INTRODUCTION Marina Municipal Airport

OAR DRAFT May 2018

Initial Study Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update INTRODUCTION Marina Municipal Airport

This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects of the implementation of an Air‐ port Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) update for the environs of Marina Municipal Airport. This Initial Study is provided as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documen‐ tation for the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) because the proposed plan is a “project” subject to CEQA (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15378 [CEQA Guidelines]). Mon‐ terey County ALUC is the “Lead Agency” for this project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15367) and will determine the appropriate level of CEQA documentation required for the proposed project based on the information presented in this Initial Study. Monterey County ALUC is guided by the relevant content in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (October 2011), published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and implements the California State Aeronautics Act (SAA) pursuant to California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 21674.5 and 21674.7. The Mon‐ terey County ALUC is provided with staff assistance from the County and such consultants as the ALUC may select. The County Resource Management Agency (RMA)‐Chief of Planning or his/her designee also serves as Secretary of the ALUC. Monterey County ALUC review and determination regarding the potential environmental impacts of the ALUCP Update will be based on the infor‐ mation presented in this Initial Study.

1 OAR DRAFT May 2018

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

This Initial Study document contains an “Environmental Checklist” for assessing potential envi‐ ronmental impacts of the proposed project in a modified form suggested by Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A brief explanation is provided for all responses contained in the Envi‐ ronmental Checklist, including supportive documentation for those responses identified as “No Impact” or “Less than Significant Impact.”

Based on analysis undertaken to complete the checklist, the proposed ALUCP Update is not ex‐ pected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts and no mitigation is neces‐ sary. Based on this determination, RMA‐Planning proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed project. This Initial Study document fulfills the environmental review require‐ ments for adoption of the proposed ALUCP by the Monterey County ALUC. As noted in Item 9 of the Environmental Checklist, there are no other agency approvals required.

2 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Initial Study Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update PROJECT DESCRIPTION Marina Municipal Airport

1. Project Title

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Update for the Environs of Marina Municipal Airport (OAR)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address

Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission ‐ Administrative and technical support provided by the Monterey County Resource Man‐ agement Agency ‐ Planning 1441 Schilling Place, 2nd Floor Salinas, CA 93901

3. Project Location

The Marina Municipal Airport is located within the city limits of the City of Marina, approximately two miles east of the City’s central business district. The City is located in the northern portion of Monterey County, California. The Airport is accessed from Reservation Road, which connects to the Pacific Coast Highway (State Route [SR] 1) on the west and Blanco Road on the east; Blanco Road provides east‐west access from Reservation Road to the City of Salinas and Highway 101 (US 101). The cities of Salinas and Monterey are approximately nine miles to the east and south, respectively. The location of the airport is shown on Attachment B.

3 OAR DRAFT May 2018

The Airport encompasses approximately 845 acres of property and was formerly known as Fritzsche Army Airfield, originally constructed and used to support the military functions of the former Fort Ord Army post. The Airport was conveyed to the City to be maintained for the use and benefit of the public as an airport in 1995 as a part of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan). At the same time, the University of California’s Monterey Bay Education, Science and Technology (UC MBEST) Center received approximately 1,100 acres of land adjacent to the Airport to the south and east.

For OAR, the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary was established using the outer boundary of the Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77 surfaces (14 CFR Part 77). 14 CFR Part 77 defines a series of airspace boundaries around an airport to determine if there are obstructions to air navigation. The conical surface is the outer boundary of the 14 CFR Part 77 airspace bound‐ aries and generally represents the traffic pattern for an airport like OAR. The AIA boundary is depicted on Attachment C.

4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address

Monterey County Resource Management Agency ‐ Planning 1441 Schilling Place, 2nd Floor Salinas, CA 93901

5. General Plan Designation

Each county and city in California are required to adopt a comprehensive, long‐term general plan regarding future physical development of the land. This general plan may differ from the existing land uses. The General Plan land use designations for the City of Marina and Monterey County are shown on Attachment D, with acreages summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 City of Marina and Monterey County General Plan Land Use Designations Marina Municipal Airport Environs Acres Land Use Category City of Marina Monterey County Single Family Residential 862.2 277.6 Multiple Family Residential 138.9 0.0 Commercial 200.4 259.9 Light Industrial 252.3 8.9 Public Facility 305.2 689.8 Agriculture 0.0 2,706.3 Open Space 1,005.2 1,828.5 Right of Way/No Data 459.7 0.0 Total 3,224.0 5,771.0 Source: City of Marina Planning Department, Monterey County Assessor’s Office, Coffman Associates analysis

4 OAR DRAFT May 2018

City of Marina The largest portion of land in the study area is reserved for open space, including parks and rec‐ reation, habitat conservation, and other open space. Single‐family residential development com‐ prises a second major future use. The Airport is included in the public facilities land use, which has portions of land slated for light industrial and commercial development.

Monterey County The largest plot of land is planned for agricultural uses, as well as open space. The public facility designation includes the wastewater treatment facility, with remaining acreages planned for sin‐ gle‐family residential and light industrial uses.

6. Zoning

Existing zoning identifies the type of land use permitted on a given piece of property in accord‐ ance with the responsible jurisdiction’s ordinances and maps. The City of Marina and Monterey County are the land use authorities within the Marina Municipal Airport Influence Area. Zoning is the primary regulatory tool for controlling development within a community, defining the type, size, and density of land uses allowed in the various zones. The zoning designations are shown on Attachment E, with acreages summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 City of Marina and Monterey County Zoning Designations Marina Municipal Airport Environs Land Use Category City of Marina Monterey County Airport 1,139.5 0.0 Single‐Family Residential 934.5 0.0 Multiple Family Residential 194.5 0.0 Commercial 143.6 3.2 Light Industrial 0.0 3.6 Business Park 204.2 0.0 Marina Station Specific Plan1 299.4 0.0 Specific Plan 4.9 0.0 Public Facility 49.8 1,904.5 Open Space 130.1 50.2 Agriculture 0.0 3,758.3 Habitat 57.0 0.0 Right of Way/No Data 66.5 51.2 Total 3,224.0 5,771.0 1 Of the 320‐acre total site area for Marina Station, 299.4 acres is located within the Marina Municipal Airport AIA. Source: City of Marina Planning Department, Monterey County Assessor’s Office, Coffman Associates analysis

City of Marina Within the City of Marina, the Airport zoning designation represents the largest acreage of land, encompassing 1,139.5 acres. Following the Airport zone, single‐family residential comprises the

5 OAR DRAFT May 2018

most zoned acreage around the Airport property. The third largest zoned area is the Marina Sta‐ tion Specific Plan, which is a 320‐acre development, including commercial, residential, education, and open space land uses.1 The rest of the 3,224 acres around the Airport environs are zoned for a business park, multiple family, commercial, habitat, and public facility land uses.

Monterey County In the County, the agricultural zoning designation is the most prominent in the County. Large areas are also zoned as public facilities, followed by commercial, light industrial, and open space land uses.

7. Description of Project

The Airport is served by a single runway oriented in an east‐west manner at an elevation of 136 feet (41 meters) above mean sea level (amsl). It is 3,483 feet long and 75 feet wide, and is strength‐rated at 20,000 pounds for aircraft with single wheel landing gear configurations and 50,000 pounds for dual wheel landing gear configurations. The airfield system also includes four taxiways and two hold aprons. Aircraft aprons, various types of hangars, a fuel farm, a fire sta‐ tion, offices and an administration building, a restaurant, and several non‐aviation are located on Airport property. In the southeast corner of the Airport property, land is reserved for a future Airport Business Park. Immediately adjacent to the south is the UC MBEST property.

This Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan can be used by Monterey County Airport Land Use Com‐ mission (ALUC) to update the existing Marina Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was adopted on November 18, 1996 2. The proposed ALUCP would replace the existing 1996 CLUP for the Airport. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) included in the ALUCP is the same one that was approved in 2018. The aviation activity forecasts and noise contour maps have been updated to reflect current and future uses, as outlined in the 2016 Marina Municipal Airport Master Plan. The ALUCP has also been prepared with reference to, and is consistent with, guidance provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics in the 2011 version of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) and all other relevant state and federal guidelines, criteria, and regulations.

The proposed ALUCP is intended to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users near the airport, while supporting the continued operation of OAR. Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of airport noise, to en‐ sure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.

1 Of the 320‐acre total site area for Marina Station, 299.4 acres is located within the Marina Municipal Airport AIA. 2 http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments‐i‐z/resource‐management‐agency‐ rma‐/planning/resources‐documents/airport‐land‐use‐plans

6 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Per the Caltrans’ Handbook, the ALUCP Update does not apply to existing land use (i.e., the land use compatibility policies contained within the proposed ALUCP) and are not intended to remove existing incompatible land uses within the airport environs. This includes development already planned for the area as evidenced by a vesting tentative map, a development agreement pursu‐ ant to California Government Code, Section 65866, active at the effective date of this ALUCP, or a valid building permit.

Chapter Four of the proposed ALUCP contains general and specific policies to implement the rel‐ evant provisions of the plan. Specifically, the plan includes the land use compatibility review process and identifies allowable land uses and densities based on the projected 2035 noise ex‐ posure contours, safety zones, and Part 77 surfaces.

Noise Zones and Land Use Compatibility

Airport noise exposure contours for OAR were developed using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), including the assumptions discussed in Attachment F. Noise contours were calculated using aircraft operations for the existing condition (2013) and 20‐year (2033) forecast. A detailed fleet mix can also be found in Appendix A of the ALUCP Update. Output data selected for calcu‐ lation by the INM are annual average noise contours in Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The 65, 70, and 75 CNEL noise contours have been mapped for this analysis.

In the ALUCP Update, noise compatibility policies are placed on new residential and institutional development within the CNEL 60 dB contour. Within the CNEL 60‐65 dB range, mobile home parks, outdoor music shells/amphitheaters, sports stadiums, and zoo nature exhibits are consid‐ ered incompatible. Other noise‐sensitive uses are conditionally compatible if they are sound‐ insulated and if avigation easements are granted to the City of Marina. Within the CNEL 65‐70 dB range, dwellings are incompatible and would not be allowable, with exceptions for infill de‐ velopment. Within the CNEL 75 dB contour, all residential, public/institutional uses, and com‐ mercial uses are incompatible and would not be allowable. Industrial and agricultural uses are compatible within the CNEL 75 dB contour.

In addition to the CNEL noise contours, a single event noise contour is used in the ALUCP Update. Aircraft single event noise contours are commonly used for determining the potential impacts in residential areas as they can be used to approximate areas where sleep disturbance may occur. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) recommends using a 10 percent awakening value associated with indoor sound exposure levels (SEL) of 80 decibels (dB). The typical home with the windows closed attenuates exterior noise of approximately 15 dB. The 95 dB SEL contour is used to identify noise‐sensitive areas (residential, hospitals, hotels, and motels) that require disclosure for potential of sleep disruption from aircraft overflights.

Safety Zones and Land Use Compatibility

The ALUCP Update for Marina Municipal Airport includes seven safety compatibility zones: the runway protection zone (RPZ), inner approach/departure zone (IADZ), inner turning zone (ITZ), outer approach/departure zone (OADZ), sideline safety zone (SSZ), airport property zone (APZ), and the Airport Influence Area (AIA).

7 OAR DRAFT May 2018

The APZ and RPZ prohibit all residential development. Residential development is subject to density restrictions in the IADZ, ITZ, OADZ, and SSZ, with the lowest density in the IADZ (one dwelling unit per 10 acres) and the highest in SSZ (one dwelling unit per 2 acres). There are no density restrictions in the AIA. Non‐residential intensity restrictions are included for the follow‐ ing five zones: IADZ, ITZ, OADZ, SSZ, and AIA. Safety compatibility policies for the ALUCP Update are described in Attachments G and H.

Summary of Displacement Analysis

A displacement analysis was prepared to assess the potential for noise‐ and risk‐sensitive land uses to be displaced to other areas after the land use agencies implement the ALUCP. The dis‐ placement analysis is included as Attachment A to this Initial Study. Based on the results of the displacement analysis, implementation of the ALUCP is not expected to result in displacement of future residential or non‐residential development within the AIA based on existing zoning desig‐ nations, when combined with the ALUCP update zones.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting

The existing land uses in the City of Marina and Monterey County tell what the land is currently being used for. The existing land use designations are shown on Attachment I, with acreages summarized in Table 3.

TABLE 3 City of Marina and Monterey County Existing Land Use Designations Marina Municipal Airport Environs Land Use Category City of Marina Monterey County Airport 755.0 0.0 Single‐Family Residential 614.0 306.5 Multiple Family Residential 78.3 0.0 Commercial 65.7 0.0 Light Industrial 34.1 0.0 Business Park 0.0 0.0 Marina Station Specific Plan1 299.4 0.0 Specific Plan 0.0 0.0 Public Facility 96.7 451.9 Open Space 413.0 1,246.1 Agriculture 0.0 3,455.3 Habitat 78.5 0.0 Water 2.2 0.0 Vacant/Undeveloped 522.4 231.3 Right of Way/No Data 264.3 80.0 Total 3,224.0 5,771.0 1 Of the 320‐acre total site area for Marina Station, 299.4 acres is located within the Marina Municipal Airport AIA. Source: City of Marina Planning Department, Monterey County Assessor’s Office, Coffman Associates analysis

8 OAR DRAFT May 2018

City of Marina Marina Municipal Airport accounts for the largest portion of land, a portion of which is designated as a habitat conservation area (accounted for separately in Table 3). Single‐family residential de‐ velopment is the second largest land use, located south, southwest, and west of the airport. The next two largest areas are classified as open space and vacant/undeveloped area. The Marina Station Specific Plan area, located west of the airport, meets the definition of an existing land use for the purposes of this document. The remaining areas are developed with multiple family resi‐ dential, commercial, light industrial, California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) campus, and the Salinas River.

Monterey County A majority of the land within the area is designated as agricultural or open space land. The agri‐ cultural areas are located north of the airport and the open space areas include portions of the CSUMB campus south of the airport. Public facility acreage includes the wastewater treatment facility located north of the airport. The remaining area of existing land use noted in the table is single family residential, which includes CSUMB campus housing in the Fredericks‐Schoonover area.

9. Other Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participa‐ tion agreement)

None.

10. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or a “Less Than Significant with Mit‐ igation Incorporated” impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Agriculture and Forestry  Aesthetics   Air Quality Resources  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water    Emissions Materials Quality  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise

 Population / Housing  Public Services  Recreation Utilities / Service Sys‐  Transportation/Traffic  Tribal Cultural Resources  tems Mandatory Findings of  Significance

OAR DRAFT May 2018

Initial Study EVALUATION OF Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Marina Municipal Airport

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are ade‐ quately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses fol‐ lowing each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐ specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is ap‐ propriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Signifi‐ cant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mit‐ igation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than

11 OAR DRAFT May 2018

significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below may be cross‐referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063[c][3][D]). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursu‐ ant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorpo‐ rated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a pre‐ viously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; how‐ ever, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than signif‐ icance.

12 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Initial Study Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Marina Municipal Airport

The following statement applies when considering all environmental factors discussed below: As previously discussed and documented in Attachment A, no displacement of development is an‐ ticipated due to the proposed ALUCP, and the ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts. The following discussions for all environmental fac‐ tors discussed below, therefore, are based on impacts related to the implementation of policies contained within the proposed ALUCP Update.

13 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant No Issues Impact corporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?    X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrop-    X pings, and historic buildings within a state-designated scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surround-    X ings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or    X nighttime views in the area?

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

Impact Analysis

I a‐d) No Impact. The City’s General Plan (2006a) contains the following policies related to Open Spaces and Significant Natural Features and Scenic (and Cultural) Resources. Projects that are not consistent with these policies would have potentially significant impacts.

Policy 4.126(3). The visual character and scenic resources of the Marina Planning Area shall be protected for the enjoyment of current and future generations. To this end, new development should be sited and designed to retain scenic views of inland hills from Highway One, Reservation Road, and Blanco Road; an architectural review of projects shall continue to be required to en‐ sure that building design and siting, materials, and landscaping are visually compatible with the surrounding areas.

Policy 4.16. With the exception of its Monterey Bay frontage, there are no major defining natural topographic features within the existing city. But small‐scale topographic features are important in local contexts. ...

Although the City does not have designated scenic resources or roadways, the County identifies the Reservation Road corridor, just east of Blanco Road, as having visual “sensitivity” and as a proposed scenic route (County of Monterey 2010).

14 OAR DRAFT May 2018

The Environmental Impact Report for Monterey County’s General Plan (2010) makes mention of the scenic vistas contained in the County, including views of valleys, ridgelines, vegetation, wa‐ tercourses, and the coast. It states in the General Plan, which considers airport operations, that it does not have any significant impact on the scenic vistas of the area.

The closest state highway of concern to the Airport is Highway 1, which is located more than one mile from the Airport at its closest point. In this area, it is identified by the state as eligible for scenic highway status, but has not been officially designated (Caltrans’ website 2016).

Since the ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development to the Airport, but rather imposes land use restrictions within the airport’s future, there is little risk of altering existing scenic vista’s integrity in the vicinity of the Airport. Therefore, there will be no impacts associated with aesthetics of the Airport as a result of the implementation of the ALUCP.

15 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Im- Mitigation In- Significant Issues pact corporated Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Re- sources Board.

Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farm- land), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency, to    X non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?    X

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re- zoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Re-    X sources Code, Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code, Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Produc- tion (as defined by Government Code, Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?    X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,    X could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

16 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Impact Analysis

II a‐e) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA and there are no forest or timberland zoned areas in the AIA. The ALUCP does provide certain land use restrictions on existing agriculturally zoned areas within the AIA. How‐ ever, the AIA’s land use restrictions prohibit hazards to flight (such as tall objects), wildlife at‐ tractants (such as bird nesting and food sources), and the development of high intensity land uses (such as outdoor stadiums). These restrictions would also serve to encourage the retention of agricultural areas as open space rather than development of non‐agricultural land use. Thus, the ALUCP would not have an impact on agricultural resources.

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Im- Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues pact corporated pact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?    X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air    X quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the air    X basin is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?    X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?    X

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

Impact Analysis

III a‐e) Less than Significant. The Marina Municipal Airport AIA is located within the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPC), which is a designated “nonattainment” area for purposes of the ozone and PM10 (coarse dust particles 2.5 to 10 micrometers in diameter) by the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CARB, 2016). The proposed ALUCP Update does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP

17 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Update would not interfere with the implementation of any mitigation measures. Since this pro‐ ject does not involve any physical ground disturbance or development, it would not violate any air quality standards, result in an increase of any criteria pollutants, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors.

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Issues Impact corporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any    X species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community    X identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of    X the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife    X species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree    X preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Hab- itat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Con-    X servation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

18 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Impact Analysis

IV a‐e) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, there would not be an adverse effect due to the project on any sensi‐ tive or special status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands. Similarly, the project would not interfere with native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites.

IV f) No Impact. Portions of the AIA are located within the former Fort Ord site. Fort Ord is a decommissioned U.S. Army post. As part of the closure efforts, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) was established, and numerous studies and plans were prepared. In 2015, a draft Fort Ord Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Fort Ord HCP) (FORA and ICF International 2015) was prepared which provides the framework for ensuring conservation and enhancement of 19 special‐status plant and animal species, and the natural communities that support them, to con‐ tribute to species recovery on former Fort Ord. The Fort Ord HCP will serve as the basis for issu‐ ance of a base‐wide Section 2081 (California Endangered Species Act [CESA]) incidental take per‐ mit by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and as the basis for issuance of a base‐wide Section 10(a)(1)(B) (Federal Endangered Species Act [ESA]) incidental take permit by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Fort Ord HCP incorporates all relevant infor‐ mation from the 1997 Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan (Fort Ord MHP), and, once approved, will supersede it as the primary conservation planning document for non‐federal recipients of Fort Ord lands. The Fort Ord HCP will accompany applications to CDFW and USFWS for incidental take of species addressed in the HCP. USFWS will consider issuance of permits for all HCP species, but CDFW can only issue permits for state‐listed or candidate species. Upon approval of the applications, which must include the Fort Ord HCP and other supporting documentation, permits will be issued for a term of 50 years (FORA and ICF International 2015).

As previously discussed, the ALUCP Update does not involve any physical changes or develop‐ ment within the AIA. As a result, no impacts to the implementation of the Fort Ord HCP or other General Plan policies to protect biological resources are anticipated to result from implementa‐ tion of the ALUCP Update.

19 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined    X in State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pur-    X suant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic    X feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?    X e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cul-    X tural resource as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 21074?

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

Impact Analysis

V a‐e) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. As a result, there would not be an adverse effect or change in significance due to the project on any historical, archaeological, or paleontological resource, unique geologic fea‐ ture, or human remains.

20 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Pri-    X olo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?    X iv) Landslides?    X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?    X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a    X result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, sub- sidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code    X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste    X water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

Impact Analysis

VI a, c, d) No Impact. The AIA is not within a state‐designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, based on the preliminary maps dated December 15, 2016. Additionally, no part of the AIA is within an area covered by the current state mapping for Liquefaction Hazard Zones.

VI b‐e) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP Update does not involve any physical changes or devel‐ opment within the AIA. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the

21 OAR DRAFT May 2018

loss of topsoil, nor would it locate development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, that could become unstable as a result of the project, or is expansive. Since no development would occur due to the ALUCP, the discussion in VI e) regarding septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems is not applicable.

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a signifi-    X cant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing    X the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

Impact Analysis

VII a‐b) No Impact. As mentioned in Item III, the Marina Municipal Airport AIA is located within the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPC). The pro‐ posed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions nor would it conflict with any efforts on behalf of the MBUAPC.

22 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine    X transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseea-    X ble upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, sub-    X stances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pur-    X suant to Government Code, Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been    X adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety    X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response    X plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland    X fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are in- termixed with wildlands?

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

23 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Impact Analysis

VIII a‐c) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public from the transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials.

VIII d) No Impact. There are no Superfund or Brownfield sites in proximity to the Airport; the closest such site is at the former United States Army post, Fort Ord (U.S. EPA 2016). In addition, the State’s Cortese List indicates that there are no sites at the Airport on the state’s cleanup list (DTSC 2016).

Activities involving the use of hazardous materials at the Airport are associated with fueling, maintenance, and repair of aircraft and airport‐related vehicles. The Airport maintains two static fuel storage tanks on the main terminal area apron. Both tanks have a 12,000‐gallon capacity, used for Jet Fuel A and 100‐lowlead fuel (AvGas). These tanks require both the transport and storage of hazardous materials. Fuel storage facilities that handle hazardous materials located at the Airport are required to comply with all applicable regulations.

None of the abovementioned existing or former hazardous materials sites will have an impact on the Airport or surrounding areas.

VIII e) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP establishes policies to reduce hazards to aircraft in flight and to reduce the severity of the consequences of aircraft accidents within the proposed safety zones. Thus, through implementation of the proposed ALUCP, the safety hazards for people re‐ siding or working in the OAR AIA would be less than what otherwise might occur. This is con‐ sistent with the objectives of the State Aeronautics Act.

VIII f) No Impact. The Airport is a publicly owned, public use airport and there are no private airstrips within ten nautical miles (AirNav.com 2017).

VIII g) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP would not impair implementation of or physically inter‐ fere with an adopted energy response and evacuation plan because there are no such plans in place. As a general aviation facility, the Airport is not required to have on‐airport firefighting capability. There is a fire station at the Airport (Building 514). The next closest fire station is lo‐ cated at City Hall, two miles east of the Airport.

VIII h) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. In addition, any future development consistent with the proposed ALUCP would occur in conjunction with the local jurisdictions’ zoning maps and regulations and associated ap‐ proval processes; therefore, no additional impact related to emergency response plans or evac‐ uation plans would occur. The proposed ALUCP would not expose additional people to wildland fires.

24 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Incor- Significant Im- Issues Impact porated pact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?    X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater re-    X charge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the    X alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the    X alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or    X planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?    X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard    X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect    X flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,    X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?    X

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

25 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Impact Analysis

IX a‐j) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, the project would not result in the violation of any water quality or waste discharge standards, the depletion of ground water resources or interference with ground water recharge, the alteration of existing drainage patterns or streams, or the creation of addi‐ tional runoff water. No degradation of water quality would occur as a result of the project.

In addition, since no development would occur due to the ALUCP, no housing would be placed within a 100‐year flood hazard area. Any future residential development occurring within the AIA would be subject to the existing zoning and land use designations already in place and would be subject to the local flood control ordinances, which require a development permit for projects within Special Flood Hazard Areas.

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?    X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdic-    X tion over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conserva-    X tion plan?

Thresholds of Significance

A significant impact for land use would occur if implementation of the ALUCP would displace residential or non‐residential land uses from areas within the AIA. Potential environmental ef‐ fects associated with displaced development may include changes in land use patterns and asso‐ ciated shifts in the distribution and concentration of population. By restricting development in parts of the AIA, there is the potential for increased pressure for growth and development in other areas. If this land use development were to occur, potential environmental impacts arising from increased traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts could occur.

26 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Impact Analysis

X a‐b) No Impact. No displacement of development is anticipated due to the proposed ALUCP (see Attachment A of this Initial Study). The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, the project would not result in the physical division of any established communities. The additional safety‐related restrictions that are pro‐ posed within the ALUCP would not change the underlying zoning and land use designations within the AIA. Thus, any future development occurring within the AIA would be subject to the existing zoning and land use designations already in place.

X c) No Impact. As discussed in Checklist Item IV f), portions of the AIA are located within the area covered by the Fort Ord HCP. The ALUCP Update does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. As a result, no impacts to the implementation of the Fort Ord HCP or other General Plan policies to protect biological resources are anticipated to result from im‐ plementation of the ALUCP Update.

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the    X region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delin-    X eated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Impact Analysis

XI a‐b) No Impact. Both the City of Marina and Monterey County have goals in their respective General Plans to conserve mineral resources. On both the east and west sides of Highway One, there are known mineral resources within the AIA. However, the proposed ALUCP does not in‐ volve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, the project would not re‐ sult in a loss of availability of any known regionally or locally important mineral resources or lo‐ cally important mineral recovery sites.

27 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established    X in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground    X borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels    X existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity    X above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been    X adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people resid-    X ing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Thresholds of Significance

A significant impact for land use would occur if implementation of the ALUCP would displace residential or non‐residential land uses from areas within the AIA as a result of the noise, safety, airspace or overflight policies. Potential environmental effects associated with displaced devel‐ opment may include changes in land use patterns and associated shifts in the distribution and concentration of population. By restricting development in parts of the AIA, there is the potential for increased pressure for growth and development in other areas. If this land use development were to occur, potential environmental impacts arising from increased traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts could occur.

Impact Analysis

XII a, c) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP is intended to complement the existing General Plan or other noise ordinances or standards by specifically addressing the potential noise of the Air‐ port. Land use compatibility policies are contained in Section 4.2.1 of the ALUCP. The noise compatibility criteria are presented in Attachment J and begins at 60 CNEL. As the noise expo‐ sure level increases, there are fewer compatible land uses and additional restrictions, such as avigation easements, and sound insulation requirements are applied. As noted in the table, all residential and most public/institutional facility and recreational land uses are classified as not

28 OAR DRAFT May 2018

compatible with the 60‐64 CNEL range, while commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses are generally considered compatible within the noise exposure contours. Certain land uses, in‐ cluding indoor recreation, amusements, athletic clubs, gyms and spectator events, movie thea‐ ters, parks, outdoor recreation: tennis, golf courses, riding trails; and hotels, motels, transient lodgings, and bed and breakfasts are conditionally compatible, “provided that sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower.”

Within the 65‐69 CNEL contour range, residential, recreational, and most public/institutional fa‐ cilities are not compatible. Within this contour range, commercial land uses, with the exception of hotels, motels, transient lodgings, and bed and breakfasts, are conditionally compatible pro‐ vided an avigation easement is granted to the City of Marina as operator of the airport.

Industrial land uses, as listed in the table, are compatible for the purposes of the ALUCP Update noise policies without restrictions.

Accessory dwellings associated with agricultural land uses within the 60‐64 CNEL range must be sound‐insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. Within the 65‐69 CNEL noise contour range, accessory dwellings associated with agricultural land uses are not compatible.

The airport 65 CNEL noise contours do not extend off the airport property over noise‐sensitive areas in the 20‐year forecast condition. The proposed ALUCP, however, does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA and does not drive future airport operations. Therefore, ambient noise levels would not be increased by the project.

XII b, d) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, ground‐borne vibration or noise would not be generated by the pro‐ ject nor would there be a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise, such as what might occur during the construction of a new development project.

XII e‐f) No Impact. These checklist categories are not applicable to the proposed project since it is a planning project, not a development project. These checklist items refer to actual projects located in the vicinity of a public or private airport.

29 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing    X new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of re-    X placement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement    X housing elsewhere?

Thresholds of Significance

A significant impact for land use would occur if implementation of the ALUCP would displace residential or non‐residential land uses from areas within the AIA as a result of the noise, safety, airspace, or overflight policies. Potential environmental effects associated with displaced devel‐ opment may include changes in land use patterns and associated shifts in the distribution and concentration of population. By restricting development in parts of the AIA, there is the potential for increased pressure for growth and development in other areas. If this land use development were to occur, potential environmental impacts arising from increased traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts could occur.

Impact Analysis

No displacement of development is anticipated due to the proposed (see Attachment A of this Initial Study), and the ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development. However, shifts in the density of residential development could occur as result of the new re‐ strictions placed on land within the proposed AIA. The following discussion, therefore, is based on both direct and indirect impacts related to the implementation of policies contained within the proposed plan.

XIII a) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP itself is not a development plan (i.e., no specific land uses are designated for any particular parcel or parcels). Whether actual development would occur as a result of the proposed ALUCP would depend on the actual need for development; the rate, timing, location and extent of development; economic and market conditions; the nature and type of the project or projects; and project‐level impacts to the environment and associated mitigation. If such projects do occur in the future, like other land use development, they will be subject to the appropriate project‐level environmental review under CEQA. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15145).

30 OAR DRAFT May 2018

XIII b, c) No Impact. No direct or indirect displacement of development is anticipated due to the proposed ALUCP (see Attachment A of this Initial Study). The land use compatibility policies contained within the proposed ALUCP are not intended to remove existing incompatible land uses within the airport environs. This includes development already planned for the area as evi‐ denced by a vesting tentative map, a development agreement pursuant to California Govern‐ ment Code, Section 65866, that is in effect at the effective date of this ALUCP, or a valid building permit.

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Incor- Significant Im- Issues Impact porated pact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection?    X b) Police protection?    X c) Schools?    X d) Parks?    X e) Other public facilities?    X

Thresholds of Significance

A significant impact for land use would occur if implementation of the ALUCP would displace residential or non‐residential land uses from areas within the AIA as a result of the noise, safety, airspace, or overflight policies. Potential environmental effects associated with displaced devel‐ opment may include changes in land use patterns and associated shifts in the distribution and concentration of population. By restricting development in parts of the AIA, there is the potential for increased pressure for growth and development in other areas. If this land use development were to occur, potential environmental impacts arising from increased traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts could occur.

Impact Analysis

No displacement of development is anticipated due to the proposed ALUCP (see Attachment A of this Initial Study), and the ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or develop‐ ment. The following discussion, therefore, is based on impacts related to the implementation of policies contained within the proposed plan.

XIV a‐e) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP itself is not a development plan (i.e., no specific land uses are designated for any particular parcel or parcels). Whether actual development would

31 OAR DRAFT May 2018

occur as a result of the proposed ALUCP would depend on the actual need for development; the rate, timing, location and extent of development; economic and market conditions; the nature and type of the project or projects; and project‐level impacts to the environment and associated mitigation. If such projects do occur in the future, like other land use development, they will be subject to the appropriate project‐level environmental review under CEQA. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15145.)

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other    X recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of    X recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Thresholds of Significance

A significant impact for land use would occur if implementation of the ALUCP would displace residential or non‐residential land uses from areas within the AIA as a result of the noise, safety, airspace, or overflight policies. Potential environmental effects associated with displaced devel‐ opment may include changes in land use patterns and associated shifts in the distribution and concentration of population. By restricting development in parts of the AIA, there is the potential for increased pressure for growth and development in other areas. If this land use development were to occur, potential environmental impacts arising from increased traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts could occur.

Impact Analysis

XIV a) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP itself is not a development plan (i.e., no specific land uses are designated for any particular parcel or parcels). Whether actual development would occur as a result of the proposed ALUCP would depend on the actual need for development; the rate, timing, location and extent of development; economic and market conditions; the nature and type of the project or projects; and project‐level impacts to the environment and associated

32 OAR DRAFT May 2018 mitigation. If such projects do occur in the future, like other land use development, they will be subject to the appropriate project‐level environmental review under CEQA. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15145.)

XV b) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not include the construction or expansion of recre‐ ational facilities. There are no physical changes or development involved in its implementation.

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effective-    X ness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motor- ized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited    X to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a    X change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous    X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?    X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or pro- grams regarding public transit, bicycle, or pe-    X destrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Thresholds of Significance

33 OAR DRAFT May 2018

concentration of population. By restricting development in parts of the AIA, there is the potential for increased pressure for growth and development in other areas. If this land use development were to occur, potential environmental impacts arising from increased traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts could occur.

Impact Analysis

XVI a, b, f) No Impact. As previously discussed, only a minimal potential change in residential development might occur as a result of the policies associated with the ALUCP. Both potential future residential and non‐residential development has been planned by the affected jurisdiction in the City of Marina General Plan and the Monterey County General Plan. The proposed ALUCP itself does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Thus, there would not be an increase in demand on the existing or future circulation system within the AIA that has not already been planned by the City or County. The ALUCP would not conflict with applicable regional or local transportation policies or congestion management plans.

XVI c) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed ALUCP would not change the air traffic pat‐ terns for OAR; rather, it analyzes the noise and safety zones for the airport based on its existing traffic patterns.

XVI d, e) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA; no changes to the design of roadways or public transit or emergency access routes within the AIA would result from the project.

34 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 21074, as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the Cal- ifornia Register of Historical Re-    X sources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Re- sources Code, Section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and sup-    X ported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Re- sources Code, Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native Ameri- can tribe.

Thresholds of Significance

Section 1(a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment” and should be considered under CEQA.

Impact Analysis

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

XVII a,b) No Impact. Two Native American tribes have requested consultation with Monterey County Resource Management Agency‐Planning. Notification letters were sent to the Ohlone‐ Costanoan‐Esselen Nation and Salinan tribe on January 11, 2017 to explain the purpose of the ALUCP Update and to request consultation of the project’s potential impact on tribal cultural resources at a regularly scheduled meeting between Monterey County RMA‐Planning and the tribes. These consultation meetings were held on February 14, 2017. No substantive comments were received from this consultation process.

35 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Con-    X trol Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or ex-    X pansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of    X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements    X and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve    X the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid    X waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local stat- utes and regulations related to solid waste?    X

Thresholds of Significance

The ALUCP itself would not result in any physical changes or development; therefore, thresholds of significance are only stated for the resource categories with potential indirect impacts.

Impact Analysis

XVII a‐g) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP itself is not a development plan (i.e., no specific land uses are designated for any particular parcel or parcels). Whether actual development would occur as a result of the proposed ALUCP would depend on the actual need for development; the rate, timing, location and extent of development; economic and market conditions; the nature and type of the project or projects; and project‐level impacts to the environment and associated

36 OAR DRAFT May 2018

mitigation. If such projects do occur in the future, like other land use development, they will be subject to the appropriate project‐level environmental review under CEQA. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15145.)

Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation In- Significant Im- Issues Impact corporated pact No Impact XIX. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFI- CANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substan-    X tially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cali- fornia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considera-    X ble? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on    X human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Impact Analysis

XVIII a) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP does not involve any physical changes or development within the AIA. Therefore, no impacts to biological or cultural resources would occur.

XVIII b) No Impact. The proposed policies of the ALUCP would be applied in conjunction with other locally adopted policies and regulations, including but not limited to, the general plan, zon‐ ing codes, and overlay designations. The ALUCP policies, while in some cases are more restrictive in terms of land use density, only apply to future development within the AIA. Overall, no dis‐ placement of development is anticipated due to the proposed ALUCP. As discussed in this Initial Study, no significant impacts, cumulative or otherwise, would result from implementation of the proposed ALUCP.

XVIII c) No Impact. The proposed ALUCP establishes policies to reduce hazards to aircraft in flight and to reduce the severity of the consequences of aircraft accidents within the proposed safety

37 OAR DRAFT May 2018

zones. Thus, through implementation of the proposed ALUCP, the safety hazards for people re‐ siding or working in the OAR AIA would be less than what otherwise might occur. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur.

38 OAR DRAFT May 2018

Initial Study DOCUMENT PREPARERS, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update AND REFERENCES Marina Municipal Airport

LIST OF PREPARERS:

Project Sponsor

Monterey County Resource Management Agency ‐ Planning 1441 Schilling Place, 2nd Floor Salinas, CA 93901

Project Manager: Joseph Sidor, Associate Planner

Environmental Consultant

Coffman Associates, Inc. 237 NW Blue Parkway, Suite 100 Lee’s Summit, MO 64063

Project Manager: David Fitz Environmental Planners: Judi Krauss, Kory Lewis, and Tresa Carter

39 OAR DRAFT May 2018

LIST OF REFERENCES:

AirNav.com 2015. Airport Search. Available at: http://www.airnav.com/airports/search.html, accessed May 2017.

CAL FIRE 2008. Monterey County FHSZ (Fire Hazard Severity Zones) Map, adopted November 2008. Available at: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_monterey, ac‐ cessed May 2016.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2013. 2013 State Area Designation Maps. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/2013/state_o3.pdf, accessed May 2016.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List ‐ Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cor‐ tese_List.cfm, accessed May 2016.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2011. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. October.

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics 2013. California Aviation Systems Plan, 2013 Inventory Element, September. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/docu‐ ments/casp/casp_inventory_element_20130919.pdf, accessed May 2016.

FAA 2015. Advisory Circular 150/5070 ‐6B, Change 2, Airport Master Plans, January 27.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Marina, Cal‐ ifornia and Incorporated Areas, No. 06053C0195G, effective date April 2. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=marina%20municipal%20air‐ port#searchresultsanchor, accessed May 2016.

Monterey County 2008. 2007 Monterey County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH#2007121001, prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, September. Final EIR certified Novem‐ ber 22, 2010.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA‐NRCS) 2015. Web Soil Survey, survey data from August 24. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed May 2016.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EJScreen web tool. Available at: https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/index.html?wherestr=marina+municipal+airport, ac‐ cessed May 2016.

40 OAR DRAFT May 2018

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory 2016. Wetlands Mapper online tool. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed May.

41 Attachment A DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update (ALUCP) for Marina Municipal Airport includes policies to protect the public from the adverse effects of airport noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace. The ALUCP provides this protection by limiting/restricting future noise and risk‐sensitive land use development within the airport influence area (AIA) based on the location of noise, safety, and height zones. It should be noted that the ALUCP Update does not affect or remove existing incompatible uses from the AIA.

The State of California grants the authority of land use regulation to local governments and this is ac‐ complished through the use of general plans and zoning ordinances. California law also requires local governments to make their general plans and zoning regulations consistent with an ALUCP. As previously mentioned, ALUCP policies and criteria limit or restrict development in parts of the AIA that may other‐ wise be allowed under local general plans and zoning. Displacement for the purposes of this analysis will assess the potential noise and risk‐sensitive land uses that may be displaced to other areas after the land use agencies implement the ALUCP.

Environmental impacts from the displacement of future land uses from one area to another may occur within the AIA. Potential environmental effects associated with displaced development may include changes in land use patterns and associated shifts in the distribution and concentration of population.

A-1

Whether actual shifts in development would occur as a result of the proposed ALUCP would depend on the actual need for development; the rate, timing, location and extent of development; economic and market conditions; the nature and type of the project or projects; and project‐level impacts to the envi‐ ronment and associated mitigation. Attempts to accurately forecast the actual effects of potential future shifts in land use development and population are subject to considerable uncertainty. If such projects do occur in the future, like other land use development, they will be subject to the appropriate project‐ level environmental review under CEQA. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15145.)

The first section of this attachment provides a comparison of the previous 1996 Marina Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and the proposed ALUCP Update. Noise, safety, airspace zones, and criteria from the 1996 CLUP and ALUCP Update are compared to provide an understanding of the differences between the two plans. The second section of this attachment will analyze the potential displacement of future residential dwellings and acreage of future non‐residential development in the AIA between the 1996 CLUP and ALUCP Update.

SECTION 1: COMPATIBILITY POLICY COMPARISON

This section describes the 1996 CLUP and ALUCP Update noise, safety, and airspace compatibility poli‐ cies, and the potential for those policies to displace potential future development from within the noise compatibility zones to other areas.

NOISE COMPATIBILITY POLICY COMPARISON

Exhibit A1 depicts the noise compatibility criteria from the 1996 CLUP, which is included as Table 4‐1. As shown in the exhibit, all land uses are identified as “Permitted Uses” up to 60 CNEL. Within the 60‐ 65 CNEL range, multi‐family residential; hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts; hospitals; and churches, librar‐ ies and indoor auditoriums are conditionally permitted, “provided measures to achieve an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB are incorporated into the design and construction of all portions of the structure where people may be located.” Additionally, within the 60‐65 CNEL, the following land uses are not permitted: single family, mobile home parks, and nursing homes; schools and daycare facilities; outdoor restaurants; and outdoor arenas.

Within the 65‐70 CNEL noise contour range, the following land uses are conditionally permitted if the previous stated sound insulation standards are incorporated: hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts; hospi‐ tals; churches, libraries and indoor auditoriums; professional and business offices, research facilities; retail stores and shopping centers, indoor restaurants, and movie theaters; and service businesses. The following land uses are not permitted within the 65‐70 CNEL noise contour range: single family, mobile home parks, and nursing homes; multi‐family residential; schools and daycare facilities; outdoor restau‐ rants; neighborhood parks, playgrounds, and zoos; and outdoor arenas.

Above 70 CNEL, service businesses are listed as conditionally permitted and only the following land uses are permitted: parking lots and cemeteries; manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale trade; cropland and grazing; and golf courses and stables.

A-2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

11A 11B 29D 29C 11C 29A Legend

Departure Tracks Arrival Tracks 29C Municipal Boundaries 11C Airport Property Boundary

STATE HIGHWAY 1 11D

11 Source: 29B US Dept. of Agriculture NAIP Imagery 2012 DEL MONTE BLVD City of Marina Planning Office Monterey County Assessor's Office City of Marina 11B Note: 29 Monterey County Track 29D is the Noise Abatement Flight Track

RESERVATION RD 29B

BLANCO RD

IMJIN PARKWAY

INTER-GARRISON RD

29A

City of Seaside 11A ¯ 1"=3,000' Feet 11D 29D 0 3,000

Exhibit A1 ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS

As outlined in the 1996 CLUP, noise policies are implemented using noise exposure contours prepared as part of the 1993 Marina Municipal Airport Master Plan. The noise contours were calculated based on 60,000 annual operations.

The long range future (2034) CNEL aircraft noise exposure contours for Marina Municipal Airport are shown on Attachment K. These contours were prepared as part of the Airport Master Plan for Marina Municipal Airport dated September 2015. It is important to note that the long range noise exposure contours reflect the proposed 2,317‐foot runway extension to the northwest as depicted on the airport layout plan.

The noise compatibility criteria are presented in Attachment J of the plan and begins at 60 CNEL. As the noise exposure level increases, there are fewer compatible land uses and additional restrictions, such as avigation easements, and sound insulation requirements are applied. As noted in the table, all residen‐ tial and most public/institutional facility and recreational land uses are classified as not compatible with the 60‐64 CNEL range, while commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses are generally considered compatible within the noise exposure contours. Certain land uses, including indoor recreation, amuse‐ ments, athletic clubs, gyms and spectator events, movie theaters, parks, outdoor recreation: tennis, golf courses, riding trails; and hotels, motels, transient lodgings, and bed and breakfasts are conditionally compatible, “provided that sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower.”

Within the 65‐69 CNEL contour range, residential, recreational, and most public/institutional facilities are not compatible. Within this contour range, commercial land uses, with the exception of hotels, mo‐ tels, transient lodgings, and bed and breakfasts, are conditionally compatible provided an avigation ease‐ ment is granted to the City of Marina as operator of the airport.

Industrial land uses, as listed in the table, are compatible for the purposes of the ALUCP Update noise policies without restrictions.

Accessory dwellings associated with agricultural land uses within the 60‐64 CNEL range must be sound‐ insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. Within the 65‐69 CNEL noise contour range, accessory dwellings associated with agricultural land uses are not compatible.

SAFETY POLICY COMPARISON

The 1996 CLUP includes four safety zones (Runway Protection, Approach Protection, Traffic Pattern, and Overflight), as depicted on Exhibit A2, which were, “established based on the expected completion of the airport improvements as envisioned by the Airport Master Plan, as well as the projected flight tracks, type of aircraft, and number of aircraft operations expected.” The outermost boundary of the safety zones is also referred to as the Airport Planning Area. Within the plan, the Airport Planning Area, “con‐ sistse of all th land which may be adversely impacted by present or future aircraft operations at the Marina Municipal Airport.”

A-3

In conjunction with the safety zones, the 1996 CLUP provides a safety compatibility table (1996 CLUP Table 4‐2), which is shown on Exhibit A3. As shown on the exhibit, the safety compatibility table specifies maximum allowable residential densities (dwelling units per acre) and non‐residential intensities (people per acre); normally allowable uses; prohibited uses; and development conditions for each of the four zones.

As shown in the table, dwelling units are not allowed and up to 10 persons per acre are allowed within the RPZ. Within the Approach Protection Zone, one dwelling unit per 40 acres is allowed and a maximum of 50 people per acre is allowed for non‐residential land uses. Within the Traffic Pattern Zone, four to six dwelling units per acre and non‐residential land uses with up to 150 people per acre are allowed. Within the Overflight Zone, there are no limits on residential densities or non‐residential intensities.

The ALUCP Update includes seven zones, the dimensions of which are based on the 2011 California Air‐ port Land Use Planning Handbook. An additional zone (Zone 6) was added to identify areas of airport property that have different safety compatibility criteria than land that is controlled by an entity other than the airport sponsor. The safety zones include the runway protection zone (RPZ or Zone 1), inner approach/departure zone (IADZ or Zone 2), inner turning zone (ITZ or Zone 3), outer approach/departure zone (OADZ or Zone 4), the sideline safety zone (SSZ or Zone 5), airport zone (APZ or Zone 6), and the Airport Influence Area (AIA or Zone 7). The AIA is similar to the previously discussed Airport Planning Area (APA); however, the shape and extent of the APA is not explained within the text of the 1996 CLUP. The AIA as shown within the ALUCP Update is identified using the Airport’s Part 77 Conical, Approach, and Transitional Surfaces, and also includes an extension to the west that encompasses land below the airport’s planned Part 77 precision approach surface.

Within the ALUCP Update, the APZ and RPZ prohibit all residential development. Residential develop‐ ment is subject to density restrictions in the IADZ, ITZ, OADZ, and SSZ, with the lowest density in the IADZ (one dwelling unit per 10 acres) and the highest in ITZ, OADZ, and SSZ (one dwelling unit per 2 acres). There are no density restrictions in AIA. Non‐residential intensity restrictions are included for the fol‐ lowing five zones: IADZ, ITZ, OADZ, SSZ, and AIA. Safety compatibility policies for the ALUCP Update are described in Attachments G and H. Attachment G also specifies open land requirements with a footnote stating that, “open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. This is typically accomplished as part of a community general plan or a specific plan, but may also apply to large (10 acres or more) development projects.” The table also lists prohibited uses and other development conditions for each safety zone.

AIRSPACE POLICY COMPARISON

Height Limitations

The airspace protection and height limitation policies of the 1996 CLUP and ALUCP Update are similar. The 1997 CLUP considers the construction of any object determined by the FAA to constitute a hazard to safe air navigation as an incompatible use and states under Policy 2.3.1 that, “a structure or object that penetrates the [Part 77] surfaces is an incompatible land use.”

A-4 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

H2B H1B H1B H2B Legend Arrival Helicopter Tracks Departure Helicopter Tracks 29T Touch and Go Tracks 11T Municipal Boundaries

STATE HIGHWAY 1 Airport Property

Boundary 11 Source: US Dept. of Agriculture NAIP Imagery 2012 City of Marina Planning Office DEL MONTE BLVD Monterey County Monterey County Assessor's Office City of Marina

29 29T 11T

RESERVATION RD H2A

BLANCO RD H2A

IMJIN PARKWAY

INTER-GARRISON RD

H1A

City of Seaside ¯ H1A 1"=3,000' Feet 0 3,000

Exhibit A2 TOUCH-AND-GO AND HELICOPTER TRACKS Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in Decibals LAND USE Below Over 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85 Residential Residential, other than mobile 1 1 homes and transient lodgings Y N N NNN Mobile home parks Y NNNNN Transient lodgings Y N1 N1 N1 NN Public Use Schools Y N1 N1 NNN

H Hospitals and nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N Government services Y Y2530NN Transportation Y YY2 Y3 Y4 Y4 P Parking Y YY2 Y3 Y4 N Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y2530NN Wholesale and retail-building materials, 2 3 4 hardware and farm equipment Y YYY Y N Retail trade-general Y Y2530NN Utilities Y YY2 Y3 Y4 N

Communication Y Y2530NN Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general Y YY2 Y3 Y4 N Photographic and optical Y Y2530NN Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y6 Y7 Y8 Y8 Y8 Livestock farming and breeding Y Y6 Y7 NNN Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Y YYYYY Recreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y5 Y5 NNN Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y NNNNN Nature exhibits and zoos Y YNNNN Amusements, parks, resorts, and camps Y YYNNN Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation Y Y2530NN The designations contained in this table do not constitute a federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable under federal, state, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally-determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally-determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. See other side for notes and key to table.

Exhibit A3 PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan KEY

Y (Yes) Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions.

N (No) Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.

NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor-to-indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure.

25, 30, 35 Land Use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.

NOTES

1. Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor-to-indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB, respectively, should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide an NLR of 20 dB; thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems.

2. Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.

3. Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.

4. Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.

5. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.

6. Residential buildings require an NLR of 25.

7. Residential buildings require an NLR of 30.

8. Residential buildings not permitted.

Source: 14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1.

Exhibit A3 (CONTINUED) PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES

This policy is continued in the proposed ALUCP. The ALUCP Update has supplemented this policy with a more detailed explanation of the FAA process for reviewing proposed construction. Attachment C de‐ picts the current Part 77 surfaces used in the ALUCP Update. Other Compatibility Issues

The 1996 CLUP includes additional policies related to electrical interference, high intensity lighting, bird attractions, and activities that may produce smoke, dust, or glare. Additionally, the 1996 CLUP provides policies specific to the Marina Landfill located approximately one and a half miles north of the airport.

In Policy 2.4.1, the 1996 CLUP includes a provision of avigation easements to the City of Marina for all new land uses. The 1996 CLUP does not provide specific language for the avigation easement, but notes that the language will differ depending on which safety zone the affected property is located.

Similarly, prohibited flight hazards addressed in the ALUCP, as outlined in Section 4.2.3.4, include the following:

(a) Sources of glare, such as highly reflective buildings or building features, or bright lights, including search lights or laser displays, which would interfere with the vision of pilots making approaches to the Airport.

(b) Distracting lights that could be mistaken by pilots on approach to the Airport for airport identification lighting, runway edge lighting, runway end identification lighting, or runway approach lighting.

(d) Sources of electrical interference with aircraft or air traffic control communications or navigation equipment, including radar.

(e) Land uses that, as a regular byproduct of their operations, produce thermal plumes with the potential to rise high enough and at sufficient velocities to interfere with the control of aircraft in flight. Upward velocities of 4.3 meters (14.1 feet) per second at altitudes above 200 feet above the ground shall be considered as potentially interfering with the control of aircraft in flight.

(f) Any use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife, particularly large flocks of birds, that is in‐ consistent with FAA rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Dis‐ posal Sites On or Near Airports, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, and any successor or replacement orders or advisory circulars. Exceptions to this policy are acceptable for wetlands or other environmental mitigation projects required by ordinance, statute, court order, or record.

A-5

Armstrong Ranch/Marina Station

The area located west of the airport is known as Armstrong Ranch. A 320‐acre portion of this area is designated as the Marina Station development. As described on the City of Marina’s website, “entitle‐ ments call for the development of 1,360 residential units, including approximately 887 single‐family lots and 473 multi‐family units. Additionally, the project will include approximately 60,000 square feet of retail space, 144,000 square feet of office space, and 652,000 square feet of business park / industrial. Parks, playgrounds and open space will complete development of the site. This project is fully entitled, and currently the property owners are actively seeking a developer for this project.

Policy 2.5.1 of the 1996 CLUP acknowledges the City’s plans for development within this area and states, “the type, location, and density of the land uses within the Airport Planning Area shown on [the Arm‐ strong Ranch/Marina Station Plan] are incorporated into this Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Changes in this conceptual land use plan may be allowed so long as the land uses resulting from the changes are consistent with the policies of this [CLUP].”

SECTION 2: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

The State of California requires municipalities and counties to plan for future land use development within their jurisdictions. This requirement is accomplished through the preparation of general plans that determine the desired pattern of future development within their jurisdictions. Zoning ordinances are enacted and maintained by local governments to implement the goals and policies established in the general plans. State law also requires local governments to make their general plans and land use regu‐ lations consistent with any ALUC‐approved ALUCP applying within their jurisdictions. As the Marina Mu‐ nicipal Airport ALUCP includes policies and criteria that limit or restrict development in parts of the AIA, some future land uses otherwise allowed under local general plans may be displaced to other areas after the land use agencies implement the ALUCP. Potential environmental effects associated with displaced development may include changes in land use patterns and associated shifts in the distribution and con‐ centration of population. By restricting development in parts of the AIA, there is the potential for in‐ creased pressure for growth and development in other areas. If this land use development were to occur, potential environmental impacts arising from increased traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts could occur. The ALUCP would also restrict the height of proposed structures within airspace protection areas, although these provisions of the ALUCP are essentially the same as the 1996 CLUP and would represent little change from current policy.

As previously stated, future development, whether or not it is displaced, would be subject to the zoning and permitting authority of the local agencies (City of Marina or Monterey County). Under CEQA, the environmental impacts arising from future development projects would have to be specifically consid‐ ered in the environmental documents prepared for those projects as conditions of permit issuance. Thus, it is unlikely that any potential environmental impacts from future projects would avoid appropriate environmental review at the project level. An important purpose of this analysis of potential develop‐ ment displacement is that it will inform local agencies of the potential for displaced development and associated consequences, enabling them to plan accordingly.

A-6

Future development displacement is determined by comparing the Baseline Condition for undeveloped parcels to the proposed ALUCP Update. For the purposes of this analysis, the Baseline Condition is de‐ fined as the zoning and general plan designations, combined with the 1996 CLUP for Marina Municipal Airport. Undeveloped parcels are defined as vacant parcels that are zoned or planned for residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial land uses. The vacant parcel information is derived from the land use discussion and mapping presented in Section 2.2 of the ALUCP Update. Exhibit A4 depicts the un‐ developed parcels for the purposes of this analysis.

As discussed in Section 2.2 of the ALUCP Update, Marina Municipal Airport accounts for the largest por‐ tion of land within the ALUCP AIA within the City of Marina. Single family residential development is the second largest land use within the study area. These land uses are located south, southwest, and west of the airport. The next two largest areas are classified as open space and vacant/undeveloped area. The Marina Station Specific Plan area, located west of the airport, meets the definition of an existing land use for the purposes of this document because this project is fully entitled. The remaining areas are developed with multiple family residential, commercial, light industrial, Cal State Monterey Bay Univer‐ sity (CSUMB) campus, located south of the airport, and the Salinas River. Within Monterey County, a majority of the land within the AIA is designated as agricultural or open space land based on the Monte‐ rey County Assessor’s Office records. The agricultural areas are located north of the airport and the open space areas include portions of the CSUMB campus south of the airport. Public facility acreage includes the wastewater treatment facility located north of the airport. The remaining area of existing land use noted in the table is single family residential, which includes Cal State Monterey Bay University campus housing in the Fredericks‐Schoonover area.

To determine potential future development displacement, each parcel is classified in the geographical information system (GIS) with its designated zoning and general plan land uses, noise exposure contour level, safety zone, and airspace height limits. A series of database queries provides the number of resi‐ dential dwelling units and acres of non‐residential development that is allowed under the current 1996 CLUP (Baseline Condition) and proposed ALUCP Update. The difference between these two calculations quantifies the potential development displacement.

For the purposes of this analysis, only portions of those parcels within Zone 1 (Runway Protection Zone or RPZ), Zone 2 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone or IADZ), Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone or ITZ), Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone or OADZ), and Zone 5 (Sideline Safety Zone or SSZ) are included. Un‐ developed parcels within Zone 7 are not included in the analysis due to the absence of maximum resi‐ dential densities within these zones as specified in Attachment G of the ALUCP Update; therefore, dis‐ placement would not occur in these areas. Additionally, with regard to non‐residential displacement, the only type of land use which is prohibited within the AIA is outdoor stadiums or other high intensity uses with more than 300 people per acre.

RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

Based on a review of the parcels within Zones 1‐5 for the ALUCP Update, there are no parcels planned or zoned for residential development which meet the definition of undeveloped for the purposes of this analysis. As previously discussed, the Marina Station development is considered an existing land use for the purposes of this plan and is, therefore, not subject to the ALUCP Update.

A-7

Given the absence of undeveloped land that is planned or zoned for residential development within ALUCP Update Zones 1‐5, adoption of the ALUCP Update will not displace residential development.

NON‐RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

Based on a review of the undeveloped area identified for this analysis, approximately 17 acres, identified on Exhibit A4, within Monterey County are subject to the 1996 CLUP safety zones. Portions of these parcels are planned for commercial development and zoned for public facilities. Under the 1996 CLUP, 4.9 undeveloped acres are within the RPZ (zero persons per acre) and 12.2 acres are within the Approach Protection Zone (50 persons per acre). These areas would both be located within Zone 7 under the ALUCP Update and subject to an intensity limit of 300 persons per acre. Additionally, these parcels are not located within the 70 CNEL noise contour and the planned development would be consistent with the ALUCP Update. Therefore, no displacement on these parcels would occur.

For the purposes of this analysis, the remaining undeveloped area within the 1996 CLUP zones and ALUCP Update zones totals 3.75 acres and is part of a larger 292‐acre parcel located east of the airport. Under the 1996 CLUP, this area is within the Approach Protection Zone, which limits development to 50 persons per acre and under the ALUCP Update would be subject to an intensity limitation of 60 people per acre. As previously discussed, the ALUCP Update includes open space requirements; however, these would not be applicable to eth 3.75‐acre site as the footnote regarding large (10 acres or more) devel‐ opment projects. Additionally, this site is not located within the 70 CNEL noise contour and the planned development would be consistent with the ALUCP Update. Therefore, no non‐residential development displacement would occur.

Based on this analysis, the ALUCP Update will not displace non‐residential development.

SUMMARY

Implementation of the ALUCP is not expected to result in displacement of future residential or non‐ residential development within the AIA based on existing zoning designations, when combined with the ALUCP Update zones.

It is important to note that the proposed ALUCP is not a development plan (i.e., no specific land uses are designated for any particular parcel or parcels). Whether actual shifts in development would occur as a result of the proposed ALUCP would depend on the actual need for development; the rate, timing, loca‐ tion and extent of development; economic and market conditions; the nature and type of the project or projects; and project‐level impacts to the environment and associated mitigation. Attempts to accurately forecast the actual effects of potential future shifts in land use development and population are subject to considerable uncertainty. If such projects do occur in the future, like other land use development, they will be subject to the appropriate project‐level environmental review under CEQA. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15145.)

A-8 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

LAND USE CATEGORY COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE - L or CNEL, dB dn 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential - Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes

Residential - Multi Family

Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

Golf Courses, riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

INTERPRETATION Normally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the New construction or development should generally be assumption that any buildings involved are of normal discouraged. If new construction or development conventional construction., without any special noise does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduc- insulation. tion requirements must be made and needed noise Conditionally Acceptable insulation features included in the design. New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features includ- Clearly Unacceptable ed in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed New construction or development windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will should generally not be undertaken. normally suffice.

Exhibit A4 CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDANCE

An important purpose of this analysis of potential development displacement is that it will inform local agencies of the potential for displaced development and associated consequences, enabling them to plan accordingly. The ultimate authority for implementation of the ALUCP rests with local governments as the zoning and land use permitting authorities. These local governments have multiple options re‐ garding how to implement the new policies and criteria in the ALUCP. Thus, the potential displacement effects discussed in this analysis could change depending on the specific implementation actions taken by the local jurisdictions and the ALUC.

A-9 YubaYuba City City ATTACHMENT B UkiahUkiah Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Foresthill Lincoln South Lake Tahoe Auburn Woodland 50 50 Placerville HealdsburgHealdsburg 505 Nevada CaliforniaCal 101 Santa Rosa Davis Sacramento ifo rnia Petaluma Napa Jackson 5 Fairfield San Andreas 395 Vallejo Lodi Concord San Francisco Stockton Manteca Oakland Tracy Pacifica Modesto San Mammoth Carlos Fremont 580 Mariposa Lakes Menlo Park San Jose Merced Bishop

Marina Los Banos Chowchilla Municipal 5 Santa Cruz Airport Madera Fresno Salinas Marina Mendota Monterey Seaside Kingsburg Orisi Soledad GreenfieldGre California Huron Exeter King City Coalinga Corcoran Porterville 101 Avenal Vicinity Pictured 5 Delano Paso Robles Wasco McFarlandMcFarland Shafter

San Luis Obispo

vd Taft Bl Oceano Arvin Marina

Del Monte Blvd Municipal Santa Maria Airport Cooper Rd

Reservation Rd se Santa Santa Barbara Santa PaulaPaula 101 Simi Valley Valley Ventura CaliforniaC Ave CamarilloCamarillo 12th St Blanco Rd Oxnard

Cabrillo Hwy Imjin Pkwy Santa Monica

2nd Ave Inter-Garrison Rd Long Beach Exhibit 1A LOCATION MAP

b i

Exhibit 4D

i A MARINA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 14 CFR PART 77 SURFACES 14 CFR PART AIRPORT MARINA MUNICIPAL

487.0' 450.0' 287.0'

400.0' 350.0' 250.0'

300.0'

200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 287.0' msl 29

Horizontal Surface Elevation

150.0' 150.0' ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT 200.0' Elevation: 137.0' msl 137.0' Elevation:

Marina Municipal Airport Municipal Marina

250.0' 250.0' 287.0' 287.0'

Feet

350.0' 350.0'

400.0' 400.0' 450.0' 450.0' ¯

5,000 10,000

487.0' 487.0'

530.0' 530.0' 580.0' 580.0'

630.0' 630.0'

680.0' 680.0'

730.0' 730.0'

780.0' 780.0' 830.0' 830.0'

0 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 57 880.0' 880.0'

Terrain Penetrations Terrain Feet in Value 930.0' 930.0'

LEGEND 9 Approach Transitional Horizontal Conical Part 77 Surfaces 50ft Terrain Buffer Source: Coffman Associates Analysis ATTACHMENT D Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

Legend General Plan Agriculture Commercial Light Industrial Open Space Public Facilities Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential City Limits Horizontal Surface 11 Property Boundary

Source: US Dept. of Agriculture NAIP Imagery 2012 29 City of Marina Planning Office Monterey County Assessor's Office

0 2,500 5,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,500 feet

Exhibit 2C GENERAL PLAN ATTACHMENT E Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

Legend Zoning Agriculture Airport Business Park Commercial Habitat Light Industrial Open Space Public Facilities Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Specific Plan 11 Marina Station Specific Plan City Limits

29 Horizontal Surface Property Boundary

Source: US Dept. of Agriculture NAIP Imagery 2012 City of Marina Planning Office Monterey County Assessor's Office ¯ 0 2,500 5,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,500 feet

Exhibit 2B ZONING ATTACHMENT F

Appendix A – Noise Modeling Input Assumptions

AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The standard methodology for analyzing noise conditions at airports involves the use of a computer simulation model. Here, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0d was used to develop noise exposure contours for Marina Municipal Airport (OAR or the Airport).

INM was programmed to compute aircraft noise in the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise metric. CNEL is defined as the average A‐weighted sound level as measured in decibels (dB) during a 24‐hour period. CNEL accounts for the increased sensitivity to noise at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and during the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). A 10 dB weighting is applied to noise events occurring at night, and a 4.8 dB weighting is applied to those occurring during the evening hours. CNEL is an objective summation metric that can describe noise exposure comprehensively over a large area. In addition to being widely accepted and the metric used by the State of California to define acceptable noise levels around airports (see Cal. Code Regs., title 21, §5006), the primary benefit of using the CNEL metric is that it accounts for the average community response to noise as determined by the actual number and types of noise events and the time of day they occur. INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level around an airport. It then selects the shortest distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes the noise exposure for each aircraft operation by aircraft type and engine thrust level, along each flight track. Corrections are applied for air‐to‐ground acoustical attenu‐ ation, acoustical shielding of the aircraft engines by the aircraft itself, and aircraft speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each aircraft are summed at each grid location. The CNEL at all grid points is used to develop noise exposure contours for selected values (e.g., 65, 70, and 75 CNEL). Noise contours are then plotted on a base map of the airport environs using the CNEL metrics. In addition to the mathematical procedures defined in the model, INM contains a database correlating noise, thrust settings, and flight profiles for most of the civilian aircraft and many common military aircraft operat‐ ing in the United States. (Aircraft not included in the model’s database may be defined for modeling, subject to FAA approval. Additionally, for those aircraft not specifically identified in the INM, the FAA provides a list of appropriate substitute aircraft.) This database, often referred to as the noise curve data, has been developed under FAA guidance based on rigorous noise monitoring in controlled set‐ tings. In fact, the INM database was developed through more than a decade of research, including ex‐ tensive field measurements of more than 10,000 aircraft operations. The database also includes per‐ formance data for each aircraft to allow for the computation of airport‐specific flight profiles (rates of climb and descent).

INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL (INM) INPUT

A variety of user‐supplied input data is required to use INM, including airport elevation, average annual temperature, airport area terrain, a mathematical definition of the airport runways, a mathematical description of ground tracks above which aircraft fly, and the assignment of specific take‐off weights to individual flight tracks.

Airport Activity Data

Airport activity or operational levels are defined by the take‐offs and landings by aircraft operating at a facility. The attributes of the activity levels are further described as either local, indicating aircraft practicing take‐offs and landings (i.e., performing touch‐and‐go’s), or itinerant, referring to the initial departure from or final arrival at an airport.

Table A1 provides a summary of operations for the existing condition (2013) and 20‐year forecast (2033).

Several sources were used to develop the 2013 operations estimate. These include the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF), Caltrans’ 2006 acoustical count, and based aircraft counts from the 2008 Airport Master Plan and current Master Plan Update. When the TAF and Caltrans acoustical count results were extrapolated over a year, the total estimated number of operations was 38,900. However, avia‐ tion demand contracted dramatically with the onset of the 2008/2009 national recession and subse‐ quent slow recovery. Activity at general aviation airports across the country declined. Marina Munici‐ pal Airport has not been immune to this national trend. In 2008, the airport master plan estimated there were 70 based aircraft. As of 2013, following a physical count of aircraft, there were 50 based aircraft, a decline of approximately 29 percent. Because of this, overall airport operations have also declined, and the estimated number of annual operations has been reduced to 30,000. TABLE A1 Operational Fleet Mix Marina Municipal Airport ITINERANT Business Jets and Turboprop Aircraft Aircraft INM Designator 2013 2033 Cessna 500 CNA500 50 500 Turboprop DHC6 3,000 3,500 General Aviation Multi‐Engine Piston BEC58P 250 500 Single Engine Piston Var. Pitch GASEPV 8,100 11,530 Single Engine Fixed Pitch GASEPF 8,100 11,530 Helicopter Helicopter H500D 400 700 Military Helicopter S70 200 550 TOTAL ITINERANT 20,100 28,810 LOCAL General Aviation Single Engine Piston Var. Pitch GASEPV 4700 6300 Single Engine Piston Fixed Pitch GASEPF 4700 6400 Multi‐Engine Piston BEC58P 300 600 Helicopter H500D 100 590 Military Helicopter S70 100 300 TOTAL LOCAL 9,900 14,190 TOTAL OPERATIONS 30,000 43,000 1 Coffman Associates analysis 2 Operational forecasts prepared by Coffman Associates as part of the 2014 Marina Municipal Airport Master Plan.

Fleet Mix

The selection of individual aircraft types is important to the modeling process because different aircraft types generate different noise levels. The aircraft fleet mix was derived from an inventory of existing operations at the airport. Table A1 summarizes the generalized fleet mix data input into the noise analysis.

Database Selection

In order to select the proper aircraft from the INM database, a review of the current fleet mix for OAR was conducted. The following paragraphs outline the database selections used for input into the INM.

Table A1 lists the annual operations by aircraft type. The included aircraft were selected to provide a realistic representation of operations at OAR. Flight plans, airline flight schedules, airfield observa‐ tions, and based aircraft lists were used to determine the types of aircraft that frequently use the Air‐ port. As previously mentioned, for those aircraft not specifically identified in the INM database, the FAA provides a list of appropriate substitute aircraft. The following discussion provides additional de‐ tail about the INM designators (including those on the FAA’s substitution list) utilized in this analysis and shown in Table A1.

The FAA aircraft substitution list indicates that the general aviation single engine variable‐pitch propel‐ ler model, the GASEPV, represents a number of single engine general aviation aircraft. Among others, these include the Beech Bonanza, Cessna 177 and 180, Piper Cherokee Arrow, and Cessna Caravan. The general aviation single engine fixed‐pitch propeller model, the GASEPF, also represents several sin‐ gle engine general aviation aircraft. These include the Cessna 150 and 172, Piper Archer, and the Piper Tomahawk.

The FAA's substitution list included with the INM documentation identifies the BEC58P, the Beech Bar‐ on, as a substitute for light twin‐engine aircraft, such as Beech 50, Beech 55, Piper PA‐23, PA‐30, PA‐34, Cessna 304, Cessna 310, and Cessna 401 among others. Additionally, the Cessna 182, 206, 208, and 441 are represented by the CNA182, CNA206, CNA208, and CNA441 designators, respectively. The CNA500 designator represents the business jets operating at Marina Municipal Airport. The two en‐ gine turboprop is represented by the DHC6. General aviation helicopter operations are represented by the H500D.

Military helicopter operations at Marina Municipal Airport were represented by the S70 designator. All substitutions are commensurate with published FAA guidelines.

Time‐of‐Day

The time‐of‐day when aircraft operations occur is important due to the CNEL weighting of operations with a 10dB penalty during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and 4.8‐dB penalty during even‐ ing hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). In calculating airport noise exposure, one operation at night has the same noise emission value as 10 operations during the day by the same aircraft.

OAR does not have an airport traffic control tower (ATCT). Specific counts for general aviation evening and nighttime activity were based upon estimates from airport staff. For the purposes of this analysis, operations were assumed to be 98 percent daytime, one percent evening, and one percent nighttime. There percentages were also applied to the 20‐year forecast scenario.

Runway Use

Runway usage data also is essential to the development of noise exposure contours in INM. Local wind data can be used as a general guideline for determining runway use percentages. However, local wind data provides only the directional availability of a runway and does not consider pilot selection, prima‐ ry runway operations, or local operating conventions. Here, continuous runway use records are not maintained by the airport. The runway use distribution at OAR was based upon interviews with airport staff. Table A2 summarizes the runway use percentages for the existing and future conditions. TABLE A2 Runway Use Percentages by Aircraft Type Marina Municipal Airport Arrivals and Departures Touch‐and‐Go Runway Business Jet Turboprop Piston Piston 11 10% 10% 20% 20% 29 90% 90% 80% 80% Source: Interview with Marina Municipal Airport Staff

Flight Tracks

A review of local flight procedures was used to develop consolidated flight tracks for use in the INM. Entry to the local traffic pattern was assumed to be by straight‐in or 45‐degree entry from the north and east depicted by tracks 11C and 29C on Exhibit A1. The local traffic pattern keeps aircraft north‐ east of the runway as Runway 11 has established a left‐hand traffic pattern and Runway 29 has an es‐ tablished right‐hand traffic pattern, depicted with tracks 11T and 29T on Exhibit A2. Straight‐in/out and 45‐degree departures from the traffic pattern were also assumed depicted by tracks 11A, B, D and 29A, B, D on Exhibit A1.

Flight Profiles

The standard arrival profile used in INM is a three‐degree approach. There is no indication that there is any variation in this standard procedure at OAR; therefore, the standard approach was included in the model as representative of local operating conditions.

INM computes the take‐off profiles based on the user‐supplied airport elevation and average annual temperature entries in the input batch. At OAR, the elevation is 137 feet mean sea level (MSL) and the average annual temperature is 57.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F), based on information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

INM computes separate departure profiles (altitude at a specified distance from the airport with asso‐ ciated velocity and thrust settings) for each of the various types of aircraft using the Airport.

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY THRESHOLDS

Both the FAA and the State of California provide guidance for acceptable noise levels for a variety of land uses. Additionally, the State of California has adopted regulations to address noise‐sensitive land uses within the vicinity of airports. The guidance discussed below is the minimum standard for noise compatibility thresholds. Local entities, such as cities and counties, may adopt more restrictive noise standards. For example, some communities in rural areas, which generally have lower ambient noise levels, choose to lower the compatibility threshold for residential development to 60 or 55 CNEL. At Marina Municipal Airport, the future noise exposure contours remain largely on airport property; Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

11A 11B 29D 29C 11C 29A Legend

Departure Tracks Arrival Tracks 29C Municipal Boundaries 11C Airport Property Boundary

STATE HIGHWAY 1 11D

RESERVATION RD 29B

BLANCO RD

IMJIN PARKWAY

INTER-GARRISON RD

29A

City of Seaside 11A ¯ 1"=3,000' Feet 11D 29D 0 3,000

Exhibit A1 ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

H2B H1B H1B H2B Legend Arrival Helicopter Tracks Departure Helicopter Tracks 29T Touch and Go Tracks 11T Municipal Boundaries

STATE HIGHWAY 1 Airport Property

Boundary 11 Source: US Dept. of Agriculture NAIP Imagery 2012 City of Marina Planning Office DEL MONTE BLVD Monterey County Monterey County Assessor's Office City of Marina

29 29T 11T

RESERVATION RD H2A

BLANCO RD H2A

IMJIN PARKWAY

INTER-GARRISON RD

H1A

City of Seaside ¯ H1A 1"=3,000' Feet 0 3,000

Exhibit A2 TOUCH-AND-GO AND HELICOPTER TRACKS therefore, land uses such as the Marina Station Specific Plan area to the west and the UC MBEST cam‐ pus to the south would not be encompassed by the contours.

FAA GUIDANCE

FAA land use compatibility guidance is provided in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 150 – Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. FAA guidelines are summarized in Exhibit A3. As shown in this exhibit, all land uses are acceptable in areas below 65 CNEL. Once noise levels meet or exceed 65 CNEL, noise‐sensitive land uses are compatible only if specified noise level reductions are secured through project design and construction, such as new attic insulation and acoustically rated exterior doors, storm doors, and windows.

Above the 65 CNEL threshold and without measures to reduce noise levels, land uses are generally considered incompatible with airport operations. Residential land uses without acoustic treatment and transient lodging, such as hotels without acoustic treatment and mobile homes, are all incompati‐ ble in areas of noise exposure above 65 CNEL. Homes of standard construction and hotels may be con‐ sidered compatible where local communities have determined these uses are permissible; however, acoustic treatment of these structures is recommended to meet noise level reduction thresholds when comparing the outdoor noise level to the indoor noise level. Schools and other public‐use facilities are also generally considered to be incompatible with noise exposure above 65 CNEL. As with residential development, communities can make a policy decision that these uses are acceptable with appropriate sound attenuation measures. Hospitals and nursing homes, places of worship, auditoriums, and con‐ cert halls are structures generally considered compatible if measures to achieve noise level reduction are incorporated into the design and construction of structures. Outdoor music shells and amphithea‐ ters are not compatible and should be prohibited within the 65 CNEL noise contour. However, other outdoor recreational uses, such as motorsports, may be considered compatible above 65 CNEL. Addi‐ tionally, agricultural uses and livestock farming are generally considered compatible with the exception of related residential components of these uses, which should incorporate sound attenuation measures.

Within the 70−75 CNEL noise contour range, residences, transient lodging, and schools have the same sound attenuation recommendations as within the 65−70 CNEL range. Additionally, as the noise levels increase, the following land uses identified in the table are recommended to have sound attenuation: governmental services, transportation, parking, offices, wholesale and retail, utilities, communication, manufacturing, photographic and optical, golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation. In addition to those identified within the 65−70 CNEL contour range, the FAA discourages the following land uses within the 70−75 CNEL contour range: nature exhibits and zoos. Beyond the 75 CNEL contour, the land use recommendations are increasingly more stringent as the noise levels increase.

CALIFORNIA GUIDANCE

The State of California 2003 General Plan Guidelines also provide guidance regarding airport land use compatibility. As shown in Exhibit A4, the chart provides recommendations similar to the Part 150 guidance. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

Exhibit A3 PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan KEY

Y (Yes) Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions.

N (No) Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.

NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor-to-indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure.

25, 30, 35 Land Use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.

NOTES

5. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.

6. Residential buildings require an NLR of 25.

7. Residential buildings require an NLR of 30.

8. Residential buildings not permitted.

Source: 14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1.

Exhibit A3 (CONTINUED) PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

LAND USE CATEGORY COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE - L or CNEL, dB dn 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential - Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes

Residential - Multi Family

Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

Golf Courses, riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

Exhibit A4 CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDANCE The 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states that, “65 dB CNEL is not an appropriate criterion for new noise‐sensitive development around most airports. At a minimum, communities should assess the suitability and feasibility of setting a lower standard for new residential and other noise‐sensitive development.” The 2011 Handbook provides guidance for alternative noise compati‐ bility criteria, which is outlined in Table A3.

TABLE A3 Noise Compatibility Criteria Alternatives (New Residential Land Uses) CNEL Criteria Suggested Applicability Set by the FAA and other federal agencies as the level above which res‐ Generally not appropriate for most 65 idential land uses may be incompatible if not acoustically treated. new development.

Established by California state regulations as the maximum normally May be acceptable in noisy urban loca‐ acceptable noise level for residential and certain other land uses at tions and/or in hot climates where county‐designated noise‐problem airports. most buildings are air conditioned.

The contour within which California Building Code (Section 1207.11) Suitable for new development around 60 requires an acoustical analysis of proposed residential structures, other most airports. than detached single‐family dwellings. Particularly appropriate in mild cli‐ Suggested by the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research mates where windows are often open. General Plan Guidelines as the maximum “normally acceptable” noise exposure for residential areas.

[Note: Individual noise events will occasionally cause significant inter‐ ference with residential land use activities, particularly outdoor activi‐ ties, in quiet suburban/rural communities.] Identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the level be‐ Suitable for airports in quiet, rural loca‐ 55 low which “undue interference with activity and annoyance” will not tions. occur.

[Note: Individual noise events will seldom significantly interfere with residential land use activities (e.g., interference with speech).

In urban areas, aircraft contribution to this noise level may be less than that of other noise sources.] Source: California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2011, Table 4B.

CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS

The California Code of Regulations identifies 65 CNEL as the level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport. This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have windows partially open. It has been selected with reference to speech, sleep and community reaction.1

The regulations also identify the following land uses as incompatible within the 65 CNEL noise contour at designated “noise problem airports”: residences, public and private schools, hospitals and convales‐ cent homes, and churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship.2

1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Division 2.5, Chapter 6, Section 5006. 2 Noise problem airports must be so designated by the County Board of Supervisors, which has not been done for Marina Municipal Airport. Additionally, the 2007 edition of the California Building Code establishes acceptable interior noise lev‐ els associated with exterior noise sources. The standards, specified in California Building Code, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Section 1207.11 apply only to new hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment hous‐ es, and dwellings other than detached single family residences, and state:

Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the Day Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) or the Commu‐ nity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan. Worst‐case noise levels, either existing or future, shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with [these standards]. Future noise levels shall be predicted for a period of at least 10 years from the time of a building permit application.

The Code also states that new residential land uses within the 60 CNEL noise contour as identified on the community adopted general plan require an acoustical analysis to determine if the interior‐to‐ exterior sound reduction is achieved.

MARINA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE THRESHOLD

As indicated on Exhibit 2A in Chapter 2, land to the north of the airport is largely undeveloped. Imme‐ diately south of the airport, on the north side of Reservation Road, are two areas of commercial and industrial development: the Marina Airport Business Park and the University of California Monterey Bay Education, Science and Technology Center (UC MBEST) central north campus. To the west of the airport, the density of development increases and includes much of the residential area of the City of Marina. Lower density residential development is located south of the airport and is associated with the Cal State Monterey Bay University (CSUMB) campus.

The 1996 CLUP set the noise threshold for single family residential at 60 CNEL. The City of Marina General Plan references the 1996 CLUP noise standards and as shown in Table A4 has established noise standards for residential development that is consistent with the 1996 CLUP. To remain consistent with the 1996 CLUP and the City of Marina General Plan, the 60 CNEL noise threshold will be consid‐ ered to be maintained in the updated airport land use compatibility plan for Marina Municipal Airport. Noise compatibility policies are further discussed in Section 4 of this Appendix (this Section is forthcom‐ ing).

Noise standards are utilized when evaluating the effects of noise on future developments. The 60 CNEL noise compatibility standards were used, for example, when preparing the Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Station Specific Plan located west of the Marina Municipal Airport. Based upon the 20‐year forecast noise exposure contours depicted on Exhibit 2‐E, the Marina Station proposed de‐ velopment is consistent with the 60 CNEL noise compatibility standards in the 1996 CLUP and City of Marina General Plan, and airport operations would not pose a noise impact in this area.

To remain consistent with the 1996 CLUP and The City of Marina General Plan, the City should continue to use the 60 CNEL as the noise threshold for land use compatibility in the Marina Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update. TABLE A4 City of Marina Noise Compatibility Criteria Maximum Exterior (Ldn) Land Use Category Conditionally Maximum Interior1 Acceptable Acceptable Residential 60 70 45 Live/Work 65 75 50 Motel/Hotel 65 75 50 Office 67 77 55 Other Commercial 70 80 60 Industrial/Agriculture 70 80 60 Schools, Libraries, 60 70 45 heaters, Churches, Nursing Homes Parks and Playfields 65 70 NA Golf Courses, Riding Stables, 70 75 NA Cemeteries Source: Table 4.1 Allowable Noise Standards, City of Marina General Plan, 2000. 1 It is preferred that the interior noise standard be attained with open windows. However, where the interior noise stand‐ ard is attainable only with closed windows and doors, mechanical ventilation shall be required. ATTACHMENT G Safety Criteria Matrix Marina Municipal Airport Maximum Densities/Intensities/Required Open Land Additional Criteria Maximum Dwelling Non‐residen‐ Required Units per tial Open Other Development Zone Acre1 Intensity2 Land3 Prohibited Uses4 Conditions5 Zone 1 None None All unused  All structures except ones with loca‐  Airport disclosure no‐ RPZ tion set by aeronautical function tice required  All assemblages of people  Objects exceeding 14 CFR Part 77 height limits  Natural gas & petroleum pipelines10  Dumps or landfills, other than those consisting entirely of earth & rock.  Hazards to flight6 Zone 2 1 d.u. per 10 60 persons 30%  Residential, except for very low resi‐  Airport disclosure no‐ IADZ acres per acre dential and infill in developed areas11 tice required  Hazardous uses (e.g., aboveground  Locate structure’s maxi‐ bulk fuel storage) mum distance from ex‐  Natural gas & petroleum pipelines10 tended runway centerline  Office buildings greater than 3 stories  Airspace review re‐  Labor‐intensive industrial uses quired for objects > 35 feet  Children’s schools, day care centers, li‐ tall8 braries  Hospitals, nursing homes  Places of worship  Schools  Recreational uses, athletic fields, play‐ grounds, & riding stables  Theaters, auditoriums, & stadiums  Dumps or landfills, other than those consisting entirely of earth & rock.  Waterways that create a bird hazard  Hazards to flight6 Zone 3 1 d.u. per 2 100 persons 20%  Residential, except for low residential  Same as IADZ zone ITZ acres per acre and infill in developed areas11  Hazardous uses (e.g., aboveground bulk fuel storage)  Natural gas & petroleum pipelines10  Buildings with more than 3 above‐ ground habitable floors  Children’s schools, day care centers, li‐ braries  Hospitals, nursing homes  Places of worship  Schools  Recreational uses, athletic fields, play‐ grounds, & riding stables  Theaters, auditoriums, & stadiums  Dumps or landfills, other than those consisting entirely of earth & rock.  Waterways that create a bird hazard  Hazards to flight6 ATTACHMENT G (Continued) Safety Criteria Matrix Marina Municipal Airport Maximum Densities/Intensities/Required Open Land Additional Criteria Maximum Dwelling Non‐residen‐ Required Units per tial Open Other Development Zone Acre1 Intensity2 Land3 Prohibited Uses4 Conditions5 Zone 4 1 d.u. per 2 150 persons 20%  Children’s schools, day care centers,  Airport disclosure notice OADZ acres per acre libraries required  Hospitals, nursing homes  Airspace review re‐  Bldgs. with >3 aboveground habitable quired for objects >70 feet floors tall9  Highly noise‐sensitive outdoor non‐ residential uses7  Hazards to flight6 Zone 5 1 d.u. per 2 100 persons 30%  Same as IADZ zone  Same as IADZ zone SSZ acres per acre Zone 6 None No Limit No  Hazards to flight6  Airport disclosure notice APZ Requirement required  Airspace review re‐ quired for objects >70 feet tall9 Zone 7 No Limit 300 persons 10%  Hazards to flight6  Airport disclosure notice AIA per acre  Outdoor stadiums and similar uses required with very high intensity uses  Airspace review re‐ quired for objects >100 feet tall9  New structures are pro‐ hibited on existing terrain that penetrates 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces9  New structures require additional airspace analysis within the 50‐foot terrain penetration buffer 9 Notes: 1 Residential development must not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (excluding secondary units) per gross acre (d.u./ac). Clustering of units is encouraged. Gross acreage includes the property at issue plus a share of adjacent roads and any adjacent, permanently dedi‐ cated, open lands associated with the property. 2 Usage intensity calculations shall include the maximum number of people (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.) who may be on the parcels or site at a single point in time, whether indoors or outside. 3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. This is typically accomplished as part of a community general plan or a specific plan, but may also apply to large (10 acres or more) development projects. 4 The uses listed here are ones that are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria. Also see Sections Error! Reference source not found.for policies on similar uses and special conditions. 5 As part of certain real estate transactions involving residential property within any compatibility zone (that is, anywhere within an airport influence area), information regarding airport proximity and the existence of aircraft overflights must be disclosed. This requirement is set by state law. 6 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Land use development, such as golf courses and certain types of crops as outlined in FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5200‐33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, that may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited. 7 Examples of highly noise‐sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses that should be prohibited include amphitheaters and drive‐in theaters. Caution should be exercised with respect to uses such as poultry farms and nature preserves. 8 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted. However, the FAA may require Form 7460‐1, marking, and lighting of certain objects. 9 This height criterion is for general guidance. Shorter objects normally will not be airspace obstructions unless situated at a ground elevation well above that of the airport. Taller objects may be acceptable if determined not to be obstructions. Developers proposing structures that could pene‐ trate 14 CFR Part 77 elevations must file Form 7460 with the FAA. 10 Natural gas & petroleum pipelines less than 36 inches below the surface. 11 The definition of infill can be found in Section Error! Reference source not found.

RPZ ‐ Runway Protection Zone OADZ ‐ Outer Approach/Departure Zone IADZ ‐ Inner Approach/Departure Zone APZ ‐ Airport Property Zone ITZ ‐Inner Turning Zone SSZ ‐ Sideline Safety Zone AIA ‐ Airport Influence Area

n Pkwy Imjin

b i

Exhibit 4C

U 5800' Runway

1,500

o p

N r

1" = 1,500'

i A 0

MARINA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES SAFETY AIRPORT MARINA MUNICIPAL Blanco Rd Blanco 11

Outer Approach/Departure (Zone 4) Sideline (Zone5) AirportProperty (Zone 6)

Pkwy

almonSt S n o llm Ta De Forest Rd Forest De Runway Protection (Zone 1) Inner Approach/Departure (Zone 2) Inner Turning (Zone 3)

Legend

Beach Rd Beach Del Monte Blvd Monte Del North End South End Runway 11 Runway 29Runway 0 ATTACHMENT H 0 0 , £ 1" = 5,000' 05 4 3 2 1

2 Blanco Rd Blanco 2 6 6 5 5

5800' Runway 2

2 Imjin Pkwy Imjin

Reservation Rd 3 7 1 2

4 Del Monte Blvd Monte Del Legend Existing Runway Existing 2317' Runway Extension Runway Protection (Zone 1) InnerApproach/Departure (Zone2) InnerTurning (Zone 3) 4) (Zone Approach/Departure Outer Sideline (Zone5) 6) (Zone Property Airport AirportInfluence Area(Zone 7) Runway Safety Zones ATTACHMENT I Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

Legend Existing Land Use Airport Agricultural Commercial Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Light Industrial Open Space Habitat Public Facility Marina Station Vacant/Undeveloped

11 Water CityLimits Property Boundary

29 Horizontal Surface Source: US Dept. of Agriculture NAIP Imagery 2012 City of Marina Planning Office Monterey County Assessors Office ¯

0 2,500 5,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,500 feet

Exhibit 2A EXISTING LAND USE ATTACHMENT J Noise Compatibility Criteria Marina Municipal Airport CNEL 60‐64 65‐69 70+ RESIDENTIAL Single units – detached N N N Singe units – semi‐detached N N N Single units – attached row N N N Two units N N N Multi‐family, three or more units (rental and ownership) N N N Group quarters (including retirement homes; assisted living; nursing homes, col‐ N N N lege dormitories, military barracks, correctional residential facilities, extended stay hotels*) Mobile home park or courts N N N PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES Education facilities (including daycare centers (> 14 children), children schools (K‐ N N N 12 grade), adult schools, colleges, universities) Religious facilities, libraries, museums, galleries, clubs, lodges N N N Hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care services N N N Governmental services (administrative, police, fire stations**) N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters N N N Cemeteries, cemetery chapels; mortuaries Y Y N RECREATIONAL Outdoor sport events, stadiums, playgrounds, campgrounds, and recreational ve‐ N N N hicle parks Nature exhibits, wildlife reserves, and zoos N N N Indoor recreation, amusements, athletic clubs, gyms and spectator events, movie theaters, parks, outdoor recreation: tennis, golf courses, riding trails, etc. C N N COMMERCIAL Wholesale Trade Y C(1) N Retail trade (eating and drinking establishments, personal services, and dance stu‐ Y C(1) N dios) Finance, insurance, and real estate services Y C(1) N Business services Y C(1) N Repair services Y C(1) N Professional services Y C(1) N Hotels, motels, transient lodgings, and bed and breakfasts C(1) N N

ATTACHMENT J (Continued) Noise Compatibility Criteria Marina Municipal Airport CNEL 60‐64 65‐69 70+ INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing Y Y Y Printing, publishing, and allied industries Y Y Y Chemicals and allied products manufacturing Y Y Y Miscellaneous manufacturing Y Y Y Highway and street right‐of‐way and other transportation, communication, and Y Y Y utilities Automobile parking, car dealerships, car washes, indoor/outdoor storage facilities, Y Y Y gas stations, truck stops, and transportation terminals Processing of food, wood and paper products; printing and publishing; ware‐ Y Y Y houses, wholesale and storage activities Refining, manufacturing and storage of chemicals, petroleum and related Y Y Y products, manufacturing and assembly of electronic components, etc. Salvage yards; solid waste facilities, natural resource extraction and processing, Y Y Y agricultural, mills and gins AGRICULTURE Agriculture (except livestock) Y(2) Y(3) N Livestock farming, animal breeding, animal shelters, and kennels Y(2) Y(3) N Agricultural‐related activities Y(2) Y(3) N Forestry activities and related services Y(2) Y(3) N Fishing activities and related services Y(2) Y(3) N CNEL ‐ Community Noise Equivalent Level, in A‐weighted decibels. Y (Yes) ‐ Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. C (conditionally compatible) ‐ Land use and related structures are permitted, provided that sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower. N (No) = Land use and related structures are not compatible. (1) Requires an avigation easement be granted to the City of Marina as operator of OAR. (2)Residential buildings must be sound‐insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. (3) Accessory dwelling units are not compatible.

Note: Land uses not specifically listed shall be evaluated, as determined by the ALUC, using the criteria for similar uses * Lodging intended for stays by an individual person of no more than 25 days consecutively and no more than 90 days total per year; facilities for longer stays are in the extended‐stay hotel category ** Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facilities are exempt from this requirement due to Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

ATTACHMENT K

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 11

Monterey County

City of Marina

75 CNEL

29 70 CNEL

65 CNEL

60 CNEL

RESERVATION RD

BLANCO RD ¯ Legend Source: 20-Year Forecasts Noise Contours Airport Property Boundary US Dept. of Agriculture NAIP Imagery 2012 2317' Runway Extension 1"=1,500' City of Marina Planning Office Feet Monterey County Assessor's Office Municipal Boundaries 0 1,500

Exhibit 4B 20-YEAR FORECAST NOISE CONTOURS