STATE OF ARIZONA )

) ss.

County ofMaricopa )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of---=-=---c--:-'

20_, by , who acknowledge himselfi'herse1f to be the

__________ofthe CITY OF CHANDLER, an Arizona municipal corporation.

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

STATE OF ARIZONA )

) ss.

County ofMaricopa )

The foregoing instrwnent was acknowledged before me this __ day of_---,-,_---,--_.,-

20-, by , who acknowledge himselfi'herself to be the

_________of , a(n) _

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 36 of36
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 

Facilities
Terminal/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-rIi -1-",~---l

I

I

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

MASTER PLAN UPDATE
CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

MASTER PLAN UPDATE

February 1982

Prepared by:

Willdan Associates

1550 East Meadowbrook Avenue

PhoeniX, Arizona 85014

(602) 265-1774
List of Tables ii

List of Figures iii

Introduction

Table of Contents

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 of Shortfall in Net Revenue 49

-i-
List of Tables

I Based Aircraft and Mix

2 Facility Requirements

3 Noise Impacts on Human Activity

4 Land-Use/Noise Compatibility

5 F.Y. 1981 Operations Costs

6 I981 Revenue

7 Comparative Rates & Charges for Airport Services

8 Fue I Revenue

9 Revenue & Expenses - Alternative No.

10 Revenue & Expenses - Alternative No.2

II Revenue & Expenses - Alternative No.3

-iiPage

4

7

16

17

35

37

39

41

42

44

46
List of Figures

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

32
Introduction

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 perm its.

"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 Needs Analysis

Chandler Municipal Airport has experienced relatively 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 was quickly utilized and a waiting list for approximately 25 spaces now 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 169 based 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 aircraft by 1984.

Total based aircraft remained nearly constant from 1974 to 1979 at 69-70 aircraft. The

total increased with each apron improvement to 109 as of December 1980, and to 148 as

af December 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 most conservative, 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 of other remaining county operations is 226,300 annual operations or about 300

"ircraft. With traffic transferring to Chandler due to other airports reaching design

capacity, there would be an added demand of 180 aircraft and a total of 408,000 annual

operations. This higher activity is a reflection of the design capacity for a parallel

runway system rather than an estimate of total growth potential 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-term growth potential.

The first need can be approached by using a conservotive projection of aircraft activitv.

The forecast by the MAG fulfills this criteria. If Chandler <]rOWS in accordance with

Ihis forecast, there would be an approximate doubling of aircraft by 1985 to 249 and a

second near doubling to 480 aircraft by the year end 2000.

The long-term growth potential for Chandler is best protected by utilizing the more

optimistic forecast. Wi IIdan 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

options will be available than if a single forecast were followed.

A projection of aircraft activity was prepared based on the total number of aircraft 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 aircraft operations until 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 if or 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

ME more 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 Prop more 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 107,000 opns :- 148 actual based = 723 Opns/B.A. The MAG

study projects 480 based aircraft and 725 Opns/B.A.

II = number of aircraft 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, Wi Iidan Associates conducted a detai led 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 wi II 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 a greater 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 60,000 swl

TABLE 2

Facility Requirements

(480 Based Aircraft)**

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Stage I

Item Existing 1982-1985

I. LAI\ID

Fee ti tIe 195 ac +138 ac

I_ess than fee title 2 ac +12 ac

Total 197 ac +150 ac

II. AIRFIELD

la. I<unway 4-22 3810 x 75 4400 x 75

b. Parallel T/W full length full length

2a. (new) Runway 4R-22L 3100' x 50'

b. Connectar TIW 3 'iJ 700' x 40'

c. Parallel T/W

III. APRON AREA

I. City 51, 100 sy ,56, I00 sy

2. F130 6000 sy

IV. 13LJILDINGS (including apron)

I. Terminal building 4800 sf 10.000 sf

2. T- Shade (spaces) II 75

3. T-hangar (spaces) 108

4. Large T-Hangar (spaces)

5. Medium Std. hangar

6. Large corporate hangar

V. AUTO PARKING nan-paved paved 130 stalls

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 12,500 swl

5200' x 100'

3100' x 40'

6900' x 100'*

I:Q) 750' x 40'

+1700' x 40'

• Plus 900' displaced thresholds each end for net 6,900' takeoff length from each direction.

*. Land acquisition for the runway program can provide for 800 additional aircraft. All other

facilities for 480 aircraft.

yes 0 Install systems for associated runway and taxiway improvement

~,ame 0 No change from prior 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 wi II 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-Off Cycle

Estimated Emissions"

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: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, EPA, Third Edition.

• (micrograms/cubic meter except for Carbon Monoxide - miligrams/cubic meted

2000 Aircraft Landing - Toke-Off Cycle

Estimated Emissions"

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: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, EPA, Third Edition.

* (micrograms/cubic meter except CO, miligrams per 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 aeronaut ical 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.

the creation of objectional odors?

alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any

change in climate, either locally or regionally?

No

No

3. Water. Will the proposal result in:

a.

b.

changes in currents, courses or direction of water movements, in

either marine or fresh waters?

changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and

amount of surface water runoff?

No

Yes

Paving the existing and new runways and the parallel taxiways and the

aircraft parking aprons will change absorption rates, drainage patterns

and increase the amount of surface 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 the course or flow of flood waters?

changes in the amount of surface in any water body?

discharges into surface waters, or alterations of surface water

quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved

oxygen or turbidity?

alterations of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?

changes in the quality of ground waters, either through direct

additions of withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer

by cuts or excavations?

reductions in the amount of water otherwise available for public

water supplies?

-II -

No

No

No

No

No

No
11. 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.

Signi ficant 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 detai led 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 of animals?

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 associ ted 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 a computed noise which uses Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) which

is computed by numerically integrating the sound pressure level versus

the time history of each operation measured. This data is then

converted to Ldn by taking the energy average SEL at reference

measurement points for all aircraft.

The Ldn concept defines the day-night level as a series of hourly noise

levels for a given day, weighted for time of occurence.

A standardized manual has been developed, "Developing Noise

Exposure Contours for General Aviation Airports," by Bolt, Beranek &

Newman, December, 1975, for application at general 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 2000 are shown on figure I.

Tables 3 & 4 present guidelines which have been developed in previous

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

!'IU P"'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::, - -'rfllmli ;ill~ ~r~ '; ,t -") :::11

,ell-.. ,. ,- ," 1 ·::-iMo~,,:;I, ... IJ.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!

ii II' [

II

" ,
T~h'-:\ " ._" ~....... '-'"

Noise Impacts on Human Activity

so

Crillcal

Impact

Serious

Impact

Moderale

Impact

Low

lmpacl

SOfiOUS Impact: Activity can be performed but

only With difficulty in the aircraH noise environment due to level or frequency or interruption.

Critical Impact: ActiVIty cannel be performed

acceptably In the aircraft noise envIronment,

Low Impact: Activily can be performed with little

or no interruption from aircraft noise, though

nOise may be noticeable above background

le....els.

Moderate Impact: AClivily can be performed bul

WIth SOme interlerence from aircrafl nOIse due to

level or frequency 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'

Intensive ConversatIon

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

SchoOl classrooms, 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

IMPACT ESTIMATE

FOR Ldn VALUE

55 65 75

Cleilrly Normally Normally Clearly

Acceplable Acceplable Unacceptable Unlceeplabt,

'Standard Land Use Coding Manual.

'Noise SensiliYIly Code

IX represents SlUCM category broader or

narrower lhan, but generally InclusiYe 01 lhe

category oescflbed.

'EXCluding hOSPItals.

'The recommended defiOlllon .or "Normally Un·

acceptaOle" has been reduced hom an NEF val,

ue or 30 10 25 (0 account for the desert Seltln£

. and low background nOIse cha~aclerjslics 01

thiS area.

Noise

Senslllvlty CodeApproximate Level-day/night

Value Where Now Construction 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 of occeptability of various land uses are used in determining adjacent airport land compatibi lity:

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 are considered pleasant.

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

will be resoriable, pleasant for recreation and play.

3. "Normally incompatible" is given to land uses where construction

would require unusual and costly building materials and standards

to render the indoor environment "clearly acceptable."

7.

II. "Clearly incompatible" is given to land uses where construction

and building material costs would be prohibitive to render the

indoor environment "clearly acceptable."

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 1982 with primarily agricultural areas within the LDN 60 contours.

Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?

Additional lights will be constructed in the form of parking apron

security lights and runway and taxiway edge lights. The parking 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 of ony 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 potent inl 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

wi II 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

No
III. 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.

shoo Is?

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 substant ial 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

should be required to serve future airport needs.

d. sewer or septic tanks? Possible

Construction of septic tanks wi II be required for the new terminal and

FBO facilities.

e. storm water 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. solid waste and disposal? No

17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health

hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? No

18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic

vista or view open to the publ ie, or wi II the proposal resul t in the

creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? No

19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or

quantity of existing 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 wi II 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\i 1]10rl_~-'Y_(}IJ '--')1<lI_~

This plan, at t(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 speci fic 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 'Jenera I 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

,---"".-

A lp" II

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 1980 airport 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 bui Iding, access roads,

utilities, automobile parking and necessary land. These improvement costs were

est imated 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 Opeations Costs

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 includes consultants

fees ond outside service contracts to maintain the airport. These'fees do not include

design fees for improvement projects.

An assumption has been 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

Figure 3

[LeE]

07TjJ ;C":/,:;X}8JjI [7'=] ,', " .

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 wi II

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 programs can be developed. This analysis will be based on

on expanded versian of the current program. Revenue generation wi II be based upon

<]round leases to FBOs, city managed fuel sales, city developed hangars and T-shades.

Table 6 shows the revenue generated in 1981 far these areas of the 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 charges currently in affect. These rates

and charges, however, are generally much less than other Valley airports. Chandler

charges are compared to other charges commonly found in the Valley in Table 7.

-30-