Contents. Contents Tables Figures. Introduction F.1 Noise Analysis Methodology F.2 Alternatives Analysis F.3 Contour Evaluation F.54.

Transcription

1 Contents Contents Tables Figures i ii iii Noise Abatement Alternatives Evaluation Introduction F.1 Noise Analysis Methodology F.2 Alternatives Analysis F.3 Contour Evaluation F.54 Buchanan Field Airport Part 150 Study/Working Paper Two/September 2006 i

2 Tables Table F CNEL Contour Comparison For Each Modeled Alternative F.54 Table F2 Noise Abatement Alternatives Summary F.55 Buchanan Field Airport Part 150 Study/Working Paper Two/September 2006 ii

3 Illustrations Figure F1 Example Flight Tracks With and Without FMS F.5 Figure F2 Existing Buchanan Eight and Kanan Two Instrument Departure Procedures F.7 Figure F3a Graphic Illustration of Buchanan Eight Departure F.8 Figure F3b Graphic Illustration of Kanan Two Departure F.9 Figure F4 Propose RNP Departure Flight Paths F.11 Figure F5 Alternative 1 and 2012 Baseline CNEL Noise Exposure Contours Comparison F.12 Figure F6 Alternative 2, Example Single Event Noise Contours for Arriving Jet Aircraft F.16 Figure F7 Alternative 3A, Example Single Event Noise Levels from Training Pattern Operations F.19 Figure F8 Alternative 3B, Example Single Event Noise Levels from New Propeller Equipped Aircraft F.22 Figure F9 Alternative 3C, Example Single Event Noise Contours for Quiet Propeller Operation F.24 Figure F10 Pre-Flight Run-Up Locations F.31 Figure F11 Alternative 4A, Pre-Flight Engine Run-Up Noise for Runway 19R Departures F.32 Figure F12 Approved Maintenance Run-Up Locations F.35 Figure F13 Alternative 4B, Single Event Noise from Aircraft Maintenance Run-Up F.36 Figure F14 Alternative 5, CNEL Noise Contours for Activation of After Hours Lighting on Runway 14L/32R F.38 Figure F15 Alternative 5 and 2012 Baseline CNEL Noise Exposure Contours Comparison F.41 Figure F16 Existing Noise Monitoring Locations F.45 Buchanan Field Airport Part 150 Study/Working Paper Two/September 2006 iii

4 Noise Abatement Alternatives Evaluation Introduction This FAR Part 150 Study Working Paper presents a range of operational alternatives that has been identified for review at Buchanan Field Airport (CCR). The objective of each operational alternative is to provide noise abatement beyond what is currently realized under existing conditions. An evaluation of each operational alternative has been completed to allow a judgment to be made regarding whether or not the alternative would provide additional noise abatement, if implemented. Following the review of the operational alternatives presented in this Working Paper, should any additional noise abatement alternatives be recommended for further analysis and evaluation, they will be included in the next Working Paper, which will discuss land use and administrative alternatives. Airport Management and Steering Committee members are encouraged to suggest additional operational alternatives for possible detailed review. Listed below are the Aircraft Operational Alternatives that have been suggested by Airport Management, Study Committee members or the Consulting Team for review and analysis. These alternatives consist of incorporating new flight procedure technology, as well as an on-airport operational modification. The term Flight Management System (FMS) will be used generically within this document to include a wide variety of new technology satellite-based navigational systems. The alternatives under consideration are designed to build upon the existing program that exists at CCR. Because Buchanan Field Airport already has a comprehensive restriction on aircraft that can operate at the airport (and this restriction can not be changed or altered without completing a FAA Part 161 study), these proposed alternatives focus on measures to have aircraft that utilize the Airport operate as quietly as possible through additional voluntary measures. This is through promoting the use of new navigational technology and the improved compliance monitoring that can be achieved with a enhanced noise and flight track monitoring system. Additionally the Airport has a number of existing programs that are presented within this Part 150 Study so that any enhancements to these programs will qualify for additional FAA Part 150 funding. FAR Part 150 Study F.1

5 Aircraft Operational Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 3A 3B 3C Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft using FMS Technology Aircraft Approach Angles and Altitudes for Landing Turbojet Aircraft Quiet Propeller Aircraft Technology Propeller Training Aircraft Fleet Upgrade Propeller Blade Technology Adjustable Pitch Propeller Departure Settings Aircraft Operational and Administrative Alternatives - On-Airport Changes Alternative 4 4A 4B Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Run-Up Noise Mitigation Pre-Flight Run-Up Areas Maintenance Run-Up Areas Install Pilot Controlled Lighting on Runway 14L/32R Update Noise Abatement Brochures and On-Airport Signage. Upgrade Noise Monitoring System and Include Multilateration (Flight Tracks) Fly Quiet Program Noise Analysis Methodology The metric to evaluate noise abatement alternatives, as specified by the FAA for use in FAR Part 150 studies, is the cumulative Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise metric. For certain alternatives, the single event SENEL noise metric was used to help illustrate the potential noise benefits that may occur with those alternatives. The Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) noise metric was primarily employed for alternatives for which the noise levels over 65 CNEL would not change; however, there would be expected improvements to the single event noise levels. Some of the alternatives will have an impact on the CNEL at locations past the CNEL noise contours; for these alternatives, the SENEL noise contours will illustrate the noise effects in areas surrounding the Airport. The CNEL metric information is presented in both graphic and tabular format in this report. Consistent with discussions presented in previous Working Papers, all of the analyses for the Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 study FAR Part 150 Study F.2

6 are based upon year 2012 future conditions (five years in the future from the expected date of submission). CNEL noise contours have been developed for selected alternatives to graphically depict areas exposed to specific CNEL noise levels. The comparison of noise contours for various alternatives illustrates how the contour may change in size and area relative to each other. The CNEL noise contours are presented in terms of the 60 and 65 CNEL noise value. These contours are the average annual CNEL noise level. The SENEL noise contours are presented in terms of 80 SENEL noise value. Alternatives Analysis The following sections of this Working Paper provide a detailed analysis for each alternative. The analysis describes the noise goal of the alternative, a description of the alternative, how it varies from existing procedures, and what potential change in noise may result from implementation of the alternative. FAR Part 150 Study F.3

7 Alternative 1 Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft using Flight Management System (FMS) Technology Goal The goal of Alternative 1 is enhancing the precision of turbojet aircraft departure flight paths when flying the existing published procedures, thereby concentrating turbojet operations over areas of compatible land use and reducing the over-flying of noncompatible land use areas. Description This procedure would create a more defined and narrow departure flight path using FMS technology to concentrate aircraft flight tracks. Aircraft would use the existing departure procedures, but would utilize Flight Management System (FMS) technology (i.e., a satellite based precision navigation) to reduce dispersion over non-compatible land uses such as residential neighborhoods. The term Flight Management System (FMS) is a generic term used to include a wide variety of new satellite based navigational systems. With FMS, an aircraft uses a flight computer to precisely fly paths that are defined through the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS). Because these procedures are computer flown, and use many precise navigational points, the flight tracks are much more exact than those flown using traditional heading and radial based navigation. An example of flight paths with and without FMS is presented in Figure F1, entitled Example Flight Tracks with and without FMS. An FMS procedure typically consists of a series of three guides: waypoints, altitudes, and flight heading information. Waypoints are precise, known positions on the ground that provide references for aircraft flight. Two types of waypoints can be part of an FMSbased procedure: fly-over and fly-by. The two procedures are described below: A fly-over waypoint is a point on the ground that the aircraft actually flies directly over. A fly-by waypoint is a point on the ground that the FMS computer onboard the aircraft uses as a reference in flying the aircraft through a turn. The aircraft typically flies an equal distance inside that point, both entering and exiting the turn. The turn is not equal for all aircraft and varies with speed. FAR Part 150 Study F.4

8 Without FMSWith FMS The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Source: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Figure F1 Examples Flight Tracks With and Without FMS F.5

9 Existing Procedures While flight procedures for all runways are being considered for this alternative, the primary areas of study are departures to the south (Primarily Runway 19R and vary rarely Runway 14L) and are described below: VFR Turbojet departures. Approximately 50% of the turbojet departures at Buchanan Field are conducted under VFR conditions; that is, when visual flight rules are in effect and pilots do not solely rely on their instruments for guidance. Aircraft departing to the south on Runway 19R or very occasionally 14L under Visual Flight Rules; aircraft departing Runway 19R depart and make a climbing right or left turn to intercept the CCR VHF Ominidirectional Range (VOR) that is north of the Airport. Aircraft departing Runway 14L depart and make a climbing left or right turn also back to the VOR. For the close-in areas around the Airport, these VFR procedures are similar to the IFR procedures described below. (Note: many aircraft will departure using the IFR procedures even under VFR flight conditions.) IFR Turbojet departures. Aircraft depart IFR using either the Buchanan Eight or Kanan Two Instrument Departure Procedures. In south flow, departing aircraft flying the textural description of the Buchanan Eight procedure perform a climbing left turn back to the VOR that is north of the Airport. The predominately used Kanan Two procedure is similar with departing aircraft performing a climbing left turn to intercept the Kanan Localizer (situated very close to the CCR VOR). The official description of each procedure is presented in Figure F2 entitled Existing Buchanan Eight and Kanan Two Instrument Departure Procedures. A graphical display of the paths overlaid on an aerial photograph are presented in Figure F3a entitled Graphic Illustration of Buchanan Eight Departure Procedure and Figure F3b entitled Graphic Illustration of Kanan Two Departure Procedure. Note that while there are different procedures that an aircraft may be using, it is difficult for individuals on the ground to tell the difference between procedures that are similar in nature. FAR Part 150 Study F.6

10 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Figure F2 Existing Buchanan Eight and Kanan Two Instrument Departure Procedures F.7

11 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team {N} Figure F3a Graphic Illustration of Buchanan Eight Departure F.8

12 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team {N} Figure F3b Graphic Illustration of Kanan Two Departure F.9

13 New Procedure Aircraft would depart using either the Buchanan Eight or Kanan Two departure with an FMS overlay. For south departures, aircraft would still continue to perform a climbing left turn back to the north as they do today. The FMS overlay would be designed to take advantage of compatible land uses to the maximum extent possible and to minimize flying over residential land uses. An example of a potential flight path that would be an overlay of the existing procedures using FMS technology is presented in Figure F4 entitled Proposed RNP Departure Flight Paths. New Procedure Noise Analysis Alternative 1 could be used by approximately 80% of the projected turbojet aircraft fleet operating at Buchanan Field Airport. Older jet aircraft, turbo-props, and general aviation aircraft are not equipped to fly FMS procedures; as such, these aircraft would continue to fly their existing flight procedures. This alternative reduces the dispersion of the aircraft from the center flight path and reduces the number of late turns by turbojet aircraft. The average annual CNEL noise contours were used to evaluate the noise exposure consequences of this Alternative. Table F1, located at the end of this Working Paper, summarizes the changes to the 65 CNEL noise exposure contours that would result from implementation of this alternative in comparison with the 2012 Baseline. As this table notes, Alternative 1 would not change the overall population and housing exposed to 65 CNEL in comparison to the Baseline. Figure F5 shows the noise exposure contours relative to the 2012 Baseline noise contour. Alternative 1 benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Deviations from departure flight paths would be reduced, thus reducing the number of single event disturbance from occasional overflight..a more consistent path would be flown that is concentrated over compatible land uses. Impacts and Observations As a result of the concentration of the flight paths, some Contra Costa County locations would experience increased noise under these concentrated paths. The procedure would need to be designed so that concentration does not occur where the path overflies residential development. An environmental document would have to be prepared. FAR Part 150 Study F.10

14 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team {N} Figure F4 Proposed RNP Departure Flight Paths F.11

15 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Service Rd Kinney Blvd Cen tral Ave Bates Ave Forni Dr Mallard Dr Solano Way Pike Ln Pacheco Blvd Sunrise Dr Blum Rd 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Imhoff Dr State Route 4 Northwood Dr Arnold Industrial Way Sanford St Sanford St Rd Hilltop Grant St Prestwick Ave H Holiday ills Dr MARTINEZ Muir Rd PACHECO 75 CNEL 75 CNEL Claudia Dr Ida Dr N 6th St Marsh Dr Bisso Ln Kay Ave Kay Ave 1st Ave Gill Dr 70 CNEL CONCORD 2nd St 65 CNEL 6th St Morello Ave Go lf Club Rd I-680 Market St Ellis St Davis Ave Kiki Dr PLEASANT HILL Viking Dr Willow Pass Rd State Route 242 Traynor Rd Cowell Rd A St Craig Dr Taylor Blvd Sylvia Dr Gelbke Ln Detroit Ave Legend City Limit Boundary N Rose Ln 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Doris Dr Rd Sierra S Alternative 1 RNAV hary Cir 2012 Noise Contour Lane Dr Figure F5 Alternative 1 and 2012 Baseline CNEL Noise Exposure Contours Comparison { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.12

16 Alternative 2 Aircraft Approach Angles and Altitudes for Landing Turbojet Aircraft Goal The goal of Alternative 2 is to increase the approach altitude of turbojet (jet) aircraft landing at Buchanan Field, thereby reducing single event noise levels from arriving turbojet aircraft. With the existing approach slope of 3, this alternative explores methods of increasing the altitude at which aircraft intercept the approach slope by flying a continuous 3 descent. The purpose here is to reduce the amount of time aircraft operate at lower altitudes and the need to adjust or apply power during the landing phase. Description This alternative evaluates methods to reduce the times that aircraft operate at lower altitudes during landing at Buchanan Field. Further, it examines increasing the altitude at which aircraft intercept the existing 3 VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicators) approach slope when landing at the Airport by flying a more continuous descent without the need to fly level flight at lower altitudes. Alternative 2 uses single event sound exposure level (SENEL) analysis of a typical aircraft arrival profile to determine changes in noise exposure. Contours show changes in noise between different approach intercept altitudes at the Airport and how SENEL levels might change if these procedures resulted in higher altitudes. Included in this evaluation will be discussions with FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) personnel and FAA Flight Standards to evaluate procedures that may result in higher altitudes of aircraft as they approach the Airport and intercept the existing (VASI) approach path. The approach altitude of the aircraft can also become an element of the Fly Quiet Program more fully described in a following alternative. Existing Procedures Turbojet aircraft use navigation fixes and step downs in altitude in approaching the airport prior to intercepting the VASI approach lights that are set to a 3.approach slope. Turbojet aircraft line up for final approach approximately 3-5 miles away from the Airport. When arriving on Runway 01L the jet aircraft often, fly downwind of the airport flying level at 1,500 feet above Air Field Elevation (AFE). The aircraft turns to a straight-in final and intercepts the approach slope along this path. This procedure can result in aircraft flying level at lower altitudes that require more power (and thus more noise) than if the aircraft was able to continuously descend to the airport. FAR Part 150 Study F.13

17 New Procedure Turbojet Aircraft arriving on Runway 01L would establish an approach on at approximately a 3 continuous descent to intercepting the VASI approach lights that are also set to a 3.. The new procedure would fly a continuous descent, thereby reducing the time the aircraft is operating at level flight at lower altitudes with higher power settings. While aircraft may at times fly a continuous procedure, this alternative is to more formaly recognize this approach as the preferred method for turbojet landing at CCR. Note: Approach Angle is Exaggerated New Procedure Noise Analysis The evaluation relied upon the use of single event noise contours to evaluate this option. CNEL noise contours were not developed for this alternative, given that the single event analysis better illustrates the potential benefits and location of benefits of this alternative. The single event analysis included noise contours in terms of SENEL noise levels. The single event noise levels expressed in SENEL noise contours for a Lear 35 (representative of the loudest corporate jets allowed to operate at CCR) arrival from the north on Runway 01L are presented in Figure F6 entitled Alternative 2, Single Event Noise Contours for Arriving Jet Aircraft. (Note that the SENEL contours and the values presented do not constitute a specific impact. They are for illustrating the potential change in noise that may occur with the alternative). A typical existing procedure modeled was a level flight at 1,500 feet MSL (mean sea level) to intercept the 3 glide slope. The continuous descent showed the aircraft over the same ground track descending from 3 continuously without any level flight. The analysis shows that the single event noise levels are predicted to be lower with the continuous descent approach. This predicted change varies by location, but in general is greatest farther from the Airport. In general, the reduction in single event noise level has little change on the final approach; however, along the downwind, the noise levels are 1 to 3 dba less. For some occasional flights that operate lower than normal, the reduction in noise will be greater. This procedure can reduce both overall arrival noise and reduce the occasional extra loud arrival noise events. This procedure can reduce the number of times that extra loud arrival noise events occur when an aircraft is lower or using higher power than normal. FAR Part 150 Study F.14

18 The FAA has conducted studies on the implementation of Continuous Descent Arrivals (CDA) and has found the noise reduction benefits to be up to 5 dba. The FAA is actively promoting CDA as a means of reducing environmental impacts, fuel consumption and improved air space efficiency. While current implementation plans are directed towards large commercial service jets, the same benefits are expected to occur with corporate jets as well. Additional information on CDA can be located on the FAA s web site: Alternative 2 benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Existing traffic pattern for all nonturbojet aircraft would remain unchanged.. Reduces the amount of low angle and lower altitude aircraft approaches by arriving turbojet aircraft traffic. Impacts and Observations Requires ATC coordination. Complexities with merging and spacing these aircraft with the smaller propeller aircraft operating at CCR may make implementation more challenging. FAR Part 150 Study F.15

19 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team H owe R d Sunrise Dr Dr Imhoff State Route 4 N orthwood Dr Center A ve Arnold Dr Rd Hilltop Kim Ct Way Wanda Lester Rd Alhambra Ave MARTINEZ Glenview Dr Ave Morello Muir Rd PACHECO 1st Ave Marsh Dr I-680 Ln Bisso Kay Ave Kay Ave Market St State Route 242 G Dr ill CONCORD Pepper Dr ill Dr Laguna St Ida Dr Ln Acres Carter Ro anok Dr e 80 SENEL Viking Dr Jennie Dr Gelbke Ln A St 75 SENEL Iron Hill St Rose Ln Doris Dr Carey Dr Rd Sierra Taylor Blvd PLEASANT HILL Lisa Ln Pear Dr 75 SENEL Toyon Rd Rd Kim Elvia St 80 SENEL Esther Dr Teria Ln Minert Rd Tei g land Rd Ave Rogers Kane Cir LAFAYETTE Lennon Ln Springhill Rd McGraw Ln Rd Shulgin Mallard Dr WALNUT CREEK Legend N San Carlos Dr City Limit Boundary CDA Approach Current Procedure N 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Figure F6 Alternative 2, Example Single Event Noise Contours for Arriving Jet Aircraft { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.16

20 Alternative 3 Quiet Propeller Aircraft Technology Goal The overall goal of Alternative 3 is to reduce the noise generated by small propeller aircraft. This includes training aircraft that are considered local operations, based aircraft that regularly operate from Buchanan Field, and transient aircraft that are occasional operators at the Airport. Description This alternative proposes three options for reducing propeller aircraft noise: Alternative 3A Propeller Training Aircraft Fleet Upgrade This alternative focuses on replacing older single engine propeller aircraft with newer propeller aircraft. Alternative 3B Propeller Blade Technology This alternative focuses on retrofitting propeller aircraft with three-blade propellers in place of the existing two-blade propellers on high performance single engine aircraft. Alternative 3C Adjustable Pitch Propeller Departure Settings This alternative focuses on proper propeller pitch (or angle) settings for departure. Alternative 3A - Propeller Training Aircraft Fleet Upgrade Existing Procedure Flight training comprises 46% of the operations at Buchanan Field. Flight training operations are typically conducted in single engine piston driven aircraft with fixed pitch propellers. These aircraft are mechanically limited in their ability to reduce noise. The most effective noise reduction techniques are operator-driven, such as aircraft using proper climb procedures, reducing early turns and flying at the published, preferred altitudes in the vicinity of the Airport. The training fleet is comprised of predominately single engine aircraft such as the Cessna 150/152, Cessna 172, and the Piper Cherokee 160/Warrior. To a lesser extent, twinengine aircraft training is also performed at Buchanan Field Airport utilizing aircraft such as the Beechcraft Duchess and the Piper Seneca. FAR Part 150 Study F.17

21 New Procedure The existing fleet would be replaced by newer generation flight training aircraft. Replacing the older generation aircraft with new aircraft can result in reduced noise. Like performance new generation aircraft are quieter due to advanced airframe, exhaust, and propeller blade technologies. Each of these items contributes to aircraft noise, with the engine and propeller being the greatest source of aircraft noise heard on the ground from the small training aircraft. In addition to the option of purchasing new aircraft, this alternative could also analyze the option of purchasing new propellers and/or exhaust systems to retrofit the existing training fleet. The new propeller and exhaust systems would be similar to the systems found on new aircraft. Alternative 3B describes options available for quieter propellers. Retrofitting aircraft would benefit the community from a noise standpoint and cost significantly less than replacing aircraft. The average cost to replace a propeller or exhaust system is $9,000 each, for an average cost of less than $20,000 per aircraft, plus any labor associated with the installation. Currently there are not many available propeller blade upgrades for the small training aircraft fleet. Replacement aircraft parts and upgrades must go through a rigorous testing and approval process before they can be installed on an aircraft and and approval is specific to each aircraft. The source of funding to allow for such a program is to be investigated and represents a significant hurdle for implementation. New Procedure Noise Analysis An example of the single event noise associated with local pattern touch-and-go operations at Buchanan Field is presented in Figure F7 entitled Alternative 3A, Example Single Event Noise Levels from Training Pattern Operations. (Note that the SENEL contours and the values presented do not constitute a specific impact. They are for illustrating the potential change in noise that may occur with the alternative). This figure shows the 75 SENEL noise value for a typical training aircraft and a new generation quieter training aircraft. The results show, on average, that the new generation trainer aircraft is more than 3 dba quieter than older similar performance aircraft. Alternative 3a benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Quieter aircraft climb outs Quieter aircraft over-flights. Impacts and Observations Cost of equipment acquisition. Isn t FAA grant funds eligible. Very difficult funding situation, do to the uncharacteristic nature of the potential use of public funds. FAR Part 150 Study F.18

22 Liana Ln The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Waterfront Rd Waterbird Way Solano Way CLYDE Service Rd A St A St 75 SENEL Solano Way Pike Ln Sunrise Dr 75 SENEL Dr Imhoff State Route 4 N orthwood Dr rnold Dr A Rd Hilltop Prestwick Ave Ashw ood Dr MARTINEZ Muir Rd PACHECO 1st Ave Marsh Dr Bisso Ln Kay Ave Kay Ave 75 SENEL State Route 242 Pepper Dr G Dr ill ill Dr Ida Dr N 6th St Dr Briar 75 SENEL I-680 Market St Laguna St CONCORD Davis Ave Viking Dr Cowell Rd B St Hale Dr Ro anok Dr e Iron Hill St Taylor Blvd Taylor Blvd PLEASANT HILL Rose Ln Jennie Dr Doris Dr Buskirk Ave Carey Dr Gelbke Ln Pear Dr Rd Sierra Terra ce Dr Lane Dr Legend City Limit Boundary Quiet Trainer Treat Blvd Current Aircraft WALNUT CREEK N 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure F7 Alternative 3A, Example Single Event Noise Contours from Training Pattern Operations { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.19

23 Alternative 3B - Propeller Blade Technology Existing Procedure The majority of the high performance single engine aircraft based at Buchanan Field operate with two-blade propellers. New Procedure Alternative 3B was examined to ascertain the potential benefits of outfitting the high performance single engine propeller aircraft with advanced technology quieter propellers. Initial studies concluded that aircraft retrofitted with three-blade propellers might reduce operating noise levels, with minimal effect on the aircraft performance, and in some instances increasing aircraft performance. Most new generation high-performance single engine aircraft have at least three-blade propellers. While each aircraft performs differently given weather conditions, payloads, and other factors, studies have shown that three or more blades are quieter than two-blades. This action could be pursued by the Airport in working with based operators at Buchanan Field, and thus would not have an effect on the occasional operator at the Airport, but rather the regular operators. Retrofitting the high performance single engine aircraft fleet with three-blade propellers may result in the following: Reduced single event noise, 3 to 5 dba on departure on common propeller aircraft used by operators at Buchanan Field. Many piston-engine aircraft can be retrofitted. New propellers require less maintenance. Source of funding such a program is to be explored. Cost is roughly $9,000 per single engine aircraft. Lower performance aircraft could also benefit from new propeller technology. These aircraft can be retrofitted with two-blade propellers that use a propeller blade design, called a scimitar blade design, which increases efficiency and reduces overall noise. The scimitar blade design, instead of being flat on the leading edges of the propeller, is curved back to reduce noise from the tip of the propeller. The conversion of aircraft from a two-blade to a three-blade propeller costs roughly $9,000 plus installation per aircraft. FAR Part 150 Study F.20

24 New Procedure Noise Analysis SENEL noise contours were developed for this alternative. Single event noise contours show that, with the new propellers, dba levels would be reduced by more than 5 dba per operation. These results are presented in Figure F8 entitled Alternative 3B, Example Single Event Noise Levels from New Propeller Equipped Aircraft. (Note that the SENEL contours and the values presented do not constitute a specific impact. They are for illustrating the potential change in noise that may occur with the alternative). Alternative 3b benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Quieter aircraft climb outs Quieter aircraft over-flights More Efficient Impacts and Observations Cost of equipment acquisition. Isn t FAA grant funds eligible. Very difficult funding situation, do to the uncharacteristic nature of the potential use of public funds Technology not available for all aircraft types FAR Part 150 Study F.21

25 Liana Ln The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Waterfront Rd Waterbird Way Solano Way CLYDE Service Rd A St A St e ntral A C ve Solano Way Pike Ln 80 SENEL 85 SENEL Dr Imhoff State Route 4 N orthwood Dr rnold Dr A Ashw ood Dr MARTINEZ Muir Rd Dr Sunrise PACHECO 1st Ave Marsh Dr John Glenn Dr Rd Hilltop Kay Ave Kay Ave State Route SENEL Pepper Dr Ida Dr Prestwick Ave N 6th St Dr Briar 85 SENEL CONCORD 80 SENEL I-680 Market St Laguna St Davis Ave Viking Dr Cowell Rd B St Hale Dr Ro anok Dr e Iron Hill St Taylor Blvd Taylor Blvd PLEASANT HILL Rose Ln Jennie Dr Doris Dr Buskirk Ave Carey Dr Gelbke Ln Pear Dr Rd Sierra Terra ce Dr Lane Dr Legend City Limit Boundary Loud Single Treat Blvd New Propeller WALNUT CREEK N 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure F8 Alternative 3B, Example Single Event Noise Contours from New Propeller Eqiupped Aircraft { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.22

26 Alternative 3C - Adjustable Pitch Propeller Departure Settings Existing Procedure High performance single engine and multi-engine propeller aircraft have the ability to adjust the pitch, or angle, of its propeller to maximize its climb performance during departure and cruise flight. Adjusting the angle at which the propeller comes into contact with the air to increase the amount of airflow over the propeller allows aircraft to climb more efficiently. Aircraft that climb efficiently vacate local airspace sooner than aircraft with poor rates of climb, reducing the surrounding communities exposure to aircraft noise. For the purpose of this alternative, the term aircraft applies to those aircraft with adjustable pitch propeller settings. New Procedure Aircraft operators would be asked to use the optimum settings for departure and control the manifold pressure and engine RPM. It is estimated that 30-40% of the based aircraft fleet at Buchanan Field have adjustable pitch propellers. This information can also be included in future pilot brochures and on the noise abatement signs located on the airfield. Example text could read: Buchanan Field is a noise sensitive airport. When departing in aircraft equipped with variable pitch propellers, reduce manifold pressure and engine RPM as soon as practical after takeoff. New Procedure Noise Analysis SENEL noise contours were developed for this alternative. Single event noise contours show the difference between a very loud propeller and departure setting vs. a quieter and preferred setting for the same aircraft. The results are presented in Figure F9 entitled Alternative 3C, Example Single Event Noise Contours for Quiet Propeller Operation. (Note that the SENEL contours and the values presented do not constitute a specific impact. They are for illustrating the potential change in noise that may occur with the alternative). Alternative 3c benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Quieter aircraft climb outs Quieter aircraft over-flights More Efficient Impacts and Observations Exact noise benefits are difficult to precisely quantify Compliance difficult to measure FAR Part 150 Study F.23

27 Liana Ln The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Waterfront Rd Waterbird Way Solano Way CLYDE Service Rd A St A St e ntral A C ve 80 SENEL Solano Way Pike Ln 80 SENEL Dr Imhoff State Route 4 N orthwood Dr rnold Dr A Ashw ood Dr MARTINEZ Dr Sunrise Muir Rd 85 SENEL PACHECO Marsh Dr John Glenn Dr Rd Hilltop Kay Ave Kay Ave State Route SENEL Pepper Dr Ida Dr Prestwick Ave N 6th St Dr Briar 85 SENEL I-680 Market St Laguna St CONCORD Davis Ave Viking Dr Cowell Rd Hale Dr B St Ro anok Dr e Iron Hill St Taylor Blvd Taylor Blvd PLEASANT HILL Rose Ln Jennie Dr Doris Dr Buskirk Ave Carey Dr Gelbke Ln Pear Dr Rd Sierra Terra ce Dr Lane Dr Legend City Limit Boundary Loud Single Treat Blvd Quiet Pitch WALNUT CREEK N 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Figure F9 Alternative 3C, Example Single Event Noise Contours from Quiet Propeller Operation { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.24

28 Alternative 4 Run-Up Noise Mitigation Goal The goal of Alternative 4 is to reduce noise in surrounding communities resulting from aircraft operations on the ground at Buchanan Field Airport. This alternative was developed to explore available options that will minimize ground noise intrusion from aircraft maintenance and pre-flight run-up operations. Description Alternative 4 addresses aircraft noise from run-up procedures by aircraft for either maintenance or pre-flight activities. Alternative 4A Pre-flight Run-Up Areas Alternative 4B Maintenance Run-Up Areas Following is a list of the type of general mitigation measures available for ground noise: Sound barriers such as sound walls, earthen berms, and any solid material that acts to shield the noise, including existing or proposed structures such as buildings and hangars. Aircraft run-up orientation to determine aircraft placement during run-up procedures prior to departure. Aircraft run-up orientation to determine aircraft placement during maintenance run-up procedures. Voluntary Airport Procedures for reducing aircraft ground noise. Ground Mitigation Measures Sound Barriers Sometimes, barriers can be effective in reducing ground noise exposure in adjoining neighborhoods. A noise barrier is an obstruction to the path of the sound transmission from ground-based aircraft operations. Once an aircraft becomes airborne, barriers have no further effect. Barriers include walls (those used along highways), earth mounds (berms), wall and berm combinations, or placement of buildings and landscaping. In the case of barriers, neighbors would be shielded from the noise source as long as the barrier is solid and sufficiently breaks the line-of-sight from the noise source to the listener. Barriers can potentially provide noise reduction benefits for communities near an airport from aircraft ground operations. The closer a barrier is to the noise source, the more FAR Part 150 Study F.25

29 effective it is (i.e., the reason a Ground Run-Up Enclosure works well is the close proximity between the noise source and the barrier). The placement of structures, barriers, or berms is dictated by airport design guidelines and regulations, one of which is Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, which defines certain height restrictions at specified distances from runways. To ensure the safe operation of aircraft on the Airport, these restrictions should not be exceeded, thereby making berms unfeasible in specific locations. Noise Barrier Design Overview Noise barriers are structures designed to block the propagation of noise at the source. An overview of the acoustic principles behind noise barrier design is summarized below. An understanding of these acoustical principles is essential in the design of effective noise barriers. When there are no obstacles between the source and adjoining areas, sound travels by a direct path of source to receiver. This straight line is referred to as the line-of-sight. Introducing a barrier between the source and the receiver, which interrupts the line of sight, redistributes the sound energy into several paths: a diffracted path over the top of the barrier; a transmitted path through the barrier, and a reflected path directed away from the receiver. The noise reflected off the sound barrier is usually directed away from the receiver, and can be ignored unless large buildings or other reflecting surfaces are present. Absorptive barriers are often used if there are receivers located on the other side of the noise source as well. The noise path of primary concern is the diffracted path. All receivers located in the shadow zone (the area between the barrier and the diffracted noise path) will experience some sound attenuation; the amount of that attenuation is directly related to the degree that the sound must bend or diffract. That is, the barrier attenuation is a function of the geometrical relationship between the source, receiver, and barrier. (The closer the receiver is to the barrier, the more attenuation it will receive.) The location and height of barriers is dependent on many factors including distance from the noise source, the magnitude and frequency characteristics of the noise and FAR Part 77 surface requirements,. Noise levels can be louder in certain meteorological conditions and be more audible during times of low ambient noise levels (generally nighttime hours). To be effective in reducing ground based aircraft noise the barrier must be reasonably close to the noise source or receiver. Otherwise, the actual achieved reduction is minimal. Barriers have no benefit in reducing noise from aircraft once they are in the air. FAR Part 150 Study F.26

30 Types of Barriers Earthen berm Earthen berms are generally composed of dirt with a ground cover such as grass, low-profile plants, small bushes, or trees. The height of the berm is dependent on its location on the airfield, its intended use, and proximity to airfield activities. Berms are generally located on airport property boundaries. Earthen berm and wall combination Earthen berms can be combined with a wall to create a higher structure. Walls can be placed on top of an earthen berm to create a more aesthetically-pleasing noise barrier. Landscape The placement of trees can be effective in breaking the line of sight between a noise source and the community. The density of the trees affects the dissipation of noise. At locations where aircraft noise levels are not substantially higher than the ambient neighborhood noise, landscaping can be a good alternative to reduce the line of sight. Landscaping is generally located on airport property boundaries. Building placement Airports can take advantage of existing buildings to shield communities from aircraft noise. If ground noise is an issue at an airport, the siting of new buildings can take into account how they can be used for noise reduction. Hay bales Hay bales (or other straw-like material) have been found to be an economical way to reduce ground noise propagation. Unlike standard construction materials, hay bales can be easily and quickly formed into the specific shape needed to mitigate noise. Blast fence Blast fences are used to deflect noise from engine start-up, run-up, and taxiing. Blast fences are located on apron areas, terminal areas, and airport property lines. Blast fences can vary in height and length depending on intended use. Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) A GRE is a three-sided structure that surrounds an area used for aircraft maintenance run-up. The aircraft backs into the GRE and then performs the run-up test. The walls of the GRE are relatively close to the engine, typically at least 20 feet high, and built of sound absorptive material; so, a GRE is very effective in reducing maintenance run-up noise. FAR Part 150 Study F.27

31 Pre-Flight and Maintenance Run-up Locations and Aircraft Orientations As detailed in the Inventory Working Paper, residential and other noise sensitive land uses border airport property or are close to airport facilities. As such, the location and orientation of aircraft run-up activities on the airfield can greatly influence noise levels in these adjoining areas. Similarly, the route that aircraft taxi on the airfield to a runway and where the aircraft holds for preflight checks can influence noise exposure in the vicinity. Typically, aircraft taxi to and from a parking location to and from the runway ends. Most airports have numerous aprons, ramp areas, and facilities that are used for aircraft parking, maintenance run-up, and pre-flight run-up. Each of these apron areas has unique characteristics that can be analyzed independently of each other. As stated earlier, parking and taxiing of aircraft in remote areas in relation to a noise barrier are determined by distance from the noise barrier, orientation of the aircraft, time of day usage, and location of existing structures. A number of factors determine the ideal location for positioning aircraft for run-ups. An important requirement is that in order for the engines to dissipate heat properly during a run-up, the aircraft should be oriented into the wind to the maximum extent practical. Additionally, not all aircraft generate the same level of noise when on the ground. The noise from jet aircraft and propeller aircraft is also different. The directionality and magnitude of the noise also vary with the power level of the run. These factors are listed below: Type of Aircraft Orientation of Aircraft Type and Power Level of Run-up Wind Speed and Direction Airfield Configuration in Use Taxi Distance and Runway Crossings Activity Level at Airport Clear Blast Area FAR Part 150 Study F.28

32 Alternative 4A - Pre-Flight Run-Up Areas Existing Procedure Prior to departure, it is necessary for propeller piston aircraft to perform required safety procedures to ensure the aircraft is operating correctly. The pre-flight procedures include aircraft engine run-up to high power (pre-flight high power run-up is not normally necessary for turbojet engine aircraft). These pre-flight activities are typically conducted near the end of the runway where the aircraft intends to depart. Figure F10, entitled Pre-flight Run-Up Locations, shows the existing location of aircraft run-up areas/pads. The location for pre-flight run-ups at Buchanan Field Airport is dependent upon several factors that include the active departure runway, and, to a lesser degree, the type aircraft running-up. When possible, piston aircraft are separated from jet aircraft during preflight holding and the piston aircraft run-ups. When Runway 01L is in use, pre-flight run-ups for all aircraft take place on Taxiway G (for aircraft coming from the east side of the Airport) and Taxiway E (for aircraft coming from the west side of the Airport). Departures on Runway 01R/19L are limited to aircraft weighing 12, 500 pounds or less, with the majority of aircraft being single engine training aircraft. For Runway 01R departures, run-ups occur south of Taxiway F, between Taxiway A and the main ramp. Pre-flight run-ups for Runway 19L occur in the run-up area located east of the runway and Taxiway A. The run-up area locations for Runway 19R departures are east of the Runway 19R threshold, along Taxiway A for aircraft coming from the east side, and in the run-up area west of the Runway 19R threshold, along Taxiway E for aircraft coming from the west side. Jet-engine aircraft departure run-ups are rare. When they do occur, they generally occur in the Taxiway E run-up area when departing Runway 19R. For Runway 32R departures, pre-flight run-ups occur in two locations: the northern portion of the east ramp, adjacent to the runway threshold, and along Taxiway J at the southern end of Taxiway B. Departures on Runway 32L are limited to aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less, with the majority of aircraft being single engine training aircraft. For Runway 32L departures, pre-flight run-ups occur in the run-up area located between Taxiways K and J. Fixed wing aircraft depart Runways 14L and 14R infrequently, and, when these departures occur, run-ups take place on Taxiway J east and west of the runway thresholds. The pre-flight run-up location for Runways 19 is close to communities to the northeast. The rear of the aircraft is often oriented eastward toward this residential community. FAR Part 150 Study F.29

33 New Procedure This alternative proposes to shift the pre-flight activities for aircraft departing on Runway 19R to revised locations further to the south or west. These locations are also shown on Figure F10 entitled Pre-Flight Run-Up Locations. This shifts the pre-flight location about 1,000 feet to the south or west and farther from the residential areas. There are no residential develops in close proximity to the Runways 32 pre-flight run-up areas. No suitable location(s) that is sufficiently better than the current locations have been identified at this time. New Procedure Noise Analysis An example of a pre-flight engine run-up for a typical propeller aircraft is presented in Figure F11 entitled Alternative 4A, Pre-Fight Engine Run-up Noise for Runway 19R Departures. This figure shows the aircraft located at the take off end of Runway 19R, in the run-up areas along Taxiway E to the west, and along Taxiway A to the east (the current positions). It also illustrates replacement run-up areas for Runway 19R departures located at the intersection of Taxiways B and E and the current run-up area for Runway 19L departures, located at the east of the Taxiway A, abeam of the Runway 19L threshold (the proposed revised positions). The figure is in terms of dba noise level and illustrates the shifting of noise away from the community. FAR Part 150 Study F.30

34 E The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team T Hangars California Delta Highway 14L Airport Property Line 14R J L W 32R/14L 4,602 x 150 Run 19R Walnut Creek Channel J Runway 32L/14R 2,799 x 75 H H A B 19L J N Sally Ride Drive E F E K K Runway 1L/19R 5,001 x 150 C C L 1R 1R/19L 2,770 x 75 P B 32L A C C C B D D 32R Control Tower Terminal Hangar T Hangars 680 G A 1L Crowne Plaza Concord Avenue Figure A3 F10Exisitng Pre-Flight Airport Run-Up Layout Locations SOURCE: Buchanan Field ALP, Shutt Moen Associates, September F.31 A.8

35 Berry Dr The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Service Rd Kinney Blvd Cen tral Ave Bates Ave Forni Dr Mallard Dr Solano Way Pike Ln Pacheco Blvd Sunrise Dr Blum Rd Imhoff Dr Imhoff Dr State Route 4 Marsh Dr Arnold Industrial Way 60 Max. dba 65 Max. dba 70 Max. dba Sanford St Sanford St Prestwick Ave H Holiday ills Dr MARTINEZ Muir Rd PACHECO Claudia Dr Ida Dr N 6th St 1st Ave 70 Max. dba 65 Max. dba 60 Max. dba Gill Dr CONCORD 2nd St Galaxy W ay 6th St Morello Ave Go lf Club Rd I-680 Market St Ellis St Davis Ave Kiki Dr PLEASANT HILL Viking Dr Willow Pass Rd State Route 242 Traynor Rd Cowell Rd A St Craig Dr N Taylor Blvd Rose Ln 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Sylvia Dr Doris Dr Figure F11 Alternative 4A, Pre-flight Engine Run-up Noise for Runway 19R Departures Noise contours are in terms of dba for a high powered preflight run-up of a typical high performance piston aircraft. Gelbke Ln Rd Sierra Detroit Ave Legend S City Limit Boundary Existing Location hary Cir Proposed Location Lane Dr { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.32

36 Alternative 4B Maintenance Run-Up Areas Existing Procedure After an aircraft has received maintenance, it may need to conduct an engine run-up to check the aircraft. The most demanding type of engine maintenance run-up occurs when jet-engine aircraft are required to make sustained run-ups for the purpose of trimming and/or syncing a multi-engine jet aircraft to ensure equal power output from both engines. Current locations approved for maintenance run-ups are located on Figure F12 entitled Approved Maintenance Run-Up Locations. Aircraft that are performing a maintenance run-up taxi to these areas to perform the run-up. The locations are designed to factor in the criteria described previously in the alternative. Maintenance run-ups are restricted during the nighttime hours. When Runways 19L and 19R are active, maintenance run-ups take place along Taxiway H in proximity to Taxiway B, depending upon the amount of helicopter training traffic making approaches to Runways 14L and 14R. When Runways 32L and 32R are active, maintenance run-ups occur at the intersection of Runway 01L and Taxiway F. New Procedure Generally, the current maintenance run-up procedures provide a favorable plan for minimizing the potential noise impacts. The current number of high power run-ups is not considered sufficient to warrant the expense of a Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE) at this time. However, modeling of a GRE is included in this alternative to show the potential benefits that can occur with a GRE. If maintenance run-up activities increase, then the GRE alternative merits further review. New Procedure Noise Analysis Maintenance run-up noise with and without a GRE is presented in Figure F13 entitled Alternative 4B, Single Event Noise from Aircraft Maintenance Run-up. The graphic shows a high powered run-up of a Lear 35 (representative of the loudest corporate jets allowed to operate at CCR) located at the intersection of Taxiways B and H, at the intersection of Runway 01R and Taxiway F, and also within a potential GRE. The potential GRE location is centered within the East Development Area, east of closed Taxiway D. The data is in terms of a dba noise level and shows the improvement in noise that can occur with a GRE. FAR Part 150 Study F.33

37 Alternative 4 benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Aircraft pre-flight and maintenance run-up noise would be reduced in the airport environs. Berms, blast fences and GREs can be FAA grant fund eligible. Impacts and Observations Limited landside not constrained by FAR Part 77 surfaces or runway/taxiway set backs. Expense associated with the construction of berms, blast fences or GREs..Jet aircraft maintenance run-ups are infrequent, but anticipated to be on the rise over the planning period. May not be sufficient turbojet runups to justify FAA funding for a GRE FAR Part 150 Study F.34

38 E The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team T Hangars California Delta Highway 14L Airport Property Line 14R J W 32R/14L 4,602 x R Walnut Creek Channel J Runway 32L/14R 14R 2,799 x 75 H H A B 19L J N Sally Ride Drive E F E K K Runway 1L/19R 5,001 x 150 C C 1R 1R/19L 2,770 x 75 L P B 32L A C C C B D 32R D Control Tower Terminal Hangar T Hangars 680 G A 1L Crowne Plaza Concord Avenue Figure A3 F12Exisitng Approved Airport Maintenance Layout Run-Up Locations SOURCE: Buchanan Field ALP, Shutt Moen Associates, September F.35 A.8

39 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Service Rd Kinney Blvd 60 Max. dba Solano Way 65 Max. dba 60 Max. dba Pacheco Blvd 60 Max. dba State Route 4 Marsh Dr 65 Max. dba 70 Max. dba Sanford St 60 dba 75 Max. dba 60 Max. dba Muir Rd MARTINEZ PACHECO Ida Dr N 6th St Marsh Dr 1st Ave Gill Dr 60 Max. dba CONCORD I Max. dba 70 Max. dba 6th St 75 Max. dba Pine St Ellis St PLEASANT HILL Viking Dr State Route 242 A St Craig Dr Taylor Blvd Ilene Dr Gelbke Ln Legend Detroit Ave City Limit Boundary With Potential GRE Rose Ln Doris Dr Existing Southern Location Existing Northern Location N 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Figure F13 Alternative 4B, Noise from Aircraft Maintenance Run-up (Lear 35) Noise contours are in terms of dba for a high powered maintenance run-up of a Lear 35 jet aircraft. { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.36

40 Alternative 5 Install Pilot Controlled Lighting on Runway 14L/32R Goal The goal of this alternative is to activate the existing runway lighting for Runway 14L/32R, during hours in which the ATCT is closed so that it can be used along with Runway 01L/19R during this period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The purpose is to allow for late night/early morning departures on Runway 32R. Description The Airport currently has a preferential runway use program for use of Runways 01L/19R and Runways 14L/32R. Currently, both Runways 01L/19R and 14L/32R have runway edge lighting. However, during the hours in which the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is closed, lighting to Runway 14L/32R is turned off. There is no line of sight between the thresholds of Runways 01L and 32R due to Southeast Development Area landside facilities, and as such pilots cannot see if an aircraft is on the other runway. A graphic of the runways at Buchanan Field Airport is shown below highlighting Runway 14L/32R, Figure F14 entitled Alternative 5, CNEL Contours for Activation of Pilot Controlled Lighting on Runway 14L/32R. This is done to eliminate potential active runway confusion during the hours in which the Airport is operated as an uncontrolled facility, operating without the benefit of the ATCT. Since Runway 01L/19R is the only runway with lighting during these hours, it is not possible to fully implement the noise abatement runway use program during the nighttime operations. Identification of the runway and the associated noise contours for this alternative is presented in Figure F14 entitled Alternative 5, CNEL Noise Contours for Activation of After Hours Lighting of Runway 14L/32R. This alternative evaluates the feasibility of lighting Runway 14L/32R so that it can be used during nighttime hours. Under the current voluntary noise abatement program, Runways 32 are the preferred departure runways and Runways 19 are the preferred arrival runways, which places more traffic over the commercial and industrial areas of Martinez and the less populated areas northeast and south of the Airport. The after hours activation of the runway edge lighting for Runway 14L/32R would make it available for use from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (hours that are especially sensitive to the surrounding communities), and would enable the noise abatement runway use program at all hours of the day or night, weather and safe operations permitting. FAR Part 150 Study F.37

41 The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Service Rd Kinney Blvd Cen tral Ave Bates Ave Forni Dr Mallard Dr Solano Way Pike Ln Pacheco Blvd Sunrise Dr Blum Rd 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Imhoff Dr 14 L 14 L State Route 4 Northwood Dr Arnold Industrial Way Sanford St Sanford St Rd Hilltop Prestwick Ave H Holiday ills Dr MARTINEZ Muir Rd 1st Ave PACHECO 75 CNEL Marsh Dr 32 R 32 R 75 CNEL Bisso Ln Mayfair Ave Grant St Gill Dr Claudia Dr Ida Dr N 6th St 70 CNEL CONCORD 2nd St 14L/32R 65 CNEL 6th St Morello Ave Go lf Club Rd I-680 Market St Ellis St Davis Ave Kiki Dr PLEASANT HILL Viking Dr Willow Pass Rd State Route 242 Traynor Rd Cowell Rd A St Craig Dr Taylor Blvd Gelbke Ln Sylvia Dr Detroit Ave Legend N Rose Ln 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Doris Dr Rd Sierra S City Limit Boundary Alternative 5 Night RW hary Cir Lane Dr Figure F14 Alternative 5, CNEL Noise Contours for Activation of After Hours Lighting on Runway 14R/32L { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.38