Chapter 4 Background Data: Castle Airport and Environs
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
4
Background Data: Castle Airport and Environs
OVERVIEW Castle Airport lies in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, centrally located in Merced County approximately 3 miles northeast of the City of Atwater, 6 miles northwest of the City of Merced and 15 miles southeast of the City of Turlock. The airport is owned by the County of Merced and operated by the County’s Department of Commerce, Aviation and Economic Development. Prior to October 1995, Castle Airport operated for more than 50 years as a military airfield and was known for most of that period as Castle Air Force Base.
EXISTING AIRFIELD SYSTEM Castle Airport has a single 11,802-foot long runway. Runway 13-31 is aligned with the prevailing wind direction in a northwest/southeast alignment—winds are commonly out of the northwest. Although the airport currently meets standards for Airport Reference Code (ARC) 1 D-V, as mentioned previously, the FAA has requested that the current ARC be based on the most demanding aircraft operating at the airport currently. Thus the current ARC is B-II. The long term plan for the airport is to accommodate ARC D-V aircraft (e.g., Boeing 747-400F) and ultimately ARC D-VI aircraft such as the Boeing 747-8F (freighter). Runway 31 is equipped with straight-in precision instrument approach capabilities providing visibility minimums as low as ½ statute mile and a decision altitude of 381 feet MSL (200 AGL). Runway 13 has a GPS nonprecision approach procedure with visibility minimums of 3/4 statute mile and a minimum decision altitude of 555 feet MSL (364 AGL). The size of the runway protection zone (RPZ) at each runway end is a function of the type of aircraft and approach visibility minimum associated with that runway end. The established RPZs for both runways are: 1,000 foot inner width, 1,750 foot outer width and a length of 2,500 feet. The
1 Airport Reference Code (ARC) is a coding system defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to relate airport design criteria to the operation and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport.
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 4–1 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
RPZs are all on airport except for 500 feet of the outer corner of Runway 13 RPZ and 850 feet of the outer corner of the Runway 31 RPZ.
AIRPORT PLANS
Airport Master Plan Status In December 2011, the County of Merced adopted a Master Plan for Castle Airport which outlines a multi-year capital improvements strategy for the airport to ensure airport facilities can efficiently and safely accommodate future air traffic volumes. The Master Plan study evaluates the airport’s capabilities and role, forecasts future aviation demand for 2035, and identifies development of new or expanded facilities that would be required to accommodate anticipated increases in aircraft activity. The airport layout plan (ALP) drawing set was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in December 2011.
Basis of Castle ALUCP The adopted Master Plan represents the County’s current development plans for the airport. The Master Plan proposes to upgrade the airport to an ultimate ARC D-VI classification, widen the runway by 50 feet to accommodate the larger class of aircraft, and reestablish a precision instrument approach to Runway 13. The upgrade in ARC is prompted by the Boeing Company’s plans to phase out the older 747-400F aircraft, an ARC D-V aircraft, and replacing it with the 747-8F aircraft. The 747-8F aircraft falls within the ARC D-VI classification. Data obtained from the 2011 Master Plan is summarized in Exhibit CAS 1 . The FAA-approved 2011 ALP is the basis of the Castle Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a). A copy of the 2011 ALP for Castle Airport is provided in Exhibit CAS 2 .
Airspace Plan The 2011 Airspace Plan for Castle Airport depicts the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary surfaces 2 for a precision instrument runway (see Chapter 3 , Map 2 ). A precision instrument runway is a runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a precision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved by the FAA. Precision instrument approaches provide both horizontal and vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. The imaginary surfaces for Castle Airport reflect the existing runway length of 11,802 feet, existing precision approach to Runway 31 and future precision approach to Runway 13.
2 FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces are established with relation to each runway of an airport. There are five types of imaginary surfaces under Subpart C: primary, approach, transitional, horizontal, and conical. FAR Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace.
4–2 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY DATA AND FORECASTS
Existing Activity The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 3 classifies Castle Airport as a General Aviation facility. The airport has an Aircraft Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) which operates during the hours of 7 am to 9 pm. The air traffic controllers direct the movement of aircraft on and around Castle Airport. In 2007, the airport experienced an estimated 152,000 annual operations. This number is based on ATCT aircraft activity records plus 15% to account for evening and nighttime operations when the tower is closed. The majority (98%) of these operations were classified as general aviation operations, associated primarily with flight training activity—what is termed as “local” operations. At the time, two large flight schools were operating at the airport and were contributing significantly to local activity. The balance of the activity (some 2,000 annual operations) is generated by military aircraft (e.g., C130 and C17) conducting training exercises and nonscheduled air carrier aircraft (e.g., Boeing 737) accessing a dedicated maintenance facility at the airport. Over the following years, aircraft activity at Castle Airport declined in response to the downturn in the economy and rising fuel costs. In 2008, aircraft activity decreased by approximately 5% to 145,000 annual operations. In 2009, with the departure of one of the large flight schools, aircraft operations fell by some 43% to an estimated 83,000 annual operations.
Master Plan Forecast
Air Carrier Operations Although there are no scheduled air carrier or commuter airline passenger services 4 at Castle Airport at this time, the adopted Master Plan indicates that the airport has been inspected by FAA and currently meets all Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 139 requirements (except for having an airline). Once the airport obtains airline service, it will receive its certificate as a Part 139 Commercial Service Non-Primary Airport. Lastly, the County recently completed development of a new airline passenger terminal. Thus, the potential exists for the introduction of scheduled airline and/or commuter air carrier service in the future. The Master Plan provides low, moderate, and high demand forecast scenarios for air carrier activity in 2035: Limited Air Passenger Demand . This forecast scenario assumes some 1,960 annual operations by small 50-seat commuter airliners (e.g., CRJ 200). Moderate Air Passenger Demand . This scenario assumes approximately 2,378 annual operations by 74-seat aircraft. High Air Passenger Demand . This scenario assumes approximately 4,707 annual operations by 74-seat aircraft.
3 The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) is an inventory of U.S. aviation infrastructure assets. Airports in the NPIAS are eligible for Federal grants from the Airport Improvement Program 4 Commuter Airlines provide passenger air service to communities without sufficient demand to attract mainline air carriers that operate large passenger jets (more than 90 seats). Regional/commuter air carriers typically operate smaller piston, turboprop, and regional jet aircraft (up to 90 seats).
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 4–3 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
The selected 2035 Master Plan forecast reflects the High Air Passenger Demand forecast of 4,707 annual operations by 74-seat jet aircraft.
Air Cargo Operations Air cargo airlines, or airfreight carriers, are airlines dedicated to the transport of freight, cargo and/or small packages, including mail. Many passenger airlines carry both freight and mail as belly cargo, but the Master Plan forecasts focus on dedicated air cargo aircraft operations. Although no air cargo aircraft are presently operating at Castle Airport, the Master Plan identifies a number of factors indicating that the airport is eminently suited to such operations including: runway length, available apron, foreign trade/enterprise zones, and growing congestion at West Coast cargo hubs. The Master Plan provides three forecasts scenarios: Low Cargo Demand . This 2035 scenario assumes approximately 3,600 annual operations by small package delivery aircraft providing domestic-only service. Moderate Cargo Demand. This forecast assumes that small package demand continues and partially transitions to larger aircraft. Additionally some pallet freight is added with large aircraft. Air cargo activity is forecast to reach approximately 3,000 annual operations. Compared to the low demand scenario, the lower number of operations in the moderate demand scenario is due to the ability of medium and large aircraft to accommodate larger cargo loads. Thus, fewer flights would be needed. High Cargo Demand. This scenario includes domestic and international cargo service with a mix of medium (Boeing 737-800C), large (Airbus A-340-300F) and very large aircraft (Boeing 747-400F). Air cargo activity is forecast to reach some 4,500 annual operations. This is the scenario selected for the Master Plan forecast. The selected 2035 Master Plan forecast reflects the High Cargo Demand forecast of 4,500 annual operations by medium to large aircraft.
General Aviation, Air Taxi, and Military Operations Continued growth in annual general aviation aircraft operations at Castle Airport is anticipated, particularly with regard to flight training, and business and corporate aviation activities. The Master Plan forecast projects that total annual general aviation and air taxi 5 operations will increase to approximately 256,300 by 2035. Additionally, military activity is anticipated to increase to 1,700 annual operations. The Master Plan assumed a 2.3% annual growth rate for general aviation operations. The percentage split between itinerant general aviation operations and local operations is projected to change significantly by 2035. The current split is 40% itinerant and 60% local. By 2035, the split is anticipated to reverse with 55% itinerant operations by air taxi and general aviation aircraft. This reversal of the current split represents significant growth in corporate and business flying over flight training.
5 An Air Taxi is an air charter passenger or cargo aircraft which operates on an on-demand basis.
4–4 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
Forecast for Basis of ALUCP As described above, the December 2011 Master Plan provides three 2035 forecast scenarios for airline activity (i.e., air carrier and air cargo) and a single 2035 forecast for general aviation and military activity. The 2035 Master Plan forecast of some 265,207 annual operations is the basis of the ALUCP for Castle Airport. The forecast reflects the general aviation/military forecast plus the highest of the three airline scenarios. This forecast assumes the following distribution of aircraft activity: 4,707 annual operations by 74-seat air passenger jets; 4,500 annual operations by a range of cargo aircraft large air cargo aircraft; and 256,000 annual operations by general aviation and military aircraft. Exhibit CAS 3 summarizes existing and future aircraft activity data for Castle Airport. The selected 2035 Master Plan forecast of 265,207 is included in the table. Exhibit CAS 4 depicts the noise contours and other aeronautical factors upon which the compatibility zones for the airport are based.
Airport Environs Exhibit CAS 5 shows a detailed summary of Castle Airport’s existing (2010) and planned environs, including airport compatibility policies adopted by the local agencies (Merced County and Cities of Atwater and Merced). The existing land use, planned land use, and zoning maps for each agency are provided in Exhibits CAS 6 –Existing Land Uses, CAS 7 –General Plan Land Uses, and CAS 8 – Zoning Designations. An aerial photo of the airport is provided in Exhibit CAS 9 . As shown in the exhibits, the airport is currently (2010) surrounded by mostly large tracts of agricultural land to the north, east, and south. There is some farm worker housing to the northwest of the airport and scattered rural residential to the southeast. The closest urban areas to the airport include the City of Atwater (southwest), City of Merced (east), and the unincorporated communities of Winton (west) and Franklin-Beachwood (southeast). The airport’s Compatibility Zones cover land under the jurisdiction of the City of Atwater, City of Merced, and Merced County. The local planning efforts by these agencies are summarized below.
City of Atwater The City of Atwater last updated its General Plan in 2000. The airport adjoins the northeast boundary of the city. The City has planned a large industrial park immediately to the west of the runway on land formerly part of the Air Force base. Most future urban development in the city is planned south of Santa Fe Drive (inside existing city limits) or on former AFB property. The General Plan includes noise and safety compatibility policies for the areas within the established airport influence area.
City of Merced On January 3, 2012, the City of Merced adopted the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan to replace its 1997 General Plan . Since the City of Merced owns and operates the Merced Regional Airport, the majority of the 2030 General Plan policies and the corresponding implementation measures are focused primarily on that airport. Castle Airport, which is owned and operated by Merced County, is located outside of the City’s sphere of influence. Lands within the city limits and sphere of influence
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 4–5 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
are affected by operations at Castle Airport. Although the City does not have direct control over operation of Castle Airport, the City’s General Plan includes several policies to encourage the Merced County Airport Land Use Commission to require “stringent noise reduction standards” for Castle Airport. Note that the ALUC does not have the authority to apply noise reduction standards to the operation of any airport, it can only establish criteria to avoid incompatible land uses within noise- impacted areas and require sound attenuation in structures where appropriate. The plan also includes policies to work with the County on land use and master planning issues in the vicinity of Castle Airport.
Merced County Merced County is in the process of updating the 1990 General Plan . The updated plan, called the 2030 General Plan , is scheduled for adoption in early 2012. The County is not anticipating any changes to existing land use designations near the airport as part of this update. However, two unincorporated communities, Franklin-Beachwood and Winton, lie within the 1999 airport land use compatibility zones. Both of these communities include existing residential and commercial development. The County is planning limited additional residential development around the edges of these two communities, with some commercial development in their core. The 1990 Merced County General Plan includes goals and policies that require projects to be compatible with the ALUC Policy Plan. The draft 2030 General Plan , in addition to requiring projects to be compatible with the ALUC Policy Plan, also includes goals and policies that will prevent incompatible land uses within airport safety areas, require any development near airports to be consistent with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, and prohibit noise-sensitive land uses near public and private airports.
4–6 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
This page intentionally blank
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 4–7 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
GENERAL INFORMATION BUILDING AREA Airport Ownership –Merced County Department of Location — Southwest side of runway Commerce, Aviation and Economic Development Aircraft Parking Capacity Property size Airport contains extensive property suitable for parking of 2,777 acres in former Castle Air Force Base large aircraft; capacity not defined 1,580 acres designated as airport property Services — Airport has one fixed base operator: 1,100± acres in airfield, apron, and hangar areas Fuel (100LL, Jet-A), daytime only 500± acres for revenue-producing airport support Car rentals Airport Classification – General Aviation No maintenance available Airport Elevation — 191 feet MSL (surveyed) Other Major Facilities Access Industrial property (on airport and adjacent) Santa Fe Drive (adjacent on southwest) Castle Air Museum (adjacent) State Hwy 99 (1mile southwest) Restaurant (adjacent)
TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND APPROACH PROCEDURES RUNWAY SYSTEM Runway 13-31 Runway 13-31 Airplane Traffic Pattern Critical Aircraft — King Air 350 Right traffic on Runway 31 Classification — Airport Reference Code B-II Pattern altitude 1,000 feet AGL for piston airplanes, 1,500 Dimensions — 11,802 feet long; 150 feet wide feet AGL for turbine and large airplanes Pavement Strength — 155,000 lbs for aircraft with single- Instrument Approaches wheel main landing gear; 200,000 lbs dual-wheel; 415,000 lbs Runway 13 RNAV (GPS): nonprecision straight-in ( ¾ mi. dual-tandem-wheel; 720,000 lbs dual-double tandem visibility, 555-ft. min. descent ht.); missed approach turns Average Gradient — 0.1% (rising to northwest) east to JOXUB VOR Lighting — High-intensity runway edge lighting Runway 31 ILS or LOC/DME: precision (½-mi. visibility, Primary Taxiways — Full-length parallel on southwest 381-ft. min. descent ht.); missed approach turns east Runway 31 RNAV(GPS): precision (½-mi. visibility, 381-ft.
min descent ht.); missed approach turns east APPROACH PROTECTION Runway 31 VOR/DME: nonprecision straight-in (½-mi. Runway 13-31 visibility, 560-ft. min. descent ht.); missed approach turns Runway Protection Zones east Runway 13: 2,500 feet long; all but 500 feet of outer Visual Navigational Aids corner on airport; future property acquisition proposed Runway 13: ALSF-1, 4-light PAPI (3.0 °) Runway 31: 2,500 feet long; all but 850 feet of outer Runway 31: ALSF-1, 4-light PAPI (3.0 °) corner on airport; future property acquisition proposed Noise Abatement Procedures — None established Approach Obstacles Runway 13: none
Runway 31: none AIRPORT PLANNING
Airport Plan Documents PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan describe Runway/Taxiway System existing and planned facilities and aircraft activity Upgrade airport reference code to D-V and ultimately D-VI forecasts; plans adopted by County Board of Supervisors Approach Procedures in December 2011 Potential reestablishment of Runway 13 precision approach 1994 Airport Feasibility Study / Airport Master Plan provides a recommended concept for base reuse; plan Approach Protection not officially adopted AMP proposes acquiring remainder of both RPZs 1996 Final Castle Air Force Base Reuse Plan describes
approved property disposition, but includes no details regarding airport facilities Data compiled by Mead & Hunt, Inc. (July 2010)
Exhibit CAS 1 Airport Features Information Castle Airport
4-8 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) C:\Users\870tme\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_8764\MER ALUP Castle-ALP.dwg Jul 03, 2012 - 10:15am C:\Users\870tme\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_8764\MER ALUP Castle-ALP.dwg Jul 03, 2012 - 10:15am SITING SURFACE NO THRESHOLD PENETRATIONS AIRCRAFT PARKING SPACES AIRPORT ACREAGE GPS APPROACH ESTABLISHED AIRPORT AND TERMINAL NAVIGATIONAL AIDS MEAN MAX. TEMP. (Hottest Month) AIRPORT ELEVATION (Above Mean Sea Level) AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT CRITICAL AIRCRAFT AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE ACQUISITION PROPERTY RUNWAY 13 EXIST./ULT. HIGH PT. FUTURE A G R I C U L T (10.4 AC) O P E N S A C RWY. END EL. 190.6'
OFZ : 1 O R OFZ NO OFZ OBJECT PENETRATIONS
RPZ 2600' a Helicopter Hangar Units Tiedowns Avigation Easement Fee Simple Longitude Latitude (EXIST. MODIFIED LCA
ALSF-1) AIRPORT DATA LCA
1000' X 2500' 1750' ESTABLISHED/ULT. RPZ 3/4 MILE VISIBILITY MINIMUM 34:1 NONPRECISION APPROACH SURFACE 400'
1000' LOCALIZER ANTENNA ILS/DME (Rwy 31) Rotating Beacon VOR/DME (Hyp) : 1 FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION (.34 AC) c King Air 350 EXISTING -XO\ 191' MSL 1,360 Yes B-II 90 0 7 0
North Perimeter Dr. B-747-400F No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change FUTURE
D-V TAXIWAY A TAXIWAY
100'
77' 15
No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change TAXIWAY L TAXIWAY ULTIMATE B-747-8F 12 1,374 D-VI 188 87
160' HOLDING POSITION
MARKINGS Typ.
BRL/APL/TOFA 79'
43
41 39 E TAXIWAY
LANDFILL AREA NORTH RAMP 37
100' 42 290'
TAXIWAY A TYP
40 160' OFZ TAXIWAY E TAXIWAY OFA RSA RSA 38 OFA 100' BRL TYP OFZ
Ammo Ave.
13 36 200'
250' 34 400' 1 : EXISTING & FUTURE ARP
32 31 BRL/APL/TOFA
750' West Perimeter Ave. 200' TAXIWAY L U.S.Penitentiary
O P E N S A C R G I U L T 30 29 250' Atwater
28 400'
27 550'
102'
26 160'
25 850'
Headwind Dr. Headwind 24 K TAXIWAY EXIST. 11,802' X 150' RUNWAY 23
O P E N S P A C E O R A G R I C U L T U R A L 193' TAXIWAY A
22
TAXIWAY D TAXIWAY Federal Wy. Federal
20 19
BRL/APL/TOFA Headway Dr. Headway
18 17 Hardstand Ave.
16 15
758(%($5,1*1 : 14 160' 13 13
Federal wy.
Headstart Dr. Headstart
160' 12
11 J TAXIWAY Fox Rd. Fox 9
GLIDESLOPE CRITICAL AREA LOCALIZER CRITICAL AREA PRECISION OBSTACLE FREE ZONE OBSTACLE FREE ZONE OBJECT FREE AREA RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE BRL/APL/TOFA BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AIRCRAFT PARKING LIMIT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA BRL/APL/TOFA 320' TYP
10 9 BRL/APL/TOFA TDZE 181.0'
CRITICAL AIRFIELD AREAS ULTIMATE 11,802' X 200' RUNWAY ULT. 100' W TWY C
8 7
West Perimeter Ave.
6 5
4 4 Dr. Range Rifle 3 79' TAXIWAY L BRL COMP. JAN 2000 BRL/APL/TOFA EXISTING 2 1 GLIDESLOPE OFA AWOS III P POFZ FY 98 AIP GCA OFZ OFA RSA LCA RVZ RPZ BRL APL 160' ANTENNA TYP 13
Tanker Ct. 100' RSA
OFZ
193' 20
OFZ
BRL/APL/TOFA RSA FUTURE
Hospital Ave.
RUNWAY 31 EXIST./ULT. LOW PT. RWY. END POFZ
OFZ OFA RSA 324' GCA RVZ RPZ BRL
APL LCA
Bomber Dr. Bomber SELF-SERVE
FUEL FACILITY OFA 8 193'
(temporary) 35' 10
93'
200' GCA Wallace Rd. BRL/APL/TOFA
Wallace Rd.
TAXIWAY A 650'
FUT.
75' Turbine Dr. Turbine TAXIWAY B FUTURE TAXIWAY GA PARKINGINTERIM East Perimeter Ave.
Thunderbird Ave. GLIDE SLOPE CRITICAL AREA : 7 12 1 0 50:1 PRECISION APPROACH SURFACE EXIST./ULT. RPZ 1000' X 2500' 1750'
1
ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE MAGNETIC Apron Ave. 5 3,100' EL. 177.9' TRUE 3 GCA <3/4 MILE VISIBILITY MINIMUM
A St. DECLINATION: Talon Dr. Talon 14 POFZ March 2011 (
2 75' : B St. FEET
600'
TWY B TWY 100'
Challenger Dr. Challenger C St.
Carrier Dr. Carrier TWY A TWY
1000' Cargo Dr. Cargo 1,200' C O M E R GCA
200' C E N T R C A S T L E 125'
TAXIWAY G LCA
TAXIWAY H TAXIWAY Airflight Dr. Airflight 73' 2600'
4 LCA
E St. Heritage Dr. Heritage
A St. POFZ
75' 400' Academy Dr. Academy
D St. TAXIWAY F TAXIWAY
6 81'
GCA Convoy Rd. Convoy Challenger Wy. B St. Dr. Aviation Fox Rd.
9
Airflight Dr. Airflight
Delta Pl. Delta NO OFZ OBJECT PENETRATIONS
400'
Airlift Dr. Airlift TWY M (EXIST. MODIFIED ALSF-1) Apron Ave. Pl. Panther C O M E R I A L C St. 11
LOCALIZER FUTURE
ANTENNA
Santa Fe Dr. Entry Airdrome Propellor Pl. Propellor Alert Ave. F St. RPZ OFZ
G St. Dr. Dart Convoy Rd. Convoy
Jetlift Dr. Jetlift Decoy Ave. Dr. Zeppelin OFZ A St. Stratofortress Dr.
Airmail Dr. MAIN AIRPORT/COMMERCE MAIN
(8.2 AC) PROPERTY FUTURE
ACQUISITION
R E S I D N T A L ENTRANCE CENTER Jetstream Dr. Jetstream
Jetway Dr. Jetway BRL 13 Sonic Ave. 13
Fuel Spacecraft Dr. Circle Starway Ave. BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS Spaceport Entry PENETRATIONS NO THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE
7 Test Cell Ct. Dr. Zeppelin Shuttle Dr. GATE 2 FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION (.60 AC) R E S I D E N T I A L Sports Dr. not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of United States to participate development depicted herein nor does it indicate that proposed is environmentally acceptable in accordance with appropriate public laws. Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy FAA. Acceptance these documents by FAA does The preparation of these documents was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration as provided under Section 505 Airport and DESIGN:
NO. Mid Canal Creek Canal Mid MRM/CCS AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
DRAWN: BNSF Railroad AVIATION RESERVE CORPORATE/GENERAL AVIATION AREA AIR CARGO AREA AIR PASSENGER AREA SECTION CORNER AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT WATERCOURSE / CULVERT TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS UTILITY POLE / POWER LINE BEACON AIRFIELD LIGHTS: SINGLE/GROUP/FLASHING WIND CONE VEHICLE GATE FENCE BUILDING TO BE REMOVED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ON AIRPORT INTERNAL BOUNDARY (lease, R.O.W., etc.) MUSEUM EASEMENT AVIGATION EASEMENT OTHER PROPERTY LINES AIRPORT PROPERTY DIRT OR GRAVEL ROAD SHOULDER PAVEMENT PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED OTHER PAVEMENT IN USE ACTIVE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT Lighted Windcone & Segmented Circle Supplemental Windcone Airfield Perimeter Fencing Precision Approach Path Indicator Interim Air Cargo Sort Facility Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) Aircraft Wash Facility Interim Passenger Terminal Fuel Storage Facility T-Hangar Fixed Base Operator Museum Aircraft Easement Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) G.A.Terminal Building REVISION ATWATER, CALIFORNIA CASTLE AIRPORT 133 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 100 A G R I C U L T Santa Rosa, California 95403 O P E N S A C www.meadhunt.com BUILDING AND FACILITY LEGEND Fax (707) 526-9721 TE/BE (707) 526-5010 O R Airport Layout Plan b a c DRAWING LEGEND Management System, Castle Airport," August 2007 and Dynatest Dual/415,000 Dual Tandem/720,000 Double Tandem but Pavement is currently rated at 155,000 Single/200,000 large aircraft and has the physical capability to accommodate Consulting, Inc., "Load/Deflection analysis of Dynatest falling Source: Pavement study: Mead and Hunt, Inc. "Airport Source: FAA 5010 Form (July 2010). Horizontal and vertical datum category. aircraft now operating on a regular basis is in the ARC B-II designated in NPIAS as a general aviation facility and the critical aircraft in the ARC D-V category. However, airport is currently 2007. 83 and NAVD 88 respectively. The airport is a converted military base which was designed for weight deflectometer test results for Castle Airport", November testing indicates Double Dual Tandem strength of 1,000,000 lbs. for all latitude/longitude related runway elevations, etc., are NAD DATE: Santa Fe Dr. April 2011 ALP NOTES EXISTING PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE SPONSOR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 200 ATWATER-MERCED RIGHTS-OF-WAY Exhibit CAS 2 EXISTING SHEET 15 14 13 12 10 8 7 6 5 4 1 2 3 CHAPTER 4 1 FUTURE FUTURE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 9 OF DATE 7 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
This page intentionally blank
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 4–9 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
BASED AIRCRAFT TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTION Current a Future b Current a Future b Aircraft Type All Aircraft Single Engine 66 98 Day 85% 80% Multi Engine 11 6 Evening 10% 15% Turboprop 0 6 Night 5% 5% Turbojet 8 22 Helicopter 1 3 Total 86 135 FUTURE FLIGHT TRACK DISTRIBUTION Takeoffs, Runway 13 Straight Out Left Traffic Right Traffic Piston Aircraft 5% 70% 25% AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS c b Business Jets 100% Current Future Air Carrier and Cargo 100% Total Military 100% Annual 83,000 265,207 Average Day 227 727 Takeoffs, Runway 31 Peak Hour 14 30 Straight Out Left Traffic Right Traffic (avg. day, peak month) Piston Aircraft 5% 25% 70% Business Jets 100% Distribution by Aircraft Type Air Carrier and Cargo 100% Single Engine 84% 82% Military 100% Twin Engine 5% 5% Landings, Runway 13 Turboprop 5% 3% Straight Out Left Traffic Right Traffic Turbojet –Business 3% 3% Piston Aircraft 5% 70% 25% Helicopter 1% < 1% Business Jets 100% Air Carrier (737) 0% 2% Air Carrier and Cargo 100% Cargo 0% 2% Military 100% Military (C-5, C17) 2% 2% Landings, Runway 31 Distribution by Type of Operation Straight Out Left Traffic Right Traffic Local 40% 45% Piston Aircraft 5% 25% 70% (incl. touch-and-goes) Business Jets 100% Air Carrier and Cargo 100% Itinerant 60% 55% Military 100%
Touch-and-Goes, Runway 13 RUNWAY USE DISTRIBUTION Left Traffic Right Traffic Current a Future b Piston Aircraft 75% 25% All Aircraft Business Jets 0% 0% Takeoffs Air Carrier and Cargo 0% 0% Runway 13 20% 4% Military 100% 0% Runway 31 80% 96% Touch-and-Goes, Runway 31 Landings Left Traffic Right Traffic Runway 13 20% 4% Piston Aircraft 25% 75% Runway 31 80% 96% Business Jets 0% 0%
Air Carrier and Cargo 0% 0% Military 0% 100%
Sources:
a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Master Record for Castle Airport (6/3/2010) and airport management. b Airport Master Plan Report for Castle Airport (April 2011); future data is for 2035 and represents Scenario Three, the highest-activity forecast of the three scenarios in the Master Plan. c Castle Airport Air Traffic Control Tower records for 2007 plus 15% to account for evening and nighttime operations when tower is closed. Note: An itinerant operation is defined as an arrival or departure performed by an aircraft from or to a point beyond the local airport area.
Data compiled by Mead & Hunt, Inc. (May 2011)
Exhibit CAS 3 Airport Activity Data Castle Airport
4-10 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) C:\Users\870tme\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_8308\MER ALUP Castle-Compatability.dwg Jul 05, 2012 - 1:47pm Prepared By: Unincorporated Merced County www.meadhunt.com D B2 Atwater City of D
B1 13 C A 75 dB CNEL D 70 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL 60 dB CNEL D B2 C Unincorporated C Merced County D 0 Merced City of 6,000' FEET 12,000' BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS 1. Efficient Use, and Preservation of Navigable Airspace (January published by California Department of Transportation, Division x x 2011). accident points in 20% increments. one occurs. The contours represent highest concentration of depict where an aircraft accident is most likely to happen when 2. annual operations by 2035. 2011). Noise contours reflect a forecast activity level of 265,207 4. 3. Aeronautics (October 2011). The accident distribution contours Notes Compatibility Zone Delineation Compatibility Zone Factors Boundary Lines Legend used to develop zone boundaries. Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. based on input from airport staff. Source: Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Safe, Source: California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Source: Castle Airport Master Plan (adopted December Compatibility zones represent a composite of noise, of airport. approach to Runway 31, proximity of Merced Regional airline activity, lack of traffic pattern west airfield, low overflight, safety and airspace impacts. See Chapter 3, Airport to southwest and existing urban development south flying aircraft using straight-in precision instrument Airport-specific considerations include: future air cargo and Table 3A, Compatibility Zone Factors, for general concepts Compatibility Factors Map Military Training Flight Pattern General Aircraft Traffic Pattern Envelope Notification Surface FAR Part 77, Subpart B, FAA Height Imaginary Surfaces Outer FAR Part 77, Subpart C, Departure Accident Risk Contours Arrival Accident Risk Contours CNEL Noise Contours Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Airport Influence Area Existing Runway (11,802 ft. length) Airport Property Line City Limits 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 Castle Airport Exhibit CAS 4 2 CHAPTER 4 4 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
AIRPORT LOCATION AND NEARBY TOPOGRAPHY AIRPORT ENVIRONS AND LAND USE JURISDICTIONS Location City of Atwater 3 miles northeast of central Atwater Airport adjoins northeast boundary of city 6 miles northwest of central Merced City of Merced Topography Nearest point of city limits 3.5 miles southeast of runway end Situated on floor of San Joaquin Valley; no major high terrain in City sphere of influence extends to within 3 miles east of airport vicinity County of Merced Approaches to both runway ends and area northeast of airport STATUS OF LOCAL AGENCY PLANS within unincorporated county jurisdiction City of Atwater General Plan adopted July 24, 2000 City of Merced Current General Plan, Merced Vision 2030, was adopted in January
2012
Merced County General Plan 2000 General Plan adopted December 1990 General Plan currently undergoing update; draft prepared August 2011 with anticipated adoption in the summer of 2012
ESTABLISHED COMPATIBILITY MEASURES City of Atwater General Plan Policy NO-2.6: Prevent the introduction of new incompatible land uses in areas impacted by existing and projected 2030 Merced County General Plan (draft) operations at Castle Airport. Implementation Program NO-2.a: Policies CIR-6.1 through 6.8: Prevents incompatible land uses Require development within Area of Influence for Castle within airport safety areas, and requires new projects to be Airport to comply with noise standards and recommendations consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. contained within the Merced County Airport Land Use Policies HS-4.1 and HS-4.2: Requires any development near Compatibility Plan for that facility. airports to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Goal SF-8: Avoid new incompatible development within Compatibility Plan and FAA regulations. established Airport Safety Zones. Policy SF-8.1: Ensure that land Policy HS-7.10: Prohibits noise-sensitive land uses near public use development in the area surrounding Castle Airport is and private airports. consistent with the applicable provisions of the Merced County City of Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Implementation Program Policy N-1.1.d: Work with Merced County to minimize future SF-8.a: The City shall adopt the Primary Compatibility Criteria noise impacts from Castle Airport. as outlined in Table 2A of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Policy N-1.4.b: Encourages Merced County ALUC to update Plan and apply these criteria in the evaluation of projects the ALUCP and require stringent noise reduction standards proposed within the Castle Airport influence area. for Castle Airport. 1990 Merced County General Plan Policies S-5.1.d and T-3.1.d: Work with the County of Merced Goal 9, Policy 10: Requires projects to be compatible with on land use and master planning issues in the vicinity of the Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan or other Castle Airport and its Land Use Compatibility Zones. adopted ALUC Plan. 1990 Merced County General Plan
Goal 9, Policy 10: Requires projects to be compatible with the Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan or other adopted ALUC Plan. 2030 Merced County General Plan (draft)
Exhibit CAS 5 Airport Environs Table Castle Airport
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 4-11 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
EXISTING AIRPORT AREA LAND USES General Character Mostly agricultural north, east, and south; majority in large tracts under handful of owners Atwater urban area on southwest Unincorporated community of Winton 1 mile west of runway’s northern end Unincorporated community of Franklin-Beachwood 2.5 miles southeast of runway Runway Approaches Northwest (Runway 13): agricultural, except farm worker housing (the Grove) under 1 mile from runway end Southeast (Runway 31): all agricultural and widely scattered rural residential within 2.5 miles Traffic Pattern Northeast: Federal Penitentiary adjacent to runway; agricultural outside former base boundary Southwest: agricultural and former air base facilities including hospital within 1 mile; Atwater urban area outside 1 mile (beyond Santa Fe Drive)
PLANNED AIRPORT AREA LAND USES City of Atwater Large industrial park planned immediately west of runway. Most future urban development planned south of Santa Fe Drive (inside existing city limits) or on former AFB land Runway approaches outside of city limits City of Merced Lands within Merced’s sphere of influence closest to Castle Airport planned for a mix of residential, industrial, business park, commercial uses County of Merced Franklin-Beachwood SUDP planned for limited residential development around edges of community Winton SUDP planned for additional residential uses mostly to southeast and southwest, and commercial development in core area
Data compiled by Mead & Hunt and Mintier Harnish (August 2011)
Exhibit CAS 5 , continued
4-12 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
D OU Legend
E Y
E
L
BRAD Airport Influence Area BURY PRINCETON
M
A 1
D S Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones R E
E
E V
L
T L
B A
S
M M FAA Height Notification Surface
A
A
HARVEY G
H City Limits
O
C
C A D I U
H O N Y
U
O
EL CAPITAN B Atwater Sphere of Influence D FISHER KENNEY
O
P 59 M UV A O Merced Sphere of Influence
C A MEADOW KD D AL E Community Boundaries SHAW
N C I
A P
N T Runway A U
S
L L
E W Roads LIVINGSTON CRESSEY CRESSEY PALM Existing Land Use, 2010
N
O B2
T
T N Agriculture
I
MERCEDES S
W
E W Single-Family Residential
G N I
S L E L Multi-Family Residential EUCALYPTUS N EUCALYPTUS E
O N Y
J B1 D S E
A L
BRONSON I Commercial
N
A A
E M H LO R A
A P
A LA N Industrial
A OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE
T A 1
L
ARLENE X 3 R
U
Y
Y A
S
N BETH N Public/Quasi-Public
E E A
A
MYRTLE O L PERIMETER P
I
E R
E
I A
R D E C
S
H B
E A
I TOKAY U
T Mining R
N WALNUT S
N A
R
E B
Y
E
O Y
C
E WINTON
PAIGE T F
N D
I S I
U Vacant
L N
S V
LINDSEY I
N RIDGE A
E C
T
C
R
S CRAWFORD S A C M
E S M Miscellaneous
E BRIDGET H ALMOND O
R
C
P DORIS F
R
Y E D E C BOBBIE E F R
F A
L
A
N
S L
A L
E H P
E
L R S OLD LAKE P A A T NEVAD T R LADINO LIBERTY GERTRUDE E C A N A A N
E C R K P O L E E
C
N A R R RIDGE H H
T I F
I K M CAMELLIA A WALLACE A CLUB
L
E S
P R E
W R R A
N D T O N D L P K AKE VIEW S N A I B O O I R S E LL C G O
E Y O P O B V T R O
T A B A O H BREEZE FARMLAND A N R N D I N S
MAGNOLIA E FRUITLAND T N CHANNEL W
R A D
V N O A
A 99 R E E
O K O D
H G H
A }þ R ·| D C 1
C A ANITA A D Z G T N R TLAND MA 3 FRUI T Y L R F T O T S A
L S T R V
O I A U
E LO F N H S D 9 PALORA ALTOS E KEL I O 9 V SO S L R C T C R R A A I N E C J BELLEVUE C C T
U WESTSIDE 9 BELLEVUE L BELLEVUE OU A SHU ZEPPELIN 9 L F TT
M N I O F LE R KIM TY E FAY H Y T OOD U FIRST B E N UNCREST EDW M T A C D A S S R L IR N S A SHAW ELK OL PA TH BRAD C S I R V S E H I R
E IV H B1 CitF y of C T V M Y T JUDY S FIF O R I X H A F I T A O N C I N T C G D D N E S I X OE LONGVIEW H P TAH E I E I H N R V P O A L YAtwatBeErALS E H F
A L R O M M T K 1 A T N P D F O E I F T N E I G A MERR R R H ILL L F O O Notes: See Chapter 3, Map CAS 1, Compatibility Policy Map. R
R JUNIPER AVENUE TWO E TW M V N C NU P C E E AVE
A A S E O A D EL L N HOL A
L N A Y A M T H
A H
R R
M A S T S
V E
U A B A Y R LA
N CARDEL CARDELLA Data Sources: Existing land use data and basemap details from L
T R B ARDELLA
O A C
B C L BELL A AD CLIN S SAGEWOOD T K W W U ON
A U Merced County, 2011. Runway alignment from FAA Airport Master B Y R
R I G AI SUMMERGLEN B2 MONACO A
C L U E Y OMME R SILVA PETTINOTTI DESTINY Record, 2010. R O F VENUE ONE C A A T E
G A D Y D A
R R
L T O A H F AVIGNON G W F
E
E
A A D T R D
T I
R Y E A E U E
N B M G LEHIGH R R N R R AUPS
I O E
E P E N N R N C R S T
I BELCHE C O D L S I R A R BELCHER M
R N E O B SUNSET T R DS RANT
T N R O
R E O
U
O S A N N E
N
N J K T
I O E E I U S I L A I D OR U R P G D S L A CL T E C U OV G
E N D R N
D P G R A SOHAN A S
T
O
A L N E A
A O N R B V
I D PACIFIC
S
E U R P S
E S
R O L D O
L
K N U T I
O
K M A G C S
E C
A A A E V A
O U L I L U A G R E
D
U
T S W A
D O A O U
W T
L
A R D R O Y U
Q S
E
L YOSEMITE Y T S A
DAN WARD H N H E S
D G L O ATW E ATER JORDAN T A N ER EY TUPELO P
A U L C L AL A R N A U V Feet A N R
I O I LESLIE M
L S P A N E R I DONN V AHWAHNE I H A A A
G T
L C R A T E E D
A I BEA O
N S E F
T E N DELLA
I I A B V H C Z A DONNA F D L 0 3,000 6,000 12,000 O T L A
E S N E B N N
P
Y M S R
N S S T ´ N M U MIR I ROR LAKE N A A C
P B P I & UE O N N N A A V Y L IS LANGTR TA A A D G Y P Y R A CHINA BA P T E
I N E
C
B C A E K A EL PORTAL
R S M E A
G F D
N
M
C D A S LOBO E 9 H
E
O S ROSE BRONC MULBERRY A
5 O
S F C COLUMBIA
T ROSE H N LOUGHBOROUGH D
R
L
S E Unincorporated N
R C N
O
F N S N
O
N K R I E S
E A E BROOKDALE R
R N
N
E L
C K I O
I
B
W Y
H E W
E
I B
R N L
T LLIOTT A S AK E E TE
U Merced County F O J L R
E A Y S LEES U
R R
H
B U FRANKLIN - BEACHWOOD D O E
D R OLIVE U D A Castle Airport D W
C L A O C A LIVEWOOD A P
S A I S E NEVES A H G B JULIE P WHITE CRANE WHITE CRANE NOAH Y M A A COOPER EMERALD ESSEX K D S R ALEXANDER N RAMBLER R
O
B K
Y
E Y SHERWOOD City of Merced Land Use Compatibility Plan
R B O O
A E N
R
C I W O IG OREGON P F 2 E
L R R A N M 4 A AM A LANDR A R JAKE G R T T C H D N H D
N L
A B N O
I
I B
E
E N
T Y
L 2 A U 2 Q T
L P R B
W N A MILES N
K O C D 2 S
Q A 5 2
U
R I
E JOSIE I T 6 2 O E N U H T 7 (Adopted June 21, 2012) 2 N T S H E S L MORAN T 3 R MORAN MORAN MORAN R T S H K
A R D I T O N
S L O O 2 R 1 O R H
L S A F S T
F S T N K A A Q N D A C
C
R U H 2 H
I V A T LUCILLE R TO A 4 N H J R M T E P T
E R T O H 2 H V A F C
R C S K T T E I 4 E T N N 2 T U S O G 0 2 6
Merced Regional Airport Y Exhibit CAS 6 QUEEN ELIZABETH U T T 2 9 N G A E O H N S R O O R D D N
G A E D V
A N I I 1 D R E
M N 6 1 27TH N C T N 8 I F E S 1
I 9 M R 9 5 H T E Y Airport Influence Area E T H 1 H L
T 9 2 S H P 1 L X T 1 R 140 Y 2T 1 H S G 26TH 140 A 3 T P H T M G UV W H Q M U P STRETCH S Existing Land Uses BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
D Legend OU
E Y 1
E
L Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones City Planning Areas
BRAD Agricultural BURY PRINCETON
M Airport Influence Area A Agricultural-Residential
D S
R
E FAA Height Notification Surface
E
E V
T
L L Rural Residential
B
S A City Limits
M
M
A A Low Density Residential
HARVEY G Atwater Sphere of Influence Medium Density Residential
H
O C Merced Sphere of Influence C A D I U High Density Residential H O N Y
U
O EL CAPIT B Atwater General Plan Planning Area AN D FISHER KENNEY Residential
O
P City of Merced General Plan Planning Area
M General Commercial
A O C MEADOW A Community Boundaries D KD 59 Neighborhood Commercial AL UV E Runway SHAW Heavy Commercial
N C I Roads
A P Highway Interchange Center
N T A U
S L L E Industrial
W Urban Designations LIVINGSTON CRESSEY CRESSEY PALM Castle Public/Government Residential Public Use
N
S O B2 Commercial Recreational an T Unincorporated N
t I e MERCEDES Visitor Commercial Park/Open Space/Recreational Fe W D r Merced County T Business Park Regional Community
S G
E N I W S Aviation/Manufacturing Industrial Reserve L E L EUCALYPTUS N EUCALYPTUS E
O N Public Use Urban Reserve Y
J S E
A L A B1 I M Open Space Urban Expansion Area N O A D L
E A H P R LA A Franklin Beachwood Community Plan Rural Residential Centers
OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE
A 1 Agricultural-Residential Agricultural
X
ARLENE 3 R
Y
Y A
N N Agricultural-Residential
E
E Very Low Density Residential A
A
MYRTLE O L PERIMETER P
I
E R
E
I A
R
D E
S H Low Density Residential Residential
A
B E
I
TOKAY U
T C R
N WALNUT S
N A R General Commercial
E Medium Density Residential B
Y
E
O Y
C
E WINTON
P F T
N AIGE D
I I
S
U
L N V Neighborhood Commercial S General Commercial LINDSEY I RIDGE A N
E C
T
C
R
S CRAWFORD S A C M Neighborhood Commercial Industrial
E S M
E BRIDGET H ALMOND O
R C Institutional/Public P DORIS F Industrial
R
Y E
E D C BOBBIE E F R Institutional/Public Public Use
F A
L A
N
S L
A E L H P
E L Recreational Isolated Urban Designations S R OLD LAKE P A A T NEVAD T R LADINO
LIBERTY GERTRUDE E C A
A N A N Residential E C R K P Residential Reserve O L E E
C
N A R R RIDGE H H
T I F
I K A M CAMELLIA A WALLACE CLUB Industrial
L
E S R Winton Community Plan
P E
W R R A
N D T O N D P KN I L AKE VIEW S A O B O I L R S E L C G E O
Y O P O B V T R O Agricultural-Residential T B A O A H BREEZE FARMLAND Rural Designations A N R N D I N S
MAGNOLIA E FRUITLAND T N CHANNEL W D R A
V N O A
A R E 99 E Low Density Residential Agricultural
O K O D
H
G 1 H
A R C ·|}þ D
C A ANITA 3 A D Z G T N R TLAND MA Y NOR FRUI T TH B T U L R F T O TTE Medium Density Residential Foothill Pasture S A
S T V L R
U O I F A N E LO H S I D PALORA ALTOS E KEL L O 9 V SO C 9 R A C T R
R
I E C J BELLEVUE Residential C
U WESTSIDE 9 BELLEVUE L BELLEVUE COU SHU ZEPPELIN 9 L F N TT M I O LE R KIM TY
H Commercial Transition Y FAY T OD U FIRST B
E O N CREST DW M T A C D A S SUN RE L IR RADSHAW N A B ELK PA S TH C S R Industrial H CI ity of S B1 R E IV H C T V M Y T F JUDY S FIF O R I N I X H A F E T I A N T C C G D D H S I P X TAHOE Institutional/Public LONGVIEW O G S L E R I H E I N IV O V Atwater P O E L Y U BEALS E F A V L R O E T K M
A T N D Recreational E P OT E L F N E M I Y A MERR R H ILL L
O R R L JU NIPER AVENUE TWO E TW M N C NU P C A E AVE
A A E O S Residential Reserve
A D C L N HOLLY A N A T H A
A H
R R M U
T A S S
V E
U E A B A Y R LA N CARDEL CARDELLA
R L T B ARDELLA
O A C
B C L BELL A A D CLIN S SAGEWOOD T K W W U ON A U
Y B R B2
R I G AI SUMMERGLEN MONACO 1 A
U
C L E Y OMME R SILVA PETTINOTTI DESTINY R O F VENUE ONE C A A
T
E D
G
Y A D A Notes: See Chapter 3, Map CAS 1, Compatibility Policy Map.
R A
R
L O S Y H T N G W F A AVIGNO
F E D
E
A T A D
R N C I R T U
A E E Y E G T N B M R LEHIGH N
R
R AUPS R O R E A I
E P EN N N DUNN
R C S I R D T S BELCHE
L I
A E R BELCHER F
R N E B SUNSET T R D E
S N R O
R O T N E
U M
O A N
N S N E J
T N K I O I E E O U
A D I I OR S L R G
D U P S T A CL L E O S
C V G
E N P U D R N Data Sources: General Plan designations from Merced County, D G SOHAN A
R S T A L
O A A A E L O N R B V D PACIFIC
S I U R E U P S
S E
R D L O K L 2011. Basemap details from Merced County, 2011. Runway N
U T I
O
A G
M C A K E C
A A A E
P
A
V O U L U I G R A E
D
U alignment from FAA Airport Master Record, 2010. T W
S A
A D
O O W
T L
O
R A R Y D
E U
Q S
L YOSEMITE Y T S
DAN WARD H
N E S H G
D
L E ATWATER JORDAN T O N E Y TUPELO A R E C A L L U L A A A N A R U N V R
I LESLIE O I
L S A P M AHWAHNEE N R I DONN V I H A G A T A
L A R T C E E D
A I BEA O
E N F S N T E DELLA
B I V A I H C Z A DONNA SILVERADO L F D
A O E T L S N E N N P Y
M S R S S N T
N
M U MIR I ROR LAKE N A A
P B P I UENA C Feet O
N N A VIST Y L A LANGTR A A D G Y P Y A P EDALE PIN T E I N E
C A E EL PO K A R R S TAL A M E
G D F D
N
C M A S H LOBO E 9
S ROSE BRONCO E 0 3,000 6,000 12,000 MULBERRY A
5 O
S F COLUMBIA
T ROSE C H
D N LOUGHBOROUGH
R
L N S ´ E
R City of Merced
C
O N
N F S
R N
K
O
N R E I E S A
E BROOKDALE R R N
N E R L
B C K I O
I
H W E Y
E W
I
R U B N T L LLIOT T E A S AK E E U T F O
R
E J L
A Y G S LEES U
R R
B H U D E
D O R OLIVE U D A
D W
C L A OLIVEWOOD C
A A P
S A I E S E Castle Airport NEVES A H G B JULIE P E WHITE CRANE WHITE CRANE NOAH FRANKLIN - BEACHWOOD Y M
A K A COOPER EMERALD
ESSEX K D
S R ALEXANDER C N RAMBLER R
O
B K
Y Y
M E SHERWOOD
R B O O
E N C
R I P W O IG OREGON Land Use Compatibility Plan F 2 E
L M R R A A 4 A LANDRAM A R JAKE G N R T T C H D L H D
N N O B
I I B
2 E
E N Y L 7 A U Q T T ARDEN 2 P H R B
W A MILES N 2 K O C N 2 S
Q A 5 (Adopted June 21, 2012)
D R I
E JOSIE I T
O
N E U 2 N H 2 S E
L MORAN T 3 6 R MORAN MORAN MORAN R T S K A R T T D H
O N
S L O
O
R 2 O S R 1
L I S A F S T
F S T N K A A Q D A Merced Regional A M N H C C H
R U H 2 R T I LUCILLE T A A 4 N H JA R O I T E O N R P T E T 2 H H A F V S C C K T T E 4 E T 2 S T O N 6 U T Exhibit CAS 7A G 0 ABETH Y T T N QUEEN ELIZ O 9 G A E S H O Airport Influence Area D R R O O 1 N
E A 6 D V A 1 T N I I 3 H D N G R H E 27TH M T 1
C
N I F E S H 9 1 N 8
I T M R 9 5 E L E A Y H T H 1 2 S 9 T H 1 C P T L A Y X 13 H S G R 140 H A V T T 26TH
P M G U W H Q
B M T Detailed General Plan Land Uses: U P County of Merced BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
Legend 1 D Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones OU
E Y
E Airport Influence Area
L
FAA Height Notification Surface BRAD BURY PRINCETON M City Limits
A
D S Atwater Sphere of Influence
R E
E
E V
T
L L
B
S A Merced Sphere of Influence
M
M
A A Atwater General Plan Planning Area
HARVEY G City of Merced General Plan Planning Area
H
O
C
C A D Community Boundaries I U
H O N Y
U
O Runway EL CAPIT B AN D FISHER KENNEY O Roads
P
M Atwater General Plan (2000)
A O
C MEADOW A D KD 59 Downtown Residential (max FAR 2.00) AL UV E Residential Transition (max du/ac 21.0, FAR 0.35) SHAW High Density Residential (15.1 to 35.0 du/ac)
N C I A P Medium Density Residential (7.1 to 15.0 du/ac)
N T A U
S L L
E Low Density Residential (3.1 to 7.0 du/ac)
W Very Low Density Residential (0 to 3.0 du/ac) LIVINGSTON CRESSEY CRESSEY PALM Manufacturing/Industrial (max FAR 0.50)
Business Park (max FAR 0.40)
N
S O B2 Commercial (max FAR 0.35) an T Unincorporated N
t I e MERCEDES Commercial Transition (max FAR 0.30) Fe W D Park (max FAR 0.10) r Merced County
T
S Recreational (max FAR 0.10) G
E N I
W S L Agriculture E L EUCALYPTUS N EUCALYPTUS E Path
O N Y J S
E Institutional (max FAR 0.40)
A L A B1 I M N O A D L E A School (max FAR 0.40) H P R LA A Future Park
OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE
A 1 Future School
X
ARLENE 3 R
Y
Y A Urban Reserve
N
N
E E A
A
MYRTLE O L PERIMETER P
I
E R E Urban Reserve/Business Park
I A
R
D E
S
H
A
B E
I
TOKAY U
T C
R City of Merced General Plan
N WALNUT S
N A
R
E B Y Business Park (avg FAR 0.40)
E
O Y
C
E WINTON
P F T
N AIGE D
I I
S
U
L N V Business Park Reserve (avg FAR 0.40)
S
LINDSEY I RIDGE A N
E C
T
C R Thoroughfare Commercial (avg FAR 0.30)
S CRAWFORD S A C M
E S M
E BRIDGET H ALMOND O Commercial Reserve (avg FAR 0.35)
R
C
P DORIS F
R
Y E General Commercial (avg FAR 0.35)
E D C BOBBIE E F R Regional Community Commercial (0.35 to 6.0 FAR)
F A
L A
N
S L A E L H Neighborhood Commercial (avg FAR 0.35) P
E
L
S R OLD LAKE P A A T NEVAD T R LADINO
LIBERTY GERTRUDE E C A
A Commercial Office (avg FAR 0.50) N A N
E C R K P O L E E
C
N A R R RIDGE School H H
T I F
I K A M CAMELLIA A WALLACE CLUB
L
E S R
P E
W R R A Public/General Use
N D T O N D P KN I L AKE VIEW S A O B O I L R S E L C G E O
Y O P O B V T R O Manufacturing/Industrial (0.30 to 0.50 FAR) T B A O A H BREEZE FARMLAND A N R N D I N S
MAGNOLIA E FRUITLAND T N CHANNEL W D R A
V N O A Industrial Reserve (0.30 to 0.50 FAR)
A R E 99 E
O K O D
H
G 1 H
A R C ·|}þ D C Agricultural A ANITA 3 A D Z G T N R TLAND MA Y NOR FRUI T TH B T U L R F T O TTE S A
S T V L R
U O I F A N E LO H S I D Open Space - Park and Recreation PALORA ALTOS E KEL L O 9 V SO C 9 R A C T R
R
I E C J BELLEVUE C Future Park
U WESTSIDE 9 BELLEVUE L BELLEVUE COU SHU ZEPPELIN 9 L F N TT M I O T LE R KIM Y Village Residential (7.0 to 30 du/ac. min avg 10 du/ac)
H
Y FAY T OD U FIRST B
E O N CREST DW M T A C D A S SUN RE L IR RADSHAW N Low Density Residential (2.00 to 6.00 du/ac) A B ELK PA S TH C S R H CI ity of S B1 R E IV H C T V M Y T F JUDY S FIF O Low to Medium Density Residential (6.10 to 12.00 du/ac) R I N I X H A F E T I A N T C C G D D H S I P X TAHOE LONGVIEW O G S High to Medium Density Residential (12.10 to 24.00 du/ac) L E R I H E I N IV O V Atwater P O E L Y U BEALS E F A V L R O E T K M
A T N D High Density Residential (24.10 to 36.00 du/ac) E P OT E L F N E M I Y A MERR R H ILL L
O R R L JU NIPER AVENUE TWO E TW M N C NU P C A E AVE Rural Residential (1.00 to 3.00 du/ac)
A A E O S
A D C L N HOLLY A N A T H A
A H
R R M U
T A S S Mobile Home Park Residential (6.00 to 10.00 du/ac)
V E
U E A B A Y R LA N CARDEL CARDELLA
R L T B ARDELLA
O A C
B C L BELL A A D CLIN S SAGEWOOD Residential Reserve (2.0 to 6.0 du/ac) T K W W U ON A U
Y B R B2
R I G AI SUMMERGLEN MONACO Reserve/Community Plan/Master Plan A
U
C L E Y OMME R SILVA PETTINOTTI DESTINY R O F VENUE ONE C A A
T
E D
G
Y A D A
R A
R
L O S Y H T N G W F A AVIGNO
F E D
E
A T A D
R N C I R T U 1
A E E Y E G T N B M R LEHIGH N
R
R AUPS R O R E A I
E P EN N N DUNN
R C S I R D T S BELCHE
L I
A E R BELCHER F Notes: See Chapter 3, Map CAS 1, Compatibility Policy Map. R N E B SUNSET T R D E
S N R O
R O T N E
U M
O A N
N S N E J
T N K I O I E E O U
A D I I OR S L R G
D U P S T A CL L E O S
C V G
E N P U D R N D G SOHAN A Data Sources: General Plan designations from City of Merced, R S T A L
O A A A E L O N R B V D PACIFIC
S I U R E U P S
S E
R D L O K L N
U T I
O
A G
M C A K 2012. Basemap details from Merced County, 2011. Runway E C
A A A E
P
A
V O U L U I G R A E
D
U
T W
S A
A D
O O W alignment from Merced Regional Airport Layout Plan (2007).
T L
O
R A R Y D
E U
Q S
L YOSEMITE Y T S
DAN WARD H
N E S H G
D
L E ATWATER JORDAN T O N E Y TUPELO A R E C A L L U L A A A N A R U N V R
I LESLIE O I
L S A P M AHWAHNEE N R I DONN V I H A G A T A
L A R T C E E D
A I BEA O
E N F S N T E DELLA
B I V A I H C Z A DONNA SILVERADO L F D C A O E T L S N E N N P Y
M S R S S N T
N
M U MIR I ROR LAKE N A A
P B P I UENA C Feet O
N N A VIST Y L A LANGTR A A D G Y P Y A P EDALE PIN T E I N E
C A E EL PO K A R R S TAL A M E
G D F D
N
C M A S H LOBO E 9
S ROSE BRONCO E 0 3,000 6,000 12,000 MULBERRY A
5 O
S F COLUMBIA
T ROSE C H
D N LOUGHBOROUGH
R
L N S E ´
R City of Merced
C
O N
N F S
R N
K
O
N R E I E S A
E BROOKDALE R R N
N E R L
B C K I O
I
H W E Y
E W
I
R U B N T L LLIOT T E A S AK E E U T F O
R
E J L
A Y G S LEES U
R R
B H U D E
D O R OLIVE U D A
D W
C L A OLIVEWOOD C
A A P
S A I E S E NEVES A Castle Airport H G B JULIE P E WHITE CRANE WHITE CRANE NOAH FRANKLIN - BEACHWOOD Y M
A K A COOPER EMERALD
ESSEX K D
S R ALEXANDER C N RAMBLER R
O
B K
Y Y
M E SHERWOOD
R B O O
E N C
R I P W O IG OREGON Land Use Compatibility Plan F 2 E
L M R R A A 4 A LANDRAM A R JAKE G N R T T C H D L H D
N N O B
I I B
2 E
E N Y L 7 A U Q T T ARDEN 2 P H R B
W A MILES N 2 K O C N 2 S
Q A 5
D R I (Adopted June 21, 2012)
E JOSIE I T
O
N E U 2 N H 2 S E
L MORAN T 3 6 R MORAN MORAN MORAN R T S K A R T T D H
O N
S L O
O
R 2 O S R 1
L I S A F S T
F S T N K A A Q D A Merced Regional A M N H C C H
R U H 2 R T I LUCILLE T A A 4 N H JA R O I T E O N R P T E T 2 H H A F V S C C K T T E 4 E T 2 S T O N 6 U T Exhibit CAS 7B G 0 ABETH Y T T N QUEEN ELIZ O 9 G A E S H O Airport Influence Area D R R O O 1 N
E A 6 D V A 1 T N I I 3 H D N G R H E 27TH M T 1
C
N I F E S H 9 1 N 8
I T M R 9 5 E L E A Y H T H 1 2 S 9 T H 1 C P T L A Y X 13 H S G R 140 H A V T T 26TH
P M G U W H Q
B M T General Plan Land Uses: U P Cities of Atwater and Merced BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
D OU E Y Legend
E
L Airport Influence Area (AIA) City of Atwater Zoning BRADBURY PRINCETON 1 M Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones Business Park
A
D S
R
E FAA Height Notification Surface Central Commercial
E
E V
T
L L
S
B A Atwater Sphere of Influence General Commercial
M
M
A
A
HARVEY G Merced Sphere of Influence Neighborhood Commercial
H City Limits Office Commercial
O
C
C A D I U
H O N Y Community Boundaries Thoroughfare Commercial
U
O
EL CA B PITAN D FISHER KENNEY Runway O Golf Course
P
M 59 Roads Light Industrial A O UV C MEADOW AK DA Heavy Industrial D LE City of Merced Zoning SHAW R-1-20 Low Density Residential Planned Development
N C I
A P N R-1-10 Low Density Residential Low Density Residential T A U
S L L E R-1-6 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential
W
LIVINGSTON CRESSEY CRESSEY PALM R-1-5 Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-2 Low Medium Density Residential Residential Estate
N B2 R-3-2 Medium Density Residential Mobile Home Park District O
T
T
N I Residential Transition MERCEDES S R-3-1.5 High Medium Density Residential
E W
W R-4 High Density Residential Merced County Zoning
G R-MH Mobile Home A-1 General Agriculture N I
S L E L
N E C-G General Commercial A-2 Exclusive Agriculture EUCALYPTUS EUCALYPTUS D O N
J S Y
B1 E C-N Neighborhood Commercial A-R Agricultureal Residential
A A L
I M N LO A A E P
H C-T Thoroughfare Commercial R-1 Single-Family Residential R LA
A
C-O Office Commercial
OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE R-1-5K Single-Family Residential (5000') 1 ARLENE X A 3 R C-C Central Commercial M-H Single-Family Mobile Home
Y
Y A
N N BETH
E E A
A
MYRTLE O L P
I
R RP-D Residential Planned Development R-2 Two-Family Residential E
E
I A
R C E
D
S
H B
E A
I TOKAY U
T
R P-D Planned Development R-3 Multi-Family Residential
N WALNUT S
N A
R
E B
Y
E
O Y
C
E WINTON I-L Light Industrial R-4 Multi-Family Residential
PAIGE T F
N D
I S I
U
L N
S V LINDSEY I
N RIDGE A
E I-H Heavy Industrial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C
T
C
R
S S CRAWFORD A C M
E S M A-1-20 Restricted Agricultural C-2 General Commercial
H E BRIDGET ALMOND O
C P R E P DORIS R F A-T-5 Agricultural Transition C-3 Heavy Commercial
R
Y E IM E D C BOBBIE E E F T R F E U-T Urban Transition C-P Commercial Professional Office
L A
A N R S L
A
E L H P
E
L R S OLD LAKE C-T Commercial Transition P A A T NEVAD T R LADINO LIBERTY GERTRUDE E C A N A A N
E C R K P O L E E H-I-C Highway Interchange Center
C
N A R R RIDGE H H
T I F
I M K CAMELLIA A WALLACE A CLUB
L
E M-1 Light Manufacturing S
P R E W R
R A
N D T O N D L P K AKE VIEW S N
I A B O O I R S E LL C G
E O O O B V Y R P O T M-2 General Manufacturing T A B A H FARMLAND O N BREEZE A R N
D I N S
E FRUITLAND T N CHANNEL W A D R
V N O A R A E PD Planned Development E
O 99 K O D
H
G H
A R D C 1
C }þ A A A ·| NIT A D Z G T AN N R M O T Y 3 RTH B F T U L R T O TTE SPZ (Aviation/Manufacturing) S A LIA S V L NO T R
G U
O A I M F A N E H 9 PALORA E KEL LI D O 9 V SO C R C T R E SPZ (Business Park)
C J A C BELLEVUE
L ELLEVUE WESTSIDE 9 BELLEVUE B COU SHU ZEPPELIN 9 L N TT I TY LE SPZ (Commercial)
FAY H Y OD FIRST B
E O UNCREST DW D A S ELK S RE HIR BRADSHAW N SPZ (Visitor Commercial) City of T T C S
H R B1 R
E H V M IVY T S IFT O I F
R I N I X N A F O E T I N T SPZ (Institutional) C C I D N S X Atwater T LONGVIEW H G I PI TAHOE R V Y N R E P O A O L O Y E V T F
A L L R O SPZ (Open Space) M I E S M V MARV T N IS P E R E I F N E I JUP MERRIL R H L L F ITE O R R R JU NIPER AVENUE TWO E TW M
N C U P C H E AVEN
A A E E O S A L A D L G N H
A M I OLLY 1 N T H A
R R A H
M H T A S S
E V A
U
Y Notes: See Chapter 3, Map CAS 1, Compatibility Policy Map. B A
R LA CARDELLA
N ARDEL L C R T
B O A
BELL C L B S A AD CLINT S AGEWOOD A
W S U W ON N K
A U B2 B T Y R
R I G A A SUMMERGLEN F MONACO I A C U
O L E Y MME R SILVA E PETTINOTTI DESTINY R O F VENUE ONE C A A
T E D Y AD A Data Sources: Zoning designations from MCAG, 2010, and
R O A
R
L T Y H F N G W F AVIGNO
E D E A
A
T D R C
T I R Merced County, 2010. Basemap details from Merced County, Y E A E U E G LEHIGH N B M R N
R R R AUPS R O E
I
E P E N N DUNN R N C
S I R D T S BELCHE I
L
R A BELCHER E
R N E B SUNSET T R D
S N
T R O 2011. Runway alignment from FAA Airport Master Record, 2010.
R O
N E
U M
O S A N N N E N J
T K E I IO S I E O U
A I D OR L U R P G
D
L S A CL T
E O S
C V G
E N D P U D R N
G R SOHAN A S
T A L
O
A E A N A L O I R B PACIFIC V
S U S R P E U S
R D L O K L N
U T I
A M C A G A E C E A A
P V A I L U A G R E
D
T S U
W O A O FRANKLIN - BEACHWOOD A
T L
A R D R O Y U
E
Q S
L YOSEMITE
Y T DAN WARD S N H E
D O G L E J ATWATER JORDAN T E UNIPERO N R EY TUPELO A L A L AL R N V A
A
U N R
I O I
L S P M R I A DONN AHWAHNEE I H A
G T A Feet C R L A E T I BEA
E F N S T N A I E I V H C DONNA SILVERADO L F
E A O T L D
N E B BU P Y S E M City of Merced S N N S N 0 3,500 7,000 14,000 T A M O A V PINEHURST I I N S
P T P Unincorporated I & N A A A Y C N M
L LANGTRY
O
A D Y G A P D T ´ N
I
R A A EL B PO S K RTAL
E A
W G F
C
N
S 9 LOBO E H
O H S ROSE MULBERRY BRONC E C
A A 5 M
T S Merced CouRnOStEy ANTLEY PUS COLUMBIA H
C D N LOUGHBOROUGH
R
S E
R
C A
O N
F S R N
N E K R I E S A E
E BROOKDALE R
N R N
B E L
C
K O I I B
H E Y W
I U B
R N
T ELLIOTT A L S TEAK E
U
O J R
E A L G S LEES U Y
R R
B U H
D E
D O
OLIVE U D R A
D W
L C A O G A LIVEWOOD C A P
S A I S E Castle Airport E NEVES A H G
E B JULIE P WHITE CRANE WHITE CRANE NOAH Y M K A A COOPER EMERALD X K D S ESSE R ALEXANDER C N RAMBLER R
O B K
M
Y Y E SHERWOOD
R B O N O E
C I R W O G OREGON Land Use Compatibility Plan P F 2 I E R L M R A
A 4 A AM A JAKE G LANDR R T T CR D N H H D L B
N N O
I I B
E
E N Y L A AR U 1 Q T DEN 2 P R B
6 W 2 A MILES N 2 K T O 2 7 C
N S A Q H 5 T R (Adopted June 21, 2012)
E D I I T H JOSIE O E N U 2 N H E S L
MORAN T R MORAN MORAN MORAN R T S 3 K A R 2 T D O N S L 6
O O
R 2 T How to Read the Maps O S R 1 I H L A
F T S S
F S N T K A A A N H D
A
C C
R U 2 H R H Q The Zoning maps show zoning designations for both the cities and the T I LUCILLE T A 4 N H A O O J R R T
E P T E H T S H 2 A V K F Merced Regional Airport C C T T E M 4 E ASTI S 2 Exhibit CAS 8 T N T Y T
O G 0 6 U A QUEEN ELIZABETH T I O T 9 N S E N G unincorporated county. Zoning within the cities extends only to the A H D R O R O O N
E A A N D V 13 N H I
I G
R E 27TH D T 1 M I E
S
C 1 F Airport Influence Area N H 9 8 9 5 N T I E M city limits. The County's zoning designations apply to everything outside the city limits. R T H 1 L E A Y 2
S H 9 1 2 T MC SWAIN Y 1 T 140 P S 2 G R L X 3 H N A V T T 26TH W H D G P 140 T Q UV M U Planned Land Uses - Zoning BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
D PARK OU E Y
E BALLICO L BR ADBURY PRINCETON
M
A Legend S STO D CKMAN E
R
E V
E
L L
T
B A S Airport Influence Area
M NORT M H A
A
HARVEY G 1 Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones
H
O
C
C A D I U
H O O N Y
U
C O FAA Height Notification Surface
I EL CAPITAN B
D L KENNEY
L FISHER
O
A
P
B 59 M UV City Limits A O C MEADOW AK DA LE SOUTH D Atwater Sphere of Influence SHAW
N C I
A P
N T Merced Sphere of Influence A U
S
L L
E W Community Boundaries LIVINGSTON CRESSEY CRESSEY PALM Unincorporated Merced County Runway
N
Sa O n T B2 t N e I F MERCEDES Roads e W D r
T
O
S
G
E
U
S
W
E
EUCALYPTUS N EUCALYPTUS
O
J
Y E O
A L
T B1 D I
N
BIRD A A
T
E
M H
H
R
A
A G
A
I
Y
N
W
A OLIVE OLIVE OLIVE
D OLIVE
T
L A 1
X
ARLENE 3 R
U
Y
Y A
S
N N
BETH E
E A
A
L
MYRTLE O P
R
I
E
E R
E
A A L
I
R E D
L
P D H S
A
E B
I
A E
T A TOKAY U C
I
T R
N T
C City of S M WALNUT R
N A
A R
R
T
E B
Y
E
M O Y
S R
A
C E WINTON
PAIGE F T
N D E M U N I
I C S
LivinI gston
U
S L A A N D V
S
L I M V INDSEY A N H RIDGE
N E C
I
P T
C B R S A CRAWFORD S E C M
R L S E M
E E L BRIDGET H O T ALMOND P R F C E
N P DORIS R F
R
U Y E IM E D
H C BOBBIE E F E I T R
F T C E A LA L R A ET N N R S L
A L E H
A P
I
E
L
R S P H NEVADA A T
T PEACH R LADINO
LIBERTY GERTRUDE E C A
C
A N A N
E C R P Y 9 K 9 O L E E
E C
N A R R H L H T IM
I K
S A CAMELLIA A WALLACE
E R E
P W R
E R Y A
N D T N P S I LAKE VIEW
E A E B O I E OREGON C R S
E L
Y O P O V
H B T R I O
T A B A S
H A BREEZE N R A N
D I N S MAGNOLIA E
B1 FRUITLAND T N CHANNEL H
R A D
V
H N O A A 99 R E
O
C K O D
H
H A |þ} R A C · D 1 C
ANITA A H D NZ G ND MA R LA Y FRUIT T 3
R D T O T U A S G F T R V
U O L F A N B OS LIVE H OLIVE O ALT E I D
PALORA OS KELSO L CO C R T A A R
I JE C 1 City of BELLEVUE Y
WESTSIDE BELLEVUE BELLEVUE U CO SH ZEPPE 3 U LIN K F U TT A AC O KIM M N NT LE R R Y L Unincorporated MA E ST Y FAY Y A T IR T D U F C O D
E Atwater X E O N T W T A C R S D M R L CRE D S S UN E O S L R I I R W A ELK A S A H A BRADSHA P A T F S N
A B1 R B Merced County S H I T
R G E I H H V A C T M Y T F JUDY FIF E R I H F X A T I E E T L C E C G D T S I X H A S TAHOE LONGVIEW N G S A R I E N I E H O P O O VY BEALS C 1 V L U W L V F WALNUT A E I L O V E T M E K E R A T Notes: See Chapter 3, Map CAS 1, Compatibility Policy Map. H N P D A E O I L T G F N E M M I Y A C S R D O R E L J A R UN W I IPER AVENUE TWO T H UE N N T C A E AVE
A
H O E E L R S D C N B A U A R T H
R R U A
B T S S
E V S E A Y Y B2 C B A A N R L ELLA M T CARD O A CARDELLA Data Sources: Basemap details from Merced County, 2011. R O C
BELL L E A AD CLIN S SAGEWOOD W W T K U ON A U
R Y B Runway alignment from FAA Airport Master Record, 2010.
I R G A A SUMMERGLEN MONACO
I A C L U O E M Y MM R SILVA PETTINOTTI ER O F UE ONE Aerial image from ESRI, 2011. C C A AVEN
T E D A D M Y 99 D A O R O T A
H G W FF
L
E
A D
T T R
O
R
T I A E Y E R E G
A B M R LEHIGH R UPS H O R E A
I
E D P E N
R N C S
E I R S BELCHER I
L A R BELCHER S R UNSE E G T
B N T R D N
F
I
T S
T F E R O
U N
O A
N S N
F O N J
E I T
I O N E I I S W OR R P G D D U A
S T D A L E C E U LOVE D D R N E D P G R SOHAN H A S E
T
C A E L O R N A R B A
D S PACIFIC
S I U R R P E S S P A K LU R T O
L G E A M C A L A E
V O E R IA LG U I T S D M A A O O W
B
R O R Y D U A
E ITE L SEM E Y T S YO E H H DAN WARD N
E D A G T TWATERT JORDAN L O JUNIPERO N E TUPELO A G Y A C R LE A E L AL A N
A R V DINO U N E LA R Feet I I O L L M R A S R R I P DON I N
G H A A DONN A A T S
L T R A C C R E T I BEA E
E N F S
T E N
A B V I U I H A C
L F R D O A 0 3,000 6,000 12,000 T L S
E N E B O Y E P S M S N S T
I A P M A U N T N N P B P L U ´ E I & NA P H Y N N A VIS E L TA LAN GTRY P A A D R Y G A C P NA BAR T A CHI U R I N
A K O S B A
R E A M T N I D N G CAMELLIA I M F S WALLACE H N S A
C D E 9 H LOBO RAOSE NCO E P E LBERRY BRO MU A E A E 5
F N S C S ROSE T H N
T T S R R LOUGHBOROUGH
R
N L E A E
I A S D C N B R
F O R N S N P
K
O R
L F S S E I E A E E R R E H R C N N T E O E C
I K I
N W
B O D H Y W
A E N R L R T O ELLIOTT A N E R OR N B U AR R F H O J L
E A
S
E R
G D A O I B H U C B FRANKLIN - BEACHWOOD D R D OLIVE O
U
A D
H H W
C
N L R A I OLIVEWOOD C H L
A
S S A A I
E L S A C C A NEVES H E B K K JULIE Castle Airport WHITE CRANE 1 OAH Y M R WHITE CRANE N
R
A COOPER D 3 N A
ESSEX K S D A
N R N A N LE L ORT RAMB E O P B H B O Y
Y
E E F MANZANITA I C R SHERWOOD City oARf C Merced
T B R O E A
E C
R F E I R O K U T F A Y P W City of T I 2 L M R
I N A 4 T A Y O ANDRAM A A L V T A G L R T S JAKE I N Land Use Compatibility Plan G V H A L B R N A N O
A
I N A N I
E 2 D R 8 Y T N D O I L T KELS U Q H R O 2 P
A L C L W MILES N 2 2 Atwater E K N O 5 A
Q
T
C D T Y U I R F P JOSIE H O SWAPS N U 2 I 2 N 6 T
E U S (Adopted June 21, 2012) A P S AFT RAN T 3 T CR RAN MORA R MO S PACE MO N MORAN T E S E A R H E E U T D R BELLEVUE
C Z S L O
BELLEVUE T L W
R 2 S I O R 1
M
C U L S A I T S SHUTTLE F R T N H N T N A Q N E A T A N
C R U
KIM Y A Feet 2 E M H
I A T T LUCILLE 4 E C R T S T O V A FIRS R T
E P L E
L T T R H V O C F S R C D E R T S E K A T 2
T S
G O N U O 0 2 R H S N T T G L BET 2 R A U P I QUEEN ELIZ Y
N A E H Exhibit CAS 9 S 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 R R O N O
S FOR O D T R F UNA L A
A Merced Regional Airport D
E A
G
V M A D
I A R R P 1 D I M 1 N
G C
N 6 TERRI C H BRADSHAW T N 8 I T I S 1 R 9 H T Y 9 5 H 1 E T H
T 9
MC SWAIN S 140 P H L X 12 T 140 Airport Influence Area Y H T 1 G
A P H 3 M UV W TH M A P I M N U S Aerial View