Contents Contents Tables Figures i ii iii Abatement Alternatives Evaluation, Part 2 Introduction F.57 Noise Analysis Methodology F.58 Alternatives Analysis F.59 Contour Evaluation F.72 Alternatives Considerations Summary F.73 Consultant s Recommendations F.74 FAR Part 150 Study i
Tables Table F3 2012 CNEL Contour Comparison For Each Modeled Alternative F.72 Table F4 Noise Abatement Alternatives Summary F.73 FAR Part 150 Study ii
Illustrations Figure F17 Runway 19R Departure Procedures F.62 Figure F18 Increased Use of Runways 32R for Northbound Departures F.65 Figure F19 Future 2012 Noise Exposure Map F.76 FAR Part 150 Study iii
Noise Abatement Alternatives Evaluation, Part 2 Introduction This FAR Part 150 Study Working Paper presents a second range of operational alternatives that has been identified for review at Buchanan Field Airport (CCR) by the Steering Committee and the public. In addition to the operational alternatives, generalized land use and administrative alternatives are also presented. 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. Alternative numbers, page numbers, and table numbers are consecutive to the previous Noise Abatement Alternatives Evaluation Working Paper. Listed below are new Aircraft Operational, Off-Airport Land Use and Administrative Alternatives that have been suggested for review and analysis subsequent to the last Committee meeting. These alternatives consist of incorporating new flight procedures, as well as administrative alternatives. 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 is being implemented at Buchanan Field Airport. Because Buchanan Field Airport already has a comprehensive restriction on aircraft that can operate at the Airport (and this restriction cannot be changed or altered without completing an 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 by promoting the use of new navigational technology and the improved compliance monitoring that can be achieved with an enhanced noise and flight track monitoring system. Additionally, the Airport has a number of existing programs that are presented within this Part 150 Study for FAA review and approval so that any enhancements to these programs will qualify for additional FAA Part 150 funding. FAR Part 150 Study F.57
Aircraft Operational Alternatives Alternative 9 Alternative 10 Runway 19R Visual Flight Rules Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft Increased Use of Runway 32R as the Preferred Runway for Northbound Departures Off-Airport Land Use Alternatives Alternative 11 Continue Recommended Land Use Controls from Previous Noise Compatibility Program Administrative Alternatives Alternative 12 Alternative 13 Create a Noise Mitigation Sub-Committee of the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) Continual Assessment and Updating of the Part 150 Study 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 Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) noise metric was used to help illustrate the potential noise benefits that may occur with those alternatives. The 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 SENEL. Some of the alternatives would result in changes to CNEL at locations beyond the 65 CNEL noise contour; 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 Airport FAR Part 150 study 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 65 CNEL noise value. These contours are the average annual CNEL noise level. FAR Part 150 Study F.58
Alternatives Analysis The following sections of this Working Paper provide a detailed analysis for each alternative. The analysis provides a description of the noise goal for the alternative, a description of the alternative, a description of how it varies from existing procedures, and a description of how potential change in noise may result from implementation of the alternative. FAR Part 150 Study F.59
Alternative 9 Runway 19R Visual Flight Rules Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft Goal Alternative 9 was developed for Runway 19R turbojet departures with the goal of aircraft following the left-turn (east) Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight tracks during Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The goal of Alternative 9 is for turbojet aircraft departing Runway 19R, during visual flight rules, to depart and make a climbing left turn (east), similar to the Kanan Two IFR procedure. Description This procedure would not increase the utilization of the existing Runway 19R turbojet departure procedure wherein aircraft make a climbing left (east) turn to intercept the CCR VHF Ominidirectional Range (VOR) or Kanan Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) north of the Airport. Departures to the east (left turn) would depend on Air Traffic Control (ATC) workload, aircraft sequencing, and weather conditions. Existing Procedures 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. During VFR conditions, aircraft departing to the south on Runway 19R make a climbing right or left turn to intercept the Kanan Non- Directional Beacon (NDB) that is 3.4 miles north of the Airport. Currently, approximately two-thirds of the aircraft turn to the right (west) and one-third turn to the left (east). For the close-in areas around the Airport, the left turn VFR procedure is similar to the Kanan Two departure, which is an IFR procedure. [The Kanan Two departure was referred to and depicted in Alternative 1; Figure F2 of Part 150 Study Working Paper Two on page F.7 in the illustration entitled Existing Buchanan Eight and Kanan Two Instrument Departure Procedures. Working Paper Two was presented in September 2006.] The Kanan Two departure was published in June 2006, which superseded the Kanan One departure procedure. Aircraft that used the Kanan One departure executed a climbing right (west) or left (east) turn on departure; the Kanan Two departure changed the departure to be a climbing left (east) turn only. The Kanan Two procedure published in June 2006 has aircraft depart runway heading, then fly north to the Kanan NDB. Once reaching the NDB, aircraft resume own navigation, flying to its destination. Subsequent IFR Kanan departures will most likely have aircraft fly runway heading, turn to the north to intercept the CCR VOR instead of the NDB, then resume own navigation to its destination. FAR Part 150 Study F.60
New Procedure Aircraft would depart Runway 19R and execute a climbing left-turn, similar to the Kanan Two instrument departure. The departure procedure would not change from the existing procedure other than the majority of aircraft would be turning to the east, instead of west. New Procedure Noise Analysis Alternative 9 could be used by all of the turbojet aircraft fleet operating at Buchanan Field Airport since it does not require special navigational equipment. This analysis assumes two-thirds of the VFR turbojet aircraft would turn left (east) while one-third would turn right (west). The average annual CNEL noise contours were used to evaluate the noise exposure consequences of this Alternative. Table F3 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 9 would not change the overall population and housing exposed to 65 CNEL in comparison to the Baseline. This is due to the fact that turbojet aircraft start the eastbound turn beyond the 65 CNEL noise exposure contour. Figure F17 shows the noise exposure contours for this alternative relative to the 2012 Baseline noise contour. Alternative 9 benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Overfly more compatible land uses to the southeast of the Airport, including an industrial park. VFR departure procedure would be similar to current IFR procedure. Impacts and Observations Procedure uses Visual Flight Rules; the procedure will have some dispersion on the flight track. An environmental document may need to be prepared. Requires Pilot Education. FAR Part 150 Study F.61
The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Arthur Rd A St 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 Hilltop Rd Grant St Prestwick Ave Holiday H ills Dr MARTINEZ Muir Rd PACHECO 75 CNEL 75 CNEL Kay Ave Claudia Dr Ida Dr N 6th St Marsh Dr 1st Ave Bisso Ln Gill Dr 70 CNEL CONCORD 2nd St 65 CNEL 6th St Morello Ave Gol f 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 B St Craig Dr Taylor Blvd Gelbke Ln Ridge Dr Sylvia Dr Legend N Stevens Cir Rose Ln 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Doris Dr Carey Dr Sierra Rd Detroit Ave City Limit Boundary Runway 19 East Turn Lane Dr Figure F17 Runway 19R East Turn Departure CNEL Noise Contours { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.62
Alternative 10 Increased Use of Runway 32R as the Preferred Runway for Northbound Departures Goal The goal of Alternative 10 is for northbound departing aircraft to use Runway 32R when possible. Aircraft would, when able, use Runway 32R for northbound departures in order to place aircraft over compatible land use areas. Description Alternative 10 analyzes the feasibility of Runways 1L/R and Runway 32R available for northbound departures at the same time, with Runway 32R being preferred for northbound departures. Aircraft would use Runway 32R instead of Runways 1L/R in order to place as much aircraft activity over compatible land use areas as possible. The use of Runway 32R would be requested when available. Availability depends primarily on weather conditions, specifically the direction of the wind and traffic. Currently, when aircraft depart for destinations to the north, they predominately use Runways 1L/R. The majority of the time when Runways 1L/R are active, wind conditions are such that Runway 32R could be used as well. Included in this evaluation were discussions with FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) personnel and FAA Flight Standards to evaluate the use of Runway 32R for departures, while Runways 1L/R and Runways 19L/R are considered the active runways. To determine which runway should be active, the primary indicator is wind; the runway that is most aligned with the prevailing wind is generally the active runway. When the tower is active, the tower will assign aircraft to a departing runway unless the pilot requests otherwise. Existing Procedures Aircraft depart to the north on Runway 32R and Runways 1L/R. Primarily only one set of parallel runways are active at a time. Although, while only one set of parallel runways is being assigned by ATC, a pilot may request another runway for departure. ATC will determine if the request can be accommodated based on aircraft activity, ATC workload, and weather conditions. Aircraft that depart to the north typically depart runway heading, turning after crossing Highway 4. On average, Runways 1L/R are the active runways for northbound departures; there is only one set of parallel runways considered active at any given time. According to a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), effective June, 15, 2004, based upon discussions between the Tower and the County, any time the winds are calm (5 knots or less), Runway 32R is the preferred departure runway. In interviews with ATC personnel, it has been determined that the preferred departure runway concept is maximized whenever possible. For operational reasons, sometimes the runway switch to, or from, Runway 32R is accelerated or delayed, based upon weather data or traffic in the pattern. The use of the preferred noise departure runway seems to be utilized close to practical frequency, given weather and operational imperatives. FAR Part 150 Study F.63
New Procedure The procedure is designed to further utilization of the preferred noise departure runway (Runway 32R) when conditions permit, using the existing departure procedures. Aircraft would depart Runway 32R, fly runway heading until crossing Highway 4, then resume their own navigation or fly a heading assigned by ATC. Aircraft would be able to request a departure on Runway 32R while Runways 1L/R or Runways 19L/R are active. New Procedure Noise Analysis Alternative 10 could be used by all of the aircraft operating at Buchanan Field Airport. The main focus of this alternative is for the smaller, propeller aircraft to use Runway 32R as the primary northbound departure runway. The average annual CNEL noise contours were used to evaluate the noise exposure consequences of this Alternative. Table F3, 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. This analysis assumed an additional 5% of operations would shift to Runway 32R. As this table notes, Alternative 10 would not change the overall population and housing exposed to 65 CNEL in comparison to the Baseline. Figure F18 shows the noise exposure contours for this Alternative relative to the 2012 Baseline noise contour. Alternative benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Existing northbound departure procedure would remain the same. Increases the use of compatible land uses for northbound departure procedures. Impacts and Observations Requires ATC coordination. Dependent on weather and ATC workload. Requires Pilot Education. FAR Part 150 Study F.64
The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Arthur Rd A St 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 Gol f 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 B St Craig Dr Taylor Blvd Gelbke Ln Ridge Dr Sylvia Dr Legend N Cir Stevens Rose Ln 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Doris Dr Carey Dr Rd Sierra Detroit Ave City Limit Boundary Runway 1-32 Shift Lane Dr Figure F18 Increased Use of Runway 32R Northbound Departures CNEL Noise Contours { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.65
Alternative 11 Continue Recommended Land Use Controls from Previous Noise Compatibility Program Goal The overall goal of Alternative 11 is to continue the off-airport land use recommendations. Land use recommendations are not within the airport s authority to implement, but must be implemented by surrounding jurisdictions having land use control authority. These continued recommendations will mitigate noise exposure to citizens. Description The previous FAR Part 150 Program recommended several land use mitigation elements, including: The adoption of a standardized land use compatibility standards and guidelines for the County and surrounding jurisdictions. Amend local General Plans to precluded new or redeveloped housing units and other noise sensitive uses within areas of high noise or over flights. Amend local subdivision requirements to require noise insulation and avigation easements in all new or redeveloped housing units within areas exposed to noise levels in excess of CNEL 60 db. Amend local ordinances to require acoustical studies and noise insulation to comply with Title 25, California Administrative Code for areas exposed to noise levels in excess of CNEL 65 db. Require noise or avigation easement in newly developed areas. Update the Airport Land Use Plan as necessary. Existing Recommendations The previous FAR Part 150 Study contained these recommendations in the Noise Compatibility Program, which were approved in the Record of Approval. Not all have been implemented, and conditions have changed since the recommendations were presented. However, they are still valid and should continue. It is the recommendation of this Part 150 Study to implement or carry forward those measures that have not yet been implemented from the previous Part 150 Study. FAR Part 150 Study F.66
New Procedure No new off-airport land use mitigation measures are recommended. The existing recommendations are still valid and should be reviewed in light of changes to jurisdictional requirements. The 1991 Record of Approval accepted, for Part 150 purposes, all of the recommendations outlined above. As part of the continuing Noise Program at the Airport, the proposed Noise Committee (see the next Alternative) should monitor the effectiveness of the local entities adopting and implementing these recommendations. Without proper follow through, the recommendations can easily get lost in the everyday workload of the various entities having authority to implement them. While it is not in the airport s authority to implement land use guidelines, the Airport is the body that is most appropriate to monitor how land use controls are being utilized by the surrounding jurisdictions. There are a few methods airports can use to monitor land use; many airports use their Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) or airport noise committee as a venue to review local land use policy. These organizations can determine any changes to be made to land use policy and suggest those to the local governing bodies. This body can also be the forum that local real estate agents can go to regarding where airport disclosures are necessary. New Procedure Noise Analysis As the 65 CNEL noise contour does not encompass any non-compatible land uses, there was no noise analysis prepared for this Alternative. Alternative 11 benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Prevents introduction of new noncompatible land uses. Provides interior noise reduction to noise sensitive uses. Provides notice to prospective buyers that they may be living in an area of aircraft noise exposure.. Impacts and Observations Political process is sometimes difficult to overcome. Many jurisdictions to deal with. Jurisdictions sometimes reluctant to implement land use controls. FAR Part 150 Study F.67
Alternative 12 Create a Noise Mitigation Sub-Committee of the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) Goal The goal of Alternative 12 is to establish a Noise Mitigation Committee as a Sub- Committee of the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC), with a balanced representation of pilots, citizens, FAA personnel, County representatives, interested Master Plan Study Committee Members, and tenants to assist and provide continuing guidance in implementing the study recommendations. This committee will utilize knowledge developed through the Part 150 Study and help build the partnerships needed to implement these measures, and develop any new measures as needed. Description The County will establish a Noise Mitigation Committee through the auspices of the Airport Advisory Committee, to help guide and implement the Study recommendations. This is especially true with the Fly Quiet Program. The Master Plan Steering Committee has been instrumental in identifying and establishing these recommendations. It is recommended that a similar committee, under the leadership of the AAC, continue to monitor programs implemented as a result of the Part 150 Study after its completion, establish the particulars of the Fly Quiet Program guidelines, review flight track changes, and provide input in developing the enhancement to the flight track/noise monitoring system. Existing Procedure Presently, there is no committee structure specifically designed to address aircraft noise and land use compatibility issues. The Master Plan Steering Committee is too large to function as a continuing committee, but some existing members could sit on the proposed new sub-committee of the AAC. New Procedure This alternative proposes to form a new committee to specifically address aircraft noise and land use compatibility issues. Considerable time and effort have been expended, by both the Airport and the Steering Committee, in the development of these recommendations, especially the learning curve effort and the building of relationships that are valuable communication tools that should be expanded upon and not lost at the end of the process. FAR Part 150 Study F.68
It is important to continue a working collaboration between the airport operator and local communities during airport planning efforts. This process could continue to provide educational benefits while fostering stronger collaboration and trust among stakeholders. This ensures all interests are heard. It is also important to include members of the parties responsible for implementing the recommendations. This is important for the continued successful implementation of the noise abatement program and operation of the Airport. New Procedure Noise Analysis Because this is an administrative action, no noise analysis was warranted and/or prepared. Alternative 12 benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Continues learning curve and knowledge learned from this Study. Improved citizen liaison and community service. Improve transient pilot communication concerning noise program. Creates a regional team approach to noise mitigation implementation. Impacts and Observations Development of another committee may be unwieldy; consolidation of existing committees may be advantageous. FAR Part 150 Study F.69
Alternative 13 Continual Assessment and Updating of the Part 150 Study Goal The goal of this Alternative is to review and update the Part 150 Study, as needed, to reflect changes in the noise environment due to operational changes, land use changes, or facility changes. Description A Part 150 Study is generally a five-to-seven year program recommended to be reevaluated at regular intervals to look at noise conditions generated by the current fleet mix, the level of operations, and to review the five-year forecasted operations. A Part 150 Study is a snapshot in time and should be reviewed periodically. Federal regulations recommend a new study be completed if there is a significant increase or decrease in noise levels resulting from changes at the Airport. In addition, if there is a significant change in either aircraft types or numbers of operations, or significant new facilities, the Study is recommended to be re-evaluated earlier. Existing Procedures This FAR Part 150 Study is an update of the 1991 Record of Approval for the most recent Part 150 Study. New Procedure Airport management is recommended to undertake a periodic review of the aircraft types and numbers, along with the actual number of operations occurring, and determine if they are consistent with the projections contained in this FAR Part 150 document. FAR defines the level of change necessary to trigger a revision of the Noise Exposure Map to be when any change in the operation of the Airport would create any substantial new non-compatible use in any area depicted on the map beyond that which is forecast for the fifth calendar year after the date of approval; that is, if that change results in an increase or a decrease in the yearly day-night average sound level of 1.5 CNEL or greater in either an area formerly compatible but made non-compatible, or in a land area which was previously determined to be non-compatible and whose non-compatibility is not significantly increased. The various recommendations would also be reviewed for their ability to mitigate the projected noise intrusion and the overall effectiveness of the program. This is triggered by a 15% change in aircraft operations over what was forecasted for future operations. FAR Part 150 Study F.70
Generally, at the end of the five-year planning period, all of the forecasts and aircraft fleet mix would be re-evaluated to determine the extent to which they have changed from those projected in this study. They would be updated to reflect the following five years. If necessary, new mitigation measures would be evaluated. Contingent upon federal funds, the Noise Compatibility Program would be re-evaluated and a public review of documents would be incorporated. New Procedure Noise Analysis No noise analysis was warranted and/or prepared for this Alternative. Alternative 13 benefits, impacts, and observations: Benefits Meet regulatory requirements for review and update. Provide for changing conditions. Study does not get lost on the shelf. Impacts and Observations Staff time to review and coordinate operations. Could require consultants to update Study. FAR Part 150 Study F.71
Contour Evaluation The table on the following page compares Alternative 9 and Alternative 10 to the 2012 Base Case 65 CNEL noise contour. As can be seen, there are no noise sensitive uses within the 65 CNEL noise contour under any conditions. The next table, Table F4, Comparison Matrix For Alternatives, presents a summary of each of the alternatives and how they relate to several decision parameters. Table F3 2012 CNEL CONTOUR COMPARISON FOR EACH MODELED ALTERNATIVE Buchanan Field Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study 2012 Future Base Case Alt 9 Alt 10 Total Non- Compatible 1 Total Non- Compatible 1 Total Non- Compatible 1 CNEL 65 Housing Units 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Populatio n 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 Churches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative 9. Runway 19R Visual Flight Rules Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft. Alternative 10. Increased Use of Runway 32R as the Preferred Runway for Northbound Departures. 1 Housing units that have not been sound attenuated due to previous noise studies. Note: Population numbers derived from the average number of persons per household per census tract times the number of housing units, rounded to the nearest five. FAR Part 150 Study F.72
Alternatives Considerations Summary The following table, entitled NOISE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY, summarizes the planning considerations for the five additional abatement alternatives. Table F4 NOISE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Buchanan Field Airport FAR Part 150 Study Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Factor 9 10 11 12 13 Reduce Residents in the 65 CNEL Contour No No No No No Reduces Single Event Level Yes Yes No No No Increases Airport Staff Effort in Administration of Program No No Could Yes Yes Requires FAA Coordination Yes Yes No Yes Yes Requires Environmental Documentation Could No No No No Federal Funding Eligibility N/A N/A No Could Yes Utilizes Advanced Technology No No No No No Increases Pilot Education No No No Yes No Increases Aircraft Fuel Burn No No No No No Over Fly New Area No No No No No Reduces Over Flight of Existing Area Yes Yes No No No Cost of Implementation Low Low Low Low Medium Requires On-Board Equipment No No No No No Alternative 9. Runway 19R Visual Flight Rules Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft. Alternative 10. Increased Use of Runway 32R as the Preferred Runway for Northbound Departures. Alternative 11. Continue Recommended Land Use Controls from Previous Noise Compatibility Program. Alternative 12. Create a Noise Mitigation Sub-Committee of the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC). Alternative 13. Continual Assessment and Update of the FAR Part 150 Study. Low: <$250,000 Medium: $250,000 to $750,000 High: >$750,000 FAR Part 150 Study F.73
Consultant s Recommendations The following summarizes the recommendations of the consultants, both recommendations for implementation and recommendations for further consideration. The recommendations for implementation are grouped as Aircraft Operational Recommendations, On-Airport Operational Recommendations, Off-Airport Land Use Recommendations, and Administrative Recommendations. Aircraft Operational Implementation Recommendations Recommendation One (Alt. 1) Recommendation Two (Alt. 2) Recommendation Three (Alt.9) Recommendation Four (Alt. 10) Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft using FMS Technology. Aircraft Approach Angles and Altitudes for Landing Turbojet Aircraft. Runway 19R Visual Flight Rules Departure Procedures for Turbojet Aircraft. Increased Use of Runway 32R as the Preferred Runway for Northbound Departures. On-Airport Operational Implementation Recommendations Recommendation Six (Alt. 5) Install Pilot Controlled Lighting on Runway 14L/32R. Off-Airport Land Use Implementation Recommendations Recommendation Seven (Alt. 11) Continue Recommended Land Use Controls from Previous Noise Compatibility Program. Administrative Implementation Recommendations Recommendation Eight (Alt. 6) Recommendation Nine (Alt. 7) Update Noise Abatement Brochures and On-Airport Signs. Upgrade Noise Monitoring System and Include Multilateration. Recommendation Eleven (Alt. 8) Develop Fly Quiet Program. FAR Part 150 Study F.74
Recommendation (Alt. 12) Create a Noise Mitigation Sub-Committee of the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC). The following summarizes the recommendations for further consideration. The recommendations for further study are grouped as Aircraft Operational Recommendations and On-Airport Operational Recommendations. These recommendations should be considered for further study to consider methods of funding or unanticipated increase in operations (maintenance run-up requirements). Aircraft Operational Recommendations for Further Consideration and Study Recommendation One (Alt. 3) Quiet Propeller Aircraft Technology; Propeller Training Aircraft Fleet, Propeller Blade Technology and Adjustable Pitch Propeller Departure Settings. On-Airport Operational Recommendations for Further Consideration and Study Recommendation Five (Alt. 4A) Run-Up Noise Mitigation, Pre-flight Run-up Areas. Recommendation Two (Alt. 4B) Run-Up Noise Mitigation, Maintenance Run-up Areas (GRE). Future Noise Exposure Map The Future Noise Exposure Map is shown on the following page on Figure F19, and represents the implementation recommendations. However, since none of the recommendations affect the size of the contour, the Future Noise Exposure Map is also the same as the future Base Case contour and would not change if none of the recommendations were implemented. FAR Part 150 Study F.75
The Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Team Arthur Rd A St 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 Hilltop Rd Grant St Prestwick Ave Holiday H ills Dr MARTINEZ Muir Rd PACHECO 75 CNEL 75 CNEL Kay Ave Claudia Dr Ida Dr N 6th St Marsh Dr 1st Ave Bisso Ln Gill Dr 70 CNEL CONCORD 2nd St 65 CNEL 6th St Morello Ave Gol f 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 B St Craig Dr Taylor Blvd Gelbke Ln Ridge Dr Sylvia Dr Legend N Stevens Cir Rose Ln 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Doris Dr Carey Dr Sierra Rd Detroit Ave City Limit Boundary 2012 Combined DNL Lane Dr Figure F19 Future 2012 Noise Exposure Map { Buchanan Field FAR Part 150 Study} F.76