### STATEOFARIZONA ) )ss. CountyofMaricopa ) Theforegoinginstrumentwas acknowledgedbeforemethis

__dayof---=-=---c--:-' 

### 20_, by , who acknowledge himselfi'herse1fto be the

__________oftheCITYOFCHANDLER,anArizonamunicipalcorporation. NotaryPublic MyCommissionExpires:

STATEOFARIZONA ) )ss. CountyofMaricopa ) Theforegoinginstrwnentwas acknowledgedbeforemethis

__dayof_---,-,_---,--_.,- 

### 20-, by , who acknowledge himselfi'herselfto be the

_________of ,a(n)

_ NotaryPublic MyCommissionExpires:

APPROVEDASTOFORM: CityAttorney

Page36of36

# EXHIBIT 4

## 1

2

3


# p N 1) ±4,700 SF Original office bldg with attached hangar. This is the structure they are required to tear down per the new lease
2) ±14,200 SF Maintenance hangar. A restaurant (the Hangar Cafe) is attached (purple awing) and offices are located on the west side of the building
3) 2 fuel storage tanks - (1) 10,000 gallon; (1) 12,000 gallon and self serve island w/ one dispenser. 

# Chandler Air Service FacilitiesTerminal/Airport Admin

Air Traffic Control Tower CAS Leasehold

# EXHIBIT 5, 

# -

# ~---W-ILLDAN~ASSOC-'A-T-E-S**-[-]-1I\-](-~7-11\-lf{-T-<~)-, A-I-K-.J-II-rr-(-J-(;-?j~i** **'i~:.f-**i-r 

# Ii-1-"

# ,~---l I I

CHANDLERMUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTERPLANUPDATE

### CHANDLERMUNICIPALAIRPORT MASTERPLANUPDATE

February 1982

Preparedby: Willdan Associates 1550East MeadowbrookAvenue PhoeniX, Arizona 

### 85014 (602) 265-1774

### ListofTables ii List ofFigures iii Introduction TableofContents Page

Section I. 

### Airport Needs Analysis 2 Forecast Traffic 2 Demond-Capacity Analysis 5 Facility Requirements 

### 6 Section II. Environmental Overview 

### 8 Section III. Airport Plans 24 Airport Layout Plan 24 Approach & 

### Vicinity Plan 24 Section IV. Financial Plan 25 Airfield Development Through Year 2000 25 Land Acquisition 27 

### Alternative Plans 30 Development Schedule 34 Income Basis 35 Revenue from Fixed Based Operators 37 Fuel Income 39 Revenue and Expenses 41 Analysis ofShortfall inNet Revenue 49

-i-

### ListofTables

I Based Aircraftand Mix 2 FacilityRequirements 3 Noise Impactson Human Activity 4 Land-Use/NoiseCompatibility 5 

### F.Y. 1981 

### Operations Costs 6 

### I981 

### Revenue 7 Comparative Rates & 

### Charges for Airport Services 8 

### FueI

### Revenue 9 Revenue & 

### Expenses
- AlternativeNo. 10 

### Revenue & 

### Expenses
- Alternative No.2 II Revenue & 

### Expenses
- AlternativeNo.3

-ii

### Page 

## 4 7 16 17 

### 35 37 39 41 

## 42 44 46

### ListofFigures

I Noise Contours, Year 2000 2 Airfield Development Through Year 2000 3 Land Acquisition 4 Alternate Plan No. 5 Alternate Plan No. 2 6 Alternate Plan No. 3

-iiiPage 

### 15 

## 26 28 

### 30 31 

### 32Introduction 11)(' ,hnndler Municil'nl Airport Master Plnn Update hns been coordinated with 

### I'AA, ',I<1te <1nd locol offkiols. Once the Update has been accepted 

### by the 

### City, the Airport Layout F'lon, along with the Master Plan, will be submitted to these agencies for review and incorporation into their programs. The intent of this plan is to provide the greatest expansion flexibility with the minimum staged development costs. This plan can be expanded on a year-by-year basis 

### by fully developing the existing properties and 

### by acquiring near-airport land as demand and the budgetary process permits. "uvorable planning, zoning and code enforcement in the vicinity of the airport will .'noble the activity generated at the airport to maintain a good neighbor noise r,elotionship. The City is currently in the process of developing a positive noise related 7lming code for areas near the airport. rhe Chandler ;Y\unicipal Airport is beginning to earn revenue in excess of direct operating costs. Each year, with proper management of facilities, the airport will be in <1 position to fund more of its own long term development costs. Airport manogement, including lease management, developing airport compatible lease-holds, administering rates and other matters will be key elements in the success of this plan. As the number of aircraft leaseholds and related airport users increase, the need for competent balanced management resources will increase.



### -1-

### Section I. Airport NeedsAnalysis Chandler Municipal Airport has experiencedrelatively strong growth within the greater Phoenix area due to iIs favorable location and airspace access to Phoenix area airport users. In addition, many of the airports in the Phoenix area are developed to or near their potential and have substantial waiting lists for tie-downs and other facilities. Some users find that they will have to wait for up to four years for hangar or covered parking. When Chandler finished its apron expansion project lost year, this new apron capacity wasquickly utilized anda waiting list for approximately 25 spacesnow exists. The Chandler Municipal Airport aviation activity continues to qrow at rates close to those predicted in the I970s. The airport master plan prepared for Chandler in 1976 prerlicted a totol of 169based aircraft by 1979 and 533 by 1994. Actual based aircraft os of the end of 1981 was 148. This is a constrainted number (jue to the unavailability of lie-down facilities. The Maricopa Association af Governments (MAG) Regianal Aviation System Plan indicated there wauld be 109 aircraft based at the airpart by the yeor 1985, and 1180 by the year 2000. The FAA publication, Natianal Airpart System F'lan. called for a total of 224 aircraftby 1984. Total based aircraft remained nearlyconstant from 1974 to 1979at 69-70aircraft. The total increased with each apron improvement to 109as ofDecember 1980, and to 148as afDecember 1981. Forecast Traffic Willdan Associates examined the forecasts of air traffic and compared these forecasts with actual nctivity. Two particular observatians were made: aircraft activity did not appreciably change fram 1974 to 1979, i.e., 69-70 based aircraft and some 35-50,000 annual operations; while starting in 1979 activity increased substantially and reached Ilj8 aircraft and 107,000 annual operations by year end 1981. This increase in activity placed airport activity back on track with earlier forecasts, i.e., between the farecast in the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Aviation Systems Plan which is the mostconservative, and the more liberal consultant forecast of 1976.



### -2-

### r:och forecast provides useful projections of growth. For example, the MAG forecast indicCltes that the optimum activity for Chandler, without the influence of transferences ofother remaining countyoperations is 226,300annual operations or about 300 "ircraft. With traffic transferring to Chandler due to other airports reaching design capacity, there wouldbe an added demand of 180aircraft and a total of408,000 annual operations. This higher activity is a reflection of the design capacity for a parallel runway system rather than an estimateoftotal growthpotential for one runway. Willdan Assaciates determined that two needs exist for Chandler: first to provide conservative cost-effective apron, hangar and airfield facilities; and second to assure a long-termgrowthpotential. The first need canbe approachedby using aconservotive projectionofaircraft activitv. The forecast by the MAG fulfills this criteria. If Chandler <]rOWS 

### in accordance with Ihis forecast, there would be an approximate doubling ofaircraft by 1985 to 249 and a secondneardoubling to 480aircraftby the year end 2000. The long-term growth potential for Chandler is best protected by 

### utilizing the more optimistic forecast. WiIIdan Associates recommends land acquisition be based on the more optimistic forecast with current physical facility development planning based on the more conservotive forecast. If this recommendation is followed, more growth optionswill beavailable than ifa single forecast were followed. Aprojectionofaircraft activity waspreparedbasedon the total number ofaircraft and operations provided in the MAG report. Table I presents the activity estimate which has been adjusted for U.S. fleet averages. An adjustment was also made in operational estimates to delete jet aircraftoperationsuntil about 1990. This adjustment recognizes a certain development Ii'nitation in the construction of jet length runways that is related to land acquisition, environmental review and funding and construction constraints.



### -3-

### Table I 

### Based Aircraft and Mix Chandler Municipal Airport 

### Aircraft 

## 1985 1990 1995 2000

Type 

### II Opns 

### II Opns 

### II Opns 

### II Opns 51:: 

## 1-3 Place 

## 16 21,920 18 25,200 20 28.800 22 32,560 SF ifor Inore 

## 62 41,540 64 44,160 70 'j9,700 75 54,750 ME I"ss them 

## 12,500 Il>s. qross weight 

## 137 75,350 212 118,720 228 129,960 228 132,240 MEmore than 

## 12,500 Il>s. gross weight 

## 0 0 0 0 

### Turbo Prop less than 

## 12,500 Ibs. gross 

## 28 33,320 40 50,000 44 ,7.200 44 59,400 weight Turbo Propmore than 

## 12,500 Ibs. gross 

## 0 14 3,860 26 8,190 48 15,840 weight Jet 

## 0 14 8,820 27 17.280 48 31,200 I{otor 

## 6 9,120 12 18,240 12 18.240 15 22,800 Totals 

## 249 181,250 374 268,990 427 309,370 480 348,790 Opns/BA 

## 728 719 725 726

Note: 

### ry 

## 1981, measured activity 

## 107,000opns :- 

## 148 actual based =

## 723 Opns/B.A. The MAG studyprojects

## 480based aircraftand

## 725 Opns/B.A. 

### II =

### numberofaircraft located at Chandler Municipol Airport Opns =

### Operations 5.E. =

### Single Engine M.E. = 

### Multi-Engine B.A. =

### Based Aircraft



## -4-Demand-Capac;ty Analysis In 1981, WiIidan Associates conducted a detailed count of traffic using the AAIG counter and determined that 107,000 annual operations were taking place at this oirport. If the present rate of traffic growth continues through 1985, the increased demand to 266 based aircraft and 193,000 annual operations wiII exceed the acceptable amount for a single runway. A detailed demand-capacity and airspace capacity study was made in the 1979 MAG study. The determinations of this study seem accurate to a reasonable degree for ,)Ianning purposes. The MAG report correctly noted that potential airspace conflicts would occur if Chandler developed on Instrument wp.other I_anding System (ILSI. Willdan does not recommend an ILS since some 98% of weather is Visual Flight Rule Weather (ceilings aver 1,000 feet and visibility greater than three miles). An airspace conflict may begin to be noticeable if parallel runways are constructed as indicated to occur in about 1985. This conflict would develop due to a need for revised traffic patterns for the parallel runways. The magnitude of conflict will be minor through the mid-1980s since light aircraft will use both runways and since both Williams Air Force Base and Phoenix Sky Harbor have radar controlled towers to handle traffic patterns involving the airspace. In the late 1980s the new parallel runway should be extended for the Basic Transport (75/60)* fleet. The role predicted for the airport is to serve the basic transport fleet for VFR and non-precision instrument flights with visibility minimums greater than 3/4 mile, and ceilings 500 feet or more above ground level at the airport. Minimal airspace impact should be created with this operation. If the primary approaches during instrument weather conditions were made to runway 4R with a climbing-right-turn missed approach procedure, the potential negative impact on Williams Air Farce Base
'The Basic Transport (75/60) fleet represents 75 percent of the general aviation/corporate jet fleet operating at sixty percent of design gross takeoff weight.



## -5-

### traffic :;holJld he of little or

# "0 :;ignificance. On the other hand, a straight in approach to**I~unway** 

### 22L would likely impose agreater canflict with traffic at Williams Air Force Hose. If on airport NDB** were placed within three miles of the approoch end of 11""woy 

### til

### I, control would I)e improved for non-precision instrument w<,ntlwr upprour:hes. The finul locatian for the NDB shauld be based on a specific site study which should be coordinated through the State and FAA. Focility Requirements The physical development elements for this airport are keyed to the forecasted activity in Table I. A major aspect of land acquisition is to accomodate parallel runways, one of which will be used for jet and utility aircraft and the ather only by utility aircraft. Lund acquisition in Stage I (through 

### 1985) will provide land for a short parallel runway, uircraft storage and airport related development narth of the runways. Land Acquisition in Stage II will provide an expansion capability far the basic transport fleet with provision for future air operations development south of the runways. Land acquisition in the ultimate phase is for long-term airport related development. A consideration often overlooked in land acquisition questions for airports is the need to provide a certain noise buffer area near the airport. If these recommendations are followed, most of the severe noise problems related to future activity at this airport will be oliviated. Tobie 2 presents the recommended physical facility development elements, by time period, for the Chandler Municipal Airport.

<<Non-Directianal Rodio Beacon



### -6-

### Stage II Ultimate 1986-1990 1991-2000

>

### 181 ac +79 ac +15 ac .181 (lC**~94** 

### ac

e6100 sy same

sarne 

### same same same

+15 +15

5 +1 4 +1 2 +1 same same SOlne 

### same SQrne 

### same sarne 

### same'

yes yes .10.000 swl 60,000swl TABLE2 FacilityRequirements (480 

### Based Aircraft)** CHANDLERMUNICIPALAIRPORT Stage I Item Existing 1982-1985 I. LAI\ID Fee titIe 195 ac +138 ac I_ess than fee title 2 ac +12 ac Total 197 ac +150 ac II. AIRFIELD la. I<unway4-22 3810x75 4400 x75 

### b. Parallel 

### T/W full length full length 2a. (new) Runway 4R-22L 3100'x 50' 

### b. Connectar T

### IW 3

## 'iJ 700' x40' c. Parallel 

### T/W III. 

### APRON AREA I. 

### City 51,100sy ,56,I00sy 

## 2. F130 6000 sy IV. 13LJILDINGS (includingapron) I. Terminal building 4800sf 10.000sf 2. T-Shade (spaces) II 75 3. T-hangar(spaces) 108 4. Large T-Hangar(spaces) 5. MediumStd. hangar 6. Largecorporatehangar V. AUTO PARKING nan-paved paved 130stalls VI. LIGHTS & 

### AIDS I. Beacon yes same 2. MIRL yes yes 3. REIL yes II. 

### VASI-2 yes VII. PAVEMENT DESIGN(lbs) 12,500 swl 12,500swl 5200'x 100' 3100'x40' 6900'x 100'* I:Q) 750'x40' +1700'x40'

• Plus 900'displaced thresholdseachend for net 6,900' takeofflength from eachdirection. 

## *. Land acquisition for the runway program can provide for 800 additional aircraft. All other facilities for 480aircraft. yes 0 

### Install systems for associated runway and taxiway improvement**~,ame** 0 

### Nochange fromprior period. swl 0 

### Single Wheel Loading 

### -7-

# -- Section 2. Environmental Overview All "yes" and "possible" responses to the environmental questions are explained below each question. 

### I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? 

### No b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? Yes Future development of the airport wi

### II require displ(]cement and overcovering of native soils. Construction of additional aircraft and vehicle parking areas, parallel taxiway, aeronautical service facilities, access road and the construction will require the excavation of primarily surface soils averaging 

### 8"-12". Additional excov()tion may be needed for storm water catchlnent basins.


### c. Change in topography of ground surface relief features? Yes Construction af the parking areas, taxiways and service facilities can be accomplished without extensive alteration of the topography. Development of the new runway wiII require extensive changes to the open raad and to the drainage features on the east side of the airport. Drainage design will be included in construction plans. Two drainage elements will be considered: I) storm water drainage on-site which will be met by catchment basins and. 2) flaoding originating off-site, but requiring channelization on the west side of the airport. 

### d. The destruction, covering or modificatian of any unique geologic or physical features?



### -8- No

### c. Any increase in wind or water erasion of soils, either an or off the site? Yes Short-term increases in wind and/or water erosion of soils will occur during construction of the proposed plan. Revegetation or beneficial modification of the disturbed areas should prevent long term erosion problems. Fill material should be obtained from desiqnated borrow pits in order to confine lonq term, off-site erosion problems. Additional studies will be required to determine the best locations for catchment basins nnd for flood control structures. The landfill site immedintely north of the airport but ;,luth of Germann Road may be impacted by off-site flood waters. Additional channelization studies will be needed in recognition of this site problem. 

### f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of o river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any lake? 

### No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in:


### a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Possible No lang term impacts will result on the ambient air quality of the project vicinity from this proposed plan. Short term increases may result if this plan is implemented. Short term increases in air emissions related to construction activities will occur during working hours. These construction emissions will be localized in impact, possibly affecting users in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Emissions produced from aircraft operations are expected to incr,>ase in the next 20 years. The amount of emissions is computed based on ratios developed for FAA's "Box Model" and is compared with EPA standards for 1985 and 2000. Note that aircraft operations ore an insignificant contributor to air pollution.


### -9-

## 1985 Aircraft Landing
- Toke-OffCycle EstimatedEmissions" Solid Sulfur Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen Aircraft Type Particulates Oxides Monoxide Carbons Oxides Business Jet 

## 0 0 0 0 0 General Aviation 

### Piston 

## .06 .04 .006 .30 .27 Total 

## .06 .04 .006 .30 .27 EPA Standards (75) 

## (80) (10) (160) (100) Sources: CompilationofAir Pollution Emission Factors, EPA, Third Edition.

• (micrograms/cubic meterexcept for Carbon Monoxide
- miligrams/cubic meted 

## 2000Aircraft Landing
- Toke-OffCycle EstimatedEmissions" Solid .Sulfur Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen Aircraft Type Particulates Oxides Monoxide Carbons Oxides 13usiness Jet 

## .06 .20 .01 1.8 .8 General Aviation Piston 

## .12 .09 .01 2.0 .6


# - Totals 

## .18 .29 .02 3.8 1.4 EPA Standards (75) 

## (80) (10) (160) (100) Sources: CompilationofAir Pollution Emission Factors, EPA, Third Edition. 

## * (micrograms/cubic meterexcept CO, miligramsper meter3

. An increase in aeronautical activity 

### with a corresponding increase in emissions by 

## 2000 will not be directly related to the proposed master plan. Community growth will be the major factor that contributes to future aeronautical operations. Future aircraft emissions will be a very 

### small contributor to ambient air quality deterioration when compared to other emission sources within the Chandler vicinity, 

### such as ground transportation and agricultural activities.



## -10-

### b.
c. 

### thecreationofobjectional odors? alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change inclimate, either locallyorregionally? 

## No
No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. 

### b. changes in currents, courses or direction ofwater movements, in either marineor fresh waters? changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amountofsurfacewaterrunoff? 

## No
Yes Paving the existing and new runways and the parallel taxiways and the aircraft parking aprons will change absorption rates, drainagepatterns and increase the amount ofsurface water runoff. The storm drainage system for the airport vicinity should be designed to accamodate on-site runoff and provide for off-site runoff to be diverted past the airport.


### c. 

### d.
e.

f. 

### g.



## h. alterations to thecourseor flow offlood waters? changes in the amountofsurface in any waterbody? discharges into surface waters, or alterations of surface water quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygenor turbidity? alterationsofthe directionorrateofflow ofgroundwaters? changes in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions of withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer bycuts orexcavations? reductions in the amount ofwater otherwise available for public water supplies?


### -II - 

## No No

No No

No
No11. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:


### a. changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? 

### Possible The mast common plant life is agricultural crops. Most of the proposed airport development will occur on previously disturbed areas. These areas were disturbed by the construction of the runways, highways, agricultural development, and the drainage canal. Significant changes in the diversity of species or numbers of any species should not occur due to the proposed plan. If transplanting some of the species is feasible, those species affected by the proposed construction should be transplanted and incorporated into a landscape plan for the airport. 

## h. reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? 

### Possible A detailed survey of plant species was not conducted as part of this effort. Reduction of the numbers of unique, rare or endangered species of plants should not occur because the proposed construction utilizes land that has been disturbed by prior construction.


### c. 

### d. introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 

## No Yes Approximately 350 acres presently in agricultural use will be converted to airport use. Of this total, 130 acres will be required for airfield, 100 acres will be used for aircraft storage and the balance planned for airport related commercial development.



## -12
-5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:


### o.



### b. chonges in the diversity of species, or numbers of ony species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? reduction of the numbers of unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? 

### No
Possible A detailed survey of animal species was not conducted as part of this effort. Reduction of the numbers of unique, rare or endangered species of animals should not occur because the proposed construction utilizes land that has been disturbed by prior construction.


### c. 

### d. introductions of new species of animal into an area, or result in a barrier to the migrotion or movement ofanimals? deteriorotions to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 

### No No 

### 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Construction activity will not produce long term noise impacts. Short term increases may occur during construction activities, but will be limited to the daytime working hours. Estimated noise levels associted with aeronautical activities for the year 2000 ore shown in figure 

### I. A disucssion of the noise levels is given below. To provide the reader with a better understanding of the aircraft noise measurement indicators used in this report, noise impact terminology is first discussed.



### -13- Yes

### Noise Measurement (Day-Night Sound Level Contour
- Ldn) Ldn is acomputed noise whichuses Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) which is computed by numerically integrating the soundpressure level versus the time history of each operation measured. This data is then converted to Ldn by taking the energy average 

### SEL at reference measurementpoints for all aircraft. The Ldn concept defines the day-night level as a seriesofhourly noise levels for a given day, weighted for time ofoccurence. A standardized manual has been developed, "Developing Noise Exposure Contours for General Aviation Airports," by Bolt, Beranek & 

### Newman, December, 1975, for application atgeneral aviation airports. Noise contours have been generated based on weighted indicators of day and night traffic by mix of aircraft. The Ldn contours for the year 2000are shown on figure 

### I. Tables 3 & 

### 4 present guidelines which have been developed inprevious studies of compatible land uses for varying levels of noise exposure. Residential uses are clearly unacceptable in zones having Ldn 75 or greater noise pressure. However, no Ldn 75 contour is computed for this airport through the year 2000. Residential uses are normally unacceptable in areas with Ldn 65 or greater unless the residences are properly sound attenuated. Mobile homes and recreational vehicles cannot normally be sound attenuated and are not recommended in the Ldn 65-75 area.



## -14-

### !

All ....,

"I 

### • 

# .. Q 

## ; ;; 

# .. >

7500 !'IUP"'l- 4J .'l**~~AL'** 4)

5000 " "

## ,

/

2500 

### I

FIGURE 1 prepared by Wllldon**Auocl~te~** "'.............. .,.. =au h 

## '==1T=..wlll! 

### o

## ~·_·_='-_-_=-_·=·_·_=·_·.=cc.:....cc=·_·:_cc=.,-

"-'M1CU1L.- "

# ~,~j , I

# I 

# _-i-rl

! :!

## ,

# I",,",

._-**C~H~"·' "~,,.**  Ii-----**:::;::::.;::~: ::,~:;.::",**  . <;>"**~'<T** .,.... 0' o...,c , /65/Ldn NoIse Contour,.: 

# I YEAR 2000 CAPACITY NOISE CONTOuRS : Chandl!)( MunIcipal Airport 

### ",f 1: '


# .....'I-"..' 

# I " A,A,L-".) . , 

## if" ..

"

"

IIUR... L·43 

# f--- [ 

## --;

# ~~1'

# -------j- '" 1 OcotllJo Rd.**U'IiI.~** ••.)

RURAL-":!**'~o.<.!.If**

-=..**-.t~** 

### J**I~'-==-~"==----~~----**

# --(Jj} I ' I

# , I: j> •**~--,,,._.,,,,,,,,** .• ,'.. 1 ",'l¥ ,. WllllamllFJeld'R4.: iV,**~~Jf-'!iJj'llI.-.f't::lP'"** 

# a ,. . 'e**~"'S:,rCfiSiR?i..t';** ;NW)<£J? ,_, _ 

### r - , [-' 

### Jilli,:l,i,i!4!' 10 ,**~-** 

# J'**~,** 

## r 1 

# I - --,'**<'F~** """'.' 1/1.

# i~ --1J:IT)1 - >0

### ';o;-~:' 

## I )1 [I

### i~-::~l~~~- -' 

### ,'L":- 

### ';=::-'-", 'I' 

## •-, I ""I**11~:f-;m'"** I " -, ,-- , ;'11

__I**~i ~/**  q.d,' J'u·", , 

# I ,( ,'-I ,,.:::'- I 

## 'f . - 0 1 • -t..r1 II 'd'."'''' :

# ~: ""H'" 

# i >I.,

# !LiI~'**~~Jm~I,** "","

# f:',,- "**'Ci~** 

# n -: j

. __**~I** I/l**J~** 

# . :..r' I: Q**RURA~** .....

:-**~~** ml: 

## r- '""'=-. .: I . .**_~** ... •43
, • .j, .... ·'0_ Ej' 

# J**~'_5!,'** 0 ' 

### = •

__.1 

### on. PuCOti Rd. •• 

### <'L.

__-:__ -0.. ••

### J~m·, 

### r I • 

# L f i

f

# ~:' tJ-·-f·:i-c;,'I". 

## I 

# !I,r**-~J** 

# -I I::") 

# W"-**j~: --~**  

# J : 'I ' 

# ];if -**~i:K>-·** 

# I**~~~ll** - I • -

# ~~ ,**,,~,** "",H-" ",,,
- I ,." I'**"~I** , 1 

# It-

, I 

### .,\1.. ' "J',-

## "~'"~ 

# I'''' 'H '

## --::~**;-,'~** '!

# il-f::,- - 'rfllml i

## ;ill~**~r~**

# ';,t-") :::11 

# ,ell-..,. ,- ," 1

## ·::-iMo~,,:;I,

# ... I

## J.J],J4j Ii, 

# :JI O"m.nn Rd, , '

# ~if'~~- I 

# t

# -li!

# i

11 ' ' , ,: ',' I

# 1---**~1** 

## -**'-"~I'**

# 1:----.**11** 

## bd[L;?'II

# ~J 'I 

# i i,'

# ,e~:**~i--=nlr":-=~~II-r** I 

# !t, I 1'_

## L

# 1.."1"'**.~,l""I,** .....

### ~~ ,[ :' ---,--, i 

## ,I'"**~" ~'i**  r: ",:**RUR,lli.~..** ; 

### , I 

# l d'---**~_** .•**_~** __**~ ~ Ou~**  ...:'1**C~uQKAd.** • . r**j.~1** _ 

### _I 

### : I'!" i' -, , 

# 'rj.... , I ,I 

# " ! 

# I**"ii1'i~**

'I 

### II! 

# iiII'[ II

" ,

## T~h'-:\ 

## " ._"**~.......** '-'" 

# Noise Impacts on Human Activity

so

Crillcal Impact Serious Impact Moderale Impact Low lmpacl

SOfiOUS Impact: Activity can be performed but onlyWith difficulty in the aircraH noise environment due to level orfrequency orinterruption. Critical Impact: ActiVIty cannel be performed acceptably In the aircraft noise envIronment, LowImpact:Activilycan beperformedwith little or no interruption from aircraft noise, though nOise may be noticeable above background le....els. Moderate Impact:AClivilycanbe performedbul WIth SOmeinterlerencefrom aircrafl nOIsedueto level orfrequency of inlerruption. IMPACT ESTIMATE FOR Ldn VALUE 70

{, 'N

### :~:,. 

### '.**~'** 

### . 

# '. "N' VA1 K'Q %W'" 

# <. I 'J

Shopping Techolcal Manual Work. SpI!Clalof Sporls'

SkIlled Manual Work Public Events, J\ssemblles Cerf'mony. T,,,dlllon Studymg Semmar. Group DISCUSSIon

Receltllve Work Outdoor Acllvilles Urban Ouldoor ActlvllJes Extended ChIld Care

Equipment Opcrillloni WalchlflQ T('levlSlOn LISlenlnCJ 10 MusIc Wah-:hmq films

Public Mass Recreation' Physical Recreallon' IntensiveConversatIon

Classroom, Lecture IndtVldU<11 Creallve Acliv,ty Live Thflaler Telephone Use Reading Meditation Wnlmg**S"~f'plnq** Eating

Manual Work HUMAN ACTIVITY
Casual Conversallon

, No allowance for structural msulallon ] DependS on char3clcrlsllcs of partlcular eQUlpmenl. Source: EnvltOnmenlal PtOleCllon Agency



### -16-

# Table 4 Land-Use/Noise Compatibility

LAND USE CATEGORY Resldcn\lal - Single F<'Imlly.

Duplex, MobIle Homes AeSlden!l<'l1 •**MtJlllph~** Family,

DormllotJe!.. etc. TranStent LOdgmg SchoOlclassrooms, libraries

Churches Hospitals. NUfScng Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls.

MusIC Shells Spot1s Arena, Ouldoor

Speclator SPQrlS Playgrounds. Neighborhood Parks 0011 COU1SCS. Riding SI.Jblcs.

Waler Ae. CemeUHteS O/flce BUildings. P'C!(sonal

BusJness and ProIeSSlonaI ,CcmmCtOal • Retail, Movle

Thealers. Restaurants CommerCial· Wholesale. Sorpe

Retilll, Ind.• MIg.• Utt!. Manufaclurlng Communications

(NOise SenSlhve) livestock Farming. Animal

Breedmg Agrlcullure /PXCCOI lIvestock}, Mining. Fishing E)(tenslve Natural ReCreation

Areas StUCM' CODE

Ilx. 12 13.19 15 6B 1111 651 721 722.. 751,762 74lx,743x, 744 61.62.63 69.65' 5354.56, 57.59 51.52.64, 2.3.0' 35.47 etS.816. B17 81.8283.84. 85.91,93 9\,92.93**?~.7.:g1** 7S 2

2 3 3 4 2 3 5 5 3 IMPACTESTIMATE FOR Ldn VALUE 55 65 75

Cleilrly Normally Normally Clearly Acceplable AcceplableUnacceptableUnlceeplabt,

'Standard Land Use Coding Manual. 'Noise SensiliYIly Code IX represents SlUCM category broader or narrower lhan, but generally InclusiYe 01 lhe categoryoescflbed. 'EXCluding hOSPItals. 'The recommended defiOlllon.or "Normally Un· acceptaOle" has been reduced homan NEFval, ue or 30 10 25 (0 account forthedesert Seltln£

.and low background nOIse**cha~aclerjslics** 01 thiS area. Noise Senslllvlty CodeApproximate Level-day/night Value Where NowConstruction or

Development is !'Jot Desirable 1 

# , 3 4 5 Source EnVlrOnmenl..l1 PrOIP.cllon Agency 60-65 70 75 80 85-90


### -17-

### Four ronges ofocceptability ofvarious landuses areused indeterminingadjacent airport land compatibility: I. "Clearly compatible" is given to a land use where activities associated with that use are essentially conducted without interference. In residential areas, both indoor and outdoor noise environments areconsideredpleasant. 2. "Normally compatible" is given to land uses where associated activity is affected to a small degree. People will normally express some concern over noise, however, average construction techniques can render the indoor environment "clearly acceptable," including sleeping activities. The outdoor environment willbe resoriable, pleasant for recreation and play. 

### 3. "Normally incompatible" is given to landuseswhere construction would require unusual andcostlybuilding materials and standards torender the indoorenvironment "clearly acceptable."



## 7. II. 

### "Clearly incompatible" is given to land uses where construction and building material costs would be prohibitive to render the indoorenvironment "clearlyacceptable." There is insufficient traffic forecast for this airport through the year 2000 to generate Ldn noise contours in excess of Ldn 70. Only scattered large lot single family residential areas exist within Ldn 65 in 1982withprimarily agricultural areas within the LDN 60contours. Lightand Glare. Will theproposal produce new lightorglare? Additional lights will be constructed in the form of parking apron security lights and runway and taxiway edge lights. Theparking apron lights may produce some minor long term lighting impacts which may affect areas beyond the airport property. Proper lighting/electrical designs should minimize this type of impact. Runway and taxiway
-18- Possible

## n. ed'lC liqhts ore for dircclionol conlrol of the aircraft while maneuver inC) on the nirport. [:1<'5(> liqhts should not produce any irnrClct to lldjncent**(Jr<~ns.** Land Use. Will 1'1e pr"i'o:;ul ',esulr in the alteration of the present or plnnneo lund use of (In cren'? The proposed pion is be'in,! incorporoted into the City Lond Use plan for planning and zoning integration. Yes

9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:


### n. increose In the rute of use of any natural resources'? Possible Any construction includes the use of natural resources.**r·~o** lonq term increases in use of natural resources will result. 

### b. depletion ofony nonrenewable natural resource'? 

### No 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazurdous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? There is always a risk of explosion, but no known project would create a potentinl for explosion. II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area'? Possible

12. Housinq. Will ti,e proposol affect cxistinq housing, or create 0 demand for ndditionnl housinq? Yes Sec ilems 6, 

### l, and! I above [n this section. It will not create a demand for additional housing.



### .19-13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:


### a. <jeneration of ndditional vehicular movement? Yes The Chandler A;rport octivity is forecosted to grow during the 20 year plnnninq period. This growth will be accompanied by increased vehicular movements in and around the airport. Only a small fractiannl percentaq<, of all traffic on roads bordering the airport is airport r<,lated. Current airport trclffic is handled mainly by Germann ond Cooper Roods. Planning is in process to make Germann and/or Queen Creek Roads six lane freeways which would improve access to this airport. The highway improvement is primarily developed to meet rcqional planninq objectives rather than to meet an airport need. 

### h. effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? Yes Additional parking facilities will be required to accommodate the cxpcted flow of airport users. Approximately 130 total parking spaces wiII b<, needed through the 20 year period. The demand for parking facilities is provided for in the Master Plan. These proposed facilities are planned to accommodate all air travel users--commercial, private flying and locally based aircraft owners. These proposed facilities are to be built within the Airport boundaries.


### c. impact upon existing transportation systems? Yes Cooper Road would need to be relocated in Phase II to provide for a longer runway, ns shown on the Master Plan. 

### d.

e. f. alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? alterations to waterborne, rail or oir traffic? increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
-20- 

### No No
NoIII. I'ublic Services. Will the proposal have on effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following 

### areas:fire protection? 

### No 

### h. police protection? Yes Additional police protection will be required as more oircraft are stored at the airport.


### c. 

### d.
e. shooIs? porks or other recreational facilities? maintenance of public focilities, including roads? 

### No No Possible Additional public service personnel may be required to operate and maintain the additional airport facilities. 

### f. other governmental services? 

### No 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:


### a. 

### b. use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? demands upon existing sources of energy or new sources of energy? 

### No
No 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in 0 need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:


### a. power or natural gas? Yes Arizona Public Service supplies electrical power to the airport. These some facilities will be used in supplying the additional power required to serve the proposed parking areas and terminal building.

### b.
c. communicative systems? water? 

### No Possible Water is supplied by the City of Chandler. Additional water use is expected at the airport due to increased aircraft operations. Additional water lines will be built, however, no major water facilities shouldbe required to serve future airportneeds. 

### d. seweror septic tanks? Possible Constructionofseptic tanks wiII be required for the new terminal and FBO facilities.


### e. stormwater drainage? Possible The development' of the airport may produce sufficient runoff to require additional storm drainage capacity. Further studies should be made for this contingency. f. 

### solidwasteand disposal? 

### No 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation ofany health hazardor potential healthhazard (excluding mental health)? 

### No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the publie, or wiII the proposal result in the creation ofan aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 

### No 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantityofexisting recreational opportunities? 

### No



## -22-20. Archaeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of {] significant nrchaeological or historical site, structure object or buildings? An archaeological assessment wiII be needed prior to any runway extension which would enable new and larger aircraft or which would involve a totally new runway, as is planned for the 1982-1985 period.



### -23- Possible**~iecti(Jn** 3. Airrort Pions 

### I\i1]10rl**_~-'Y_(}IJ '--')1<lI_~**  This plan, att(Jched as a separate document, contains several ,najor elements. It portrays the (]irfield development (]nd staging with related clear zones and safety areas. fatal land oC'luisition areas are depicted and staging is shown by line symbols. The terminal development is shown in specific detail for the 20 year conservative forecast, by tirne period for a total of 480 based aircraft. Airport access is presented for the future facilities and includes a suggested relocation for ,-ooper**I~oad.** Areas needing less than fee aC'luisition are also shown north of Germann Rood and south of Queen '-reel< Road. ,I\.[£roach and Vicinity Plan This document contains important inforrnotion relating to construction notification standards for userS that desire to build near an airport. Any proposed project that may penetrate any of the irnaginary surfaces will need to satisfy notification procedures established by FAA in Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77. The critical surfaces for the Chandler Municipal Airport are related to the approaches to existing and proposed 

### runways. The design concepts for the 20 year forecast which include the introduction of jet aircraft are to employ displaced thresholds in lieu of a relocation of Gerrnann or Queen Creel< Roads or both. With this design provision, a clear area of fifteen (IS) feet vertical is required frorn the nearest part of a non-interstate road to the clear zone that passes over the rood. The clear zones for the jet runway begin 200 feet frorn the end of the paved runway threshold and incline upwards at a slope of 34 feet horizontal' to one foot vertical. In order to clear a road by 15 feet the runway threshold will be held bocl< frorn the rood by 200 feet plus a distance of 

## IS' x 

## 34' or 510 feet for a total of 710 feet. When the runway is not perpendicular to the road, as at Chandler, the sepuration will be greater since the clear zone flares outwards. The critical clearances ore shown on the approach and vicinity plan.



### -24-Section 4. Financial Plans Pur2Qse

## &Background Updating the Chondler Municipol Airport Moster Plan hos, in generol, supported the f')r<'cosls If<'nds of Ihe originnl 

### 1976 Plan. The 

### 1976 Plan, however, did not include sufficif'nt financiol onalysis for accurate development decision making processes. This ,ection will present a schedule of reasonable potential revenues compared with l'xpf'cted development costs to meet the aeronautical demand at the Chandler Airport. The stated position of the City Council and the Airport Commission is to direct the offairs of the airport towards a self-sustaining enterprise status. As 0 minimum the oirport should be developed to accomodate the lower aviation demand potentiol ond provide for accepting the higher aviation demand. This financial <II""ysls will use the lower demand figures. Should demand increase, commensurate reVf'nue and expense increases would occur. Our projections, therefore, are to <Iccomodatf' 

### 1180 aircraft and 

### 408,000 (Jnnual operations by 

### 2000. Associated services from F£30s, hangars, dc., will be based upon comparative levels from other airports. ('hclOdler Municipal Airport presently has 

### 195 acres of land bordered on the north by an 

### 80 acre field adjacent to Germann Road, by Cooper Road to the east, by Queen Creek Rood to the south, and by the RWCD Canal to the west. Expansion oreas needed to Clccomodate the 

### 480 aircrClft and runway system through the next 

### 20 yeors may be ClvClilClble, CIt a price, on all sides of the airport. A short pClrallel runway could be developed with some 

### 3,000' usable length without relocClting any rOClds by using displaced thresholds CIt each end, and by purchasing some 

### 24 acres north of the Varga aircraft company. This runway would provide immediate capacity relief. The airport should program other land pruchases and plan to relocate Coaper Romi. It is recommended that the existing runway be extended to 

### 4,400' and that the proposed 

### 3,000' short parallel runway be constructed in the 

### 1982-1985 period. Durin'J the 

### 1986-1990 period the 

### 3000' parallel runway should be extended to 

### 5,300' length to serve the forecasted Basic Transport type aircraft and to be further extended to 

### 6,900' during the 

### 1996-2000 time period. The 'JeneraI concept is shown on Figure 2.

### -25-I

## r-, 

# "" '.

Figure2 EXISTING PAVEMl'NT 1982-1985**[~(;j** 1986-1990 

### [':2':.'1 199'-1995 

### L",:;'] 1986-2000 700**~OO** ,---"". - lp" 

# A

I I 

# IfJ

.. ,">**~,** I



# "', "- 

# " ""

,

I I 

# Ji ' "

" 

# -II "

### 12!'velopment Costs I\irside improvements include the major parts of an airport. These are runways, faxiways, aprons, drainage, necessary land to build on, and navigation aids. Unit cost data was developed from Chandler's 

## 1980airport apron project. These unit costs were opplied to the estimated area needs to meet the aviation demand. I_andside irnprovements are development iterns such as terminal buiIding, access roads, utilities, automobile parking and necessary land. These improvement costs were estimated in much the same manner as were the airside irnpravements. Operational costs considered in developing the airport are fuel services, 'naintenance, unicorn control, administration and contract service. Primarily these entail personnel costs, fuel purchases, and supplies for maintenance. These costs were estimated from pnst Chandler airport budgets and projected service needs to nccomodate Chandler's qrowth. Table

## 5 reflects the current costs for Chandler's fiscal year 

## 1981 budget period. Table 5 F.Y. 

## 1981 OpeationsCosts Management Maintenance 

### & Operations Salaries (other than mgmt.) Utilities Contractural Services 

## $10,000 4,000 28,000 10,500 40,000 $92,000 The City structure during 

## 1981 provided for approximately 

## 25% of the City Engineer's, tirne to be utilized for airport management. Contractural services includesconsultants fees ond outside service contracts to maintain the airport. These'fees do not include design fees for improvement projects. An assumption hasbeen made that these expenses will increase at a relatively moderate rate. Additional personnel and increased contract services are not likely if the city opts to provide a management system where rnany of these services can be nccomplished. Fuel sales, however, may require additional personnel. Utilities will 

### -27
-undoubtedly increase with the new runways and apron areas. To accaunl for moderote '1rowth in these expenses a growth factor of 4% based upon other airport expenses is IJsed. Costs for londside (Jild oirside development were prepared by estimating general siLes for mojor improvements such as lhe new runway complex, aircraft parking for 480 uircraft, public auto parkinq for 130 cars, a terminal building of approximately 10,000 square feet ond relnted utility improvements, drainage, access and lighting. These improvements are presented in the financial analysis parlian of this section. A total airporl size of 593 acres will provide for runway i,nprovements, based aircrafl nnd itinerant aircrafJ needs through the year 2000. The staging of this land acquisition as related to the general airfield arrangements is shown on Figure 3. The first priority for land acquisition is for 24 acres north nnd east of the Varga plant for the new short-parallel runway. The acquisition of an additional 34 acres is recommended on lhe norlh and wesl side of the existinq runway on land owned by RWCD and 80 acres is needed between the airport and Germann Road. During the 1986-1990 period the additional 181 acres will all(;w for construction of the porallel runway, clear zones, relocotion of Cooper Road and for future airport-related development. The 79 acres recommended during the 1996-2000 period is for long-term airportrelated commercial and airpark development. Without a detailed assessment of the land value, the City's estimate of $20,000 per acre wns used to develop these costs.

-28-

# ,,,

134AC

+ 79AC ti92AC +101 AC ...138AC 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 

## LAND ACQUfS!TION Wl!ldan ABscc!at8G '!98 EXISTINC 1982-1985

Figure3 [LeE] 

### 07TjJ [7'=]

,', " 

### . 

# ;C":/,:;X}8Jj

# I F==-
- 

## =:.=-.::.- ....**~OAD** ....-**.~:** 

### .. ,': .' CRC'EK

::: '

...;.:.

### :" ;. 

## ,/ ';I**~., ~o"**  ...l : j '/ GE/?l'/f"";h'v'

N' c,,;' 

# ,..;/ 1'1 

### '::'1 "1 -------- 

### - -**~._---** 

# t**>~** TfJ

,

## ~i I**~,** I " I , 

# vI i 

### " I 

# " 

# JI -11-- :I

I



## " 

# "

I I 

# J' I " ;r.. -...t-f" ':.:;::·S..**~~::,::/,:** ,),{H.:: 

# _III

# ~'J":~i("?X 'I' ./Ii**r~**

.-,

### Revenue r;eneratian of revenue to pay for these improvements will come from the airport's servir,es provided by the airpart. Many of the proposed improvements estimated wiII qenerate revenue: tiedowns, T-shades, hangars, terminal space. Additional revenues will be derived from expanding existing services such as fuel sales and graund leases for FfjOs. Several variations on revenue programscanbedeveloped. This analysis will bebasedon on expanded versian of the current program. Revenue generation wiII be based upon <]round leases to FBOs, city managed fuel sales, citydevelopedhangars and T-shades. Table 6shows the revenue generated in 1981 far these areas ofthe airport operation. Table 6 I981 Revenue FBO Leases Fuel Sales* Tiedowns 

### & Shades Misc.
*after fuel purchase 

## $ 12,300 215,700

27,600

1,400 $257,000

These revenues were developed from rates and chargescurrently in affect. These rates and charges, however, are generally much less than other Valley airports. Chandler charges arecompared tootherchargescommonly found in the Valley in Table 7.



## -30-