable materials.
Safety Zone 4
(a) Land use intensity is not limited other than that buildings shall have no more
than four habitable floors above ground.
(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.
Field Crops Low Tunnel Greenhouses or Other Coverina: Seeds that are planted in
the field directly will be covered with low tunnel hoop houses or temporary sheeting
to keep birds from eating the seeds.
Barn/Eauipment Storaae Shed: CoCo San will build an equipment
shed/building/barn in Zone 4. This will be approximately 1000-1500 square feet and
store a tractor and other farm equipment.
Temporary Office in Container: Container onsite will be used as an office.
Outdoor Liahtina: Normal operations will be during daylight hours and no outside
lighting is expected for these. Low wattage solar trip lights may be placed around
farm for security reasons. These will not be aimed upward, but will simply trip if a
human or animal comes onto the farm to alert security and turn on video cameras.
Greenhouse: In addition to growing field crops, we will use a state-of-the-art 6000+
square foot AgraTech Solar Light greenhouse for hydroponic production. The
Greenhouse will be located in Safety Zone 4 and is 42'x 144' with a maximum
height of 25 feet.
Education
The farm is a living science laboratory for teaching about protecting the environment,
increasing public health, and numerous other types of science such as: agriculture,
integrated pest management, hydrology, meteorology, soils science, etc.
The educational activities will primarily focus on teaching to high school students
and older, using demonstration gardens in Zone 4, but will extend into the field on
occasion. When these extend into Zone 2, there will be fewer than 30 people per
acre and usually a class of about a dozen.
Children may tour the farm on occasion, with the focus of education in Safety Zone
4. There may be brief tours of the farm and beekeeping that takes place in Zone 2.
In this event, CoCo San staff will provide an overview on safety and the proximity
of the airport. Classes will be limited to a dozen per teacher.
Signage shall be installed between Safety Zone 2 and Safety Zone 4, which states that
"All children must be accompanied by a teacher or farm personnel." Additionally, the
farm project shall allow an educational kiosk to be displayed that provides information
about. Buchanan Fields Airport.
Crops
All crops shall be included in the annual report and updated as necessary, per the terms
of the executed Lease between the District and AgLantis. The Applicant shall produce
annually a report/condition compliance and submit to the ALUC, care of the Department
of Conservation and Development. At a minimum, this report will include dated logs
verifying inspections and findings, if/when wildlife is discovered and the corrective
actions), when crop types were planted and which are attracting wildlife as well as when
they were harvested.
All crops will conform and follow a certified Wildlife Management and Pest Management
Plan, prepared by a suitable professional. Mitigation measures to control and maintain
populations below those currently observed in 2015 will be escalated if pests are
observed on the farm. The Plan shall include at a minimum measures for disrupting
wildlife infiltration, preventative measures, and suitable inspection schedules.
All low suitability crops shall be confined to the Greenhouse in Safety Zone 4.
Only Field Crops (both moderately suitable and highly suitable) as noted in the following
table will be allowed. This table is included in the Lease and no deviations will be
allowed.
Allowable Field Crops*
Suitability for Cultivation Near Airports
Pineapple guava (Acca sellowiana)
Moderately suitable. Birds are not known to eat the fruit of
• Evergreen large shrub growing to 20 feet tall and
the pineapple guava plant; however, small bird species may
produces fruit in the winter.
eat the flowers.
Meyer lemon (Critrus x meyen)
Moderately suitable. Plant is not known to attract many bird
• Small to medium shrub growing to 640 feet tail;
or wildlife species. As with most shrubs, small birds may use
evergreen; produces fruit in the winter.
the canopy for nesting.
Parry's agave (Agave parry! ssp. neomexicana)
Highly suitable.
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 lemmonll)
Moderately to highly suitable.
• Mounding evergreen shrub that grows to 6 feet tall;
flowers in the summer.
Rosemary'Indian Spire' (Rosmarinus officinalls)
Highly suitable.
• Columnar perennial shrub growing to 5 feet tall; fragrant
needle-like leaves with blue flowers in the spring.
White sage (Salvia apiana)
Highly suitable.
• Mounding evergreen shrub that grows to 5 feet tall;
leaves have strong aroma; flowers are very attractive to
Sage (Salvia spp.)
Mint (Mentha spp.)
Sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima)
Lavender (Lavandula Spica, Lavandula vera, Lavandula
intermedia, Lavandula dentate)
Wonder of Staffa (Aster frikarti�
California poppy (Eschscholzie californica)
Penstemon 'Blue Bedder'
Salad greens (lettuces) Moderately suitable. Rodents that are found in irrigated row
Tomatoes and field crop habitats need to be controlled via trapping or
other methods to reduce potential prey base for raptor
Other vegetable crops (e.g., kale) species.
Herbs (Basil, etc.) Highly suitable.
Flowers: Depending on the species, some flowers may Only flowers that are defined as moderately to highly
produce seeds that attract small bird species. For example, suitable and designated as such by a suitable
sunflower or species from the sunflower family are known to professional shall be allowed onsite.
produce large seeds that are edible to many passerines and
moderate-sized birds.
*Reference. "Airport Land Use Compatibility and Crop Evaluations for Kiewit Property" as
identified in Attachment 2
Attachments
1. Site Plan Map indicating Zones for Activities and Buildings
2. ESA Memorandum dated April 3, 2013 titled "Airport Land Use
Compatibility and Crop Suitability Evaluations for Kiewit Property"
3. Estimated Timeline for CoCo San Sustainable Farm
4. Compost Plan
EAlrpO t.
memorandum
date April 3, 2013
i
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900phone
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
Attachment 2
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 Quant', 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 following 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
2
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 (RPZt) 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.
5.3.3(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.
I The runway protection zone is an FAA -defined trapezoidal area located at the end of a runway.
F
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 limitedz 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 ALUM 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 56-60 60-65 65-70
f{Iblia.
Schools, libraries + + o
Auditoriums, concert hails + + o
Transportation, parking ++ ++ ++ +
10
Service commercial, wholesale trade, ++ ++ 0 0
warehousing, light Industrial
General manufacturing, utilities, extractive ++ ++ ++ +
Industry
Avfuuoural tilt Aeae tof►al
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 suffielent 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 oonstructed
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 Cow*Akport Land Use Compatlbl* 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 setbackstbuffer 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. t vertical foot.
As aclmowledged in AC 150/5300-13A, the best way to achieve this goal is through direct ownership of the land within the RPZ.
6
A
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 Wildiffe 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;
° Buchanan Field is designated as a Reliever Airport in the NPIAS (FAA, 2012c).
7 Information on wildlife management can be obtained at www.fto.govlairportslairport_safety/wfldlifelmanagement/.
7
• Uses that interfere with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft;
• Uses that generate thermal plpmes 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 ofLandji'lls 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 (leaveststems, 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 airerafts 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 aircraft. 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
8
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
substraie 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.
9
TABLE 2
PROPOSED CROPS FOR CULTIVATION AT THE PROJECT SITE
Suitability for Cultivation Near
Proposed Crop or Plant Species Potential for Wildlife Use Airports
Alfalfa (Madicago sative) 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 fre uentl found soaring above alfalfa fields including raptors.
Rice (Oryze sp.)
• Annual grass species that produces
seeds. The crop is planted in the
spring and harvested in the fall. Rice
grows to 2 to six feet tall, depending on
the species cultivated.
Pineapple guava (Acca sellowfana)
• Evergreen large shrub growing to 20
feet tall and produces fruit in the winter.
Meyer lemon (Cntros x meyen)
• Small to medium shrub growing to 6-10
feet tali; evergreen; produces fruit In
the winter.
True/Sweet bay (Laurus nobills)
• Slow growing evergreen tree or shrub;
grows to 1245 feet tall as a shrub.
Prickly pear or Barbary fig (OpunBa rrcus.
indica)
• perennial cactus shrub growing to 10
feet tall; produces edible fruit and pads.
Parry's agave (Agave perW sop.
neomaxicans)
• Perennial slow-growing shrub that
grows to 3 feet tall; mature plants
produce tail (12-15 feet) flowering spike
that attracts hummingbirds; resists deer
and rabbits.
Mexican marigold (Tagates lammowo
• Mounding evergreen shrub that grows
to 6 feet tail; flowers in the summer.
Rosemary'Indian Spire' (Rosmarinus
offrafneNs)
9 y
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 is an annual grass species and a flood irrigated
Low Suitability. Avoid planting rice
crop that produces seeds. Rice fields, like seasonally
crop adjacent to or on airport lands
flooded wetlands, provide water and foraging
due to the crop's high potential for
opportunities for shorebirds, wading birds, gulls, and
attracting many bird species,
waterfowl. After rice is harvested in the fall, remaining
including waterfowl (a group of birds
grain residues provide food for waterfowl and sandhill
known to create substantial damage
cranes. Pheasants also benefit from rice cropland.
to aircraft during collisions).
In general, shrubs, and particularly taller shrubs, attract
Moderately suitable. Birds are not
songbirds. Most songbirds are insectivores during the
known to eat the fruit of the
breeding season; however, they become fruit or bevy
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.
Literature is generally lacking on wildlife associated with
Moderately suitable. Plant is not
evergreen orchards except as it relates to pests and
known to attract many bird or wildlife
pest control.
species. As with most shrubs, small
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.
This shrub can provide nesting habitat for small bird
Low to moderately suitable. Plant
species. Small bird species such as warblers eat the
Is known to attract small bird
berries in the winter.
species, typically in the winter (due
to the presence of berries).
This plant Is a prolific fruit and seed producer and
Low to moderately suitable.
provides shelter and food for a variety of wildlife
Although plant is not known to
species. The fruit is palatable to coyotes, raccoons,
attract large raptor species, it could
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
Priddy pear plants.
rodents that may in tum provide a
prey bees for larger predators (such
as raptors). If faults are harvested
regularly, the plant may provide
lower amounts of food resources for
wildlife.
Low potential to provide habitat or food for wildlife
Highly suitable.
species considered hazardous by the FAA.
Not known to attract wildlife spades considered Moderately to highly suitable.
hazardous by the FAA. Plant species in the sunflower
family are known to produce seeds or seed materials
that can provide suitable nesting substrate for small
birds.
Primarily attracts honey bees, bumble bees, and Highly suitable.
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 needle4ke leaves with
blue flowers to the spring.
White sage (Salvia spiana) Primarily attracts bees. Highly suitable.
• Mounding evergreen shrub that grows
to 5 feet tall; leaves have strong aroma;
towers are very attractive to bees.
Yarrow (Achilles spp.) Unless planted in dense stands, this species is not Highly suitable.
likely to provide suitable nesting habitat for passerines.
Primarily attracts bees.
Sage (Salvia spp.) Primarily attracts bees.
Mint (Mentha spp.) Primarily attracts bees.
Sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritime) Primarily attracts bees.
Lavender (Lavanduis spies, Lavendula Primarily attracts bees.
vera, Lavandula Intermedia, Lavandule
deMafe)
Wonder of Staffs (Aster ffikarfit)
Primarily attracts bees.
California poppy (Eschscholzie callibmlcs)
Has limited direct wildlife value (provides <5% of small
mammal diets and minor cover for small bird).
Penstemon 'Blue Badder
Primarily attracts bees.
Vapeiabie.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.
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 Celifomta ground
orchard trees may provide food for a
squirrel. Orchard species that produce fruit crops (e g..
variety of wiidlHe, including small to
cherries, figs, pears, prunes, apples) provide food for
medium sized birds. Rodents that
birds (scrub Jay, American crow, band-talled pigeon,
use orchard habitats may provide a
and yellow -billed magpie, among other:), California
prey base for larger raptor species.
ground squirrel, coyote, and raccoon. Small bird
species may also nest in orchard trees.
The suitabl ity for crop or plant species to be planted or cultivated near airports b 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 IN 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
Bj6rkman, 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. Alfafa, 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 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. August 28,
2007.
FAA, 2010. Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports. November 2010.
FAA, 2011a. 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. Updated on
January 18, 2011.
FAA, 201 lb. 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 of1megratedAirport 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
k It
Smith, C., 2010. 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/symposialbrush-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
SOURCE: USDA. 2012, Contra Costa County, 2013
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District .130165
Figure 1
Location of Kiewit Property
SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District .130165
Figure 3
Buchanan Field Airport
Safety Zones
A 2
SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2013 Garttrai Contra Costa Sanitary District .130165
Figure 4
Buchanan Field Airport
Noise Contours
- - 4
SOURCE, USDA, 2012; Contra Costs County. 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District .130165
Figure 5
Buchanan Field Airport
14 CFR Part 77 Airspace Protection Surfaces
*i r
SOURCE: USDA, 2012; Comm Costa County, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District .130165
Figure 6
Buchanan Field Airport
Runway Protection Zones
Attachment 3
Estimated Timeline for CoCo San Sustainable Farm
Years 2015-2017
Grow cover crops to amend soil
Construct Greenhouse, Roads, Barn Parking tot
Teach classes
Years 2016-2017
Grow Greenhouse Crops
Sell Produce (Food Bank, Schools, CSAs)
Teach classes
Years 2018-2024
Grow conventional field crops on approximately 10 acres
Grow Greenhouse Crops
Sell Produce (Food Bank, Schools, CSAs)
Teach classes
Compost Plan
Purchasing Compost
Attachment 5
CoCo San intends to buy compost, which is typical practice for farmers.
Disposal
a. Most organic material will be shredded back into the field.
b. Any remaining material will be hauled offsite and/or given to local hog and
chicken farmers.
Description of Future Composting Operation
a. All methods will be in accordance with State of California
httg)://www.calrecmle.ca.gov/`organics--/homecompost/
b. Master Gardener/Organic Farmer Beth allyn Black, who is in charge of CoCo
San Farming Program states:
'IF we make our own we will need a toploader, large piles that will be turned
daily and will need to be covered. (The cover is to keep the N and other nutrients
in and not leaching away if it ever rains) A compost pile gets hot enough if itis
managed properly that NO animals can live in it. A pile gets to 170F. You can
bake potatoes in one. Compost piles that are done properly have no smell, no
flies, no rats and provide finished compost In 3 weeks. BUT it takes daily
attention, and a way to get the proper proportion of base materials. I have done
this on a large scale. Labor time: 2-3 hours a day, 7 days a week.
c. Cover compost piles with drop cloth or equivalent.
d. Logging activities of wildlife attractants will be done daily during composting
activities.
Composting Demonstration for Teaching Purposes
a. Follow methods described above on very small scale
b. Worm Bins
c. Compost tea
d. Closed composting bins
b...
zR+"
owna
(60 30P) /
Attachment 1
RVNWAY
PROTECTION-
�. ..
/
ZONE
Tram Dumened
5.9 ACRES
--
�-
COUNTY
QUARRY
CLYDE
r-- -`
,� /
r
CONTRA COSTA
m98tron water ( I Gate
--
COUNTY
11p•
Gardens
A
r /
�Py
DRIVE
,".i 'C9 18 P 12: 01
720 Max People
�
/
HEW
Hydrant
/ CarpeContarnal
(50'x1p) /
/
--- Existing Fence
/
ONC
-� —• New Fence
4
/
l t '(:7r :rglT
N
AIRPORT
i r
/
1e' RaeO
AIRPORT
SAFETY ZONE
cn,
SAFETY ZONE 2
/e
3
m
PORT
BUCHANAN
(30 PEOPLE/ACRE)
(30 PE RE)
m
SAFETY ZONE 4
(100-150 PEOPLE/ACRE)
�
300 Max P le
9.T aaaa
�e
/
!
AIRPORT
SAFETY ZONE 4 !
(100-150 PEOPLE/ACRE)i
/
pnoposoa
CCCSD
j
!
Farm
144
20 O'fe""I
re
-
TREATMENT
PLANT
i
) /
(42714172
�5 Central Contra Costa SITE PLAN MAP
Sanitary District INDICATING APPROXIMATE
al ' LOCATION FOR -�-
ACTIVITIES AND BUILDINGS
FIELD
AIRPORT ®��� o GrStnrclures
Grant
•
owna
(60 30P) /
`P`
RVNWAY
PROTECTION-
�. ..
/
ZONE
Tram Dumened
5.9 ACRES
V I
Ro be screened 8'ea0a)j
Sde wit be 9rade4 to mteBYl /
r
m98tron water ( I Gate
Gardens
A
r /
TOWS
�Py
720 Max People
�
Lepend:
>t
/ CarpeContarnal
(50'x1p) /
/
--- Existing Fence
/
-� —• New Fence
4
/
•-- Existing Recycled Water
(
Sewer Main
pow"rPop
BUCHANAN
APN 159-140-051
�5 Central Contra Costa SITE PLAN MAP
Sanitary District INDICATING APPROXIMATE
al ' LOCATION FOR -�-
ACTIVITIES AND BUILDINGS
FIELD
AIRPORT ®��� o GrStnrclures
Grant
•