Response to
JUNE 14, 2006 STEERING COMMITTEE COMMENTS – PART 150 STUDY
WORKING PAPER ONE
BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Comment/Question
Response
Policy Issues
1. Introduction, last paragraph “area
surrounding the airport with
many high quality homes…” is
misleading and leads the reader
to believe that Buchanan Field
Airport is in the middle of
executive, high-end housing.
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
2. Page A.3, 1st paragraph,
reference various studies
conducted and should
additionally include: 1) County
Economic Impact Study, 2000,
and 2) General Aviations
Contribution to the U.S.
Economy, May 2006, GAMA &
National Aviation of State
Aviation Officials – Merge
Global. Last study cites that GA
contributes 18.2 billion to
California’s economy.
Comment noted.
3. Page A.3, 2nd to last paragraph –
Buchanan Field Airport was
deeded to Contra Costa County –
note deed restriction that
Buchanan Field remain an airport
or be returned to federal
government.
Comment noted.
4. Pages A.8 & A.12 – Do not
identify anything as a “terminal”.
Buchanan Field has no terminal.
5. . PageA.11 – Aprons discussion –
says 3 areas but 5 areas are
discussed.
6. Page A.16 – 3rd from bottom
paragraph – Oil Company should
be Tesoro
7. Page A.16 – 2nd to last paragraph,
Contra Costa Blvd. & State
See response to Master Plan Working Paper One, Comment 18.
Buchanan Field Airport
Master Plan
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
Response to Study Committee Comments on Working Paper One/July 2005
Page 1 of 2
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Comment/Question
Route 4 should be Highway 680.
Page A.16 – Concord Naval
Weapons Station should not be
plural and check if that land
should even be referred to.
Page A.21 – CBD needs to be
defined as Central Business
District.
. Page A.8 Diagram – need to
address the need for additional
run-up space – especially with
increased use (pre-take off run
up) 19R and 19L.
Page A.21 –Travis AFB is in
Fairfield and Travis only controls
northern sector traffic. Revise
text to clarify what Travis does
and what Norcal TRACON does.
Page A.23 – Air space – use 5
statue miles not nautical miles
Page A.24 – 3,000’ airspace is not
2,500’ airspace – clarify.
. Taxiway C – many pilots have
tail-draggers which are difficult to
land safely in crosswinds.
Taxiway C was an emergency
landing option. Elimination of
this taxiway as proposed in the
revised taxiway layout may
discourage tail draggers from
basing their aircraft at Buchanan
Field.
How does the Conceptual
Development Plan relate to the
alternatives? If the layout is
already figured out how can
alternatives be selected?
Buchanan Field Airport
Master Plan
Response
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
Comment noted.
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
This paragraph will be revised accordingly.
Figure A8 will be revised accordingly.
Comment noted.
The Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) was compiled from the various
alternatives examined in the master planning process and is intended to provide a
basic layout of the “big picture” airport facilities (i.e., the layout of the runways,
major taxiways and landside development areas). Options and detail on the
layout of “smaller” facilities (i.e., access taxiways, hangar/building/apron layouts,
landside access and parking) will continue to evolve and be refined as the
planning process is finalized.
Response to Study Committee Comments on Working Paper One/July 2005
Page 2 of 2