air cargo airport feasibility study - stanislaus · pdf filedevelopment corporation air cargo...

I Click Here to ~ e t i i n to Agenda I Click here to return tp Item

7. 4 Economic Strategic Plan

1-5 Corridor Industrial/Business Park Feasibility Study

The Economic Future of the San Joaquin Valley I

Master Developer Article

Proposal to - Stanislaus County & the

Stanislaus County Economic Development Corporation

Air Cargo Airport Feasibility Study

Kreines & Kreines A California Corporation

In association with Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates Gayle D. Gillfillan and Associates

Ronnie L De La Cruz

October 17,1991

http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/BOS/Agenda/2005/20050215/B11.pdf

http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/BOS/Agenda/2005/20050215/Att1.pdf




Table of Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Tables & Exhibits iv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preface 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative Sites for the Air Cargo Airport 3 . . . . . . . . . . . Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Field 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modesto Airport 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Site Specific Airport 3

Alternative Selected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Stanislaus County Products 5

Agricultural Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. . . . . . Products From Surrounding Counties With Air Shipment Potential 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monterey and ~ a n t a nu.' counties 6

Domestic and Foreign Market Demands For Year-Round Supply of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 8 Produce Industry Movement Toward Large Centralized Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Distribution Facilities 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HighTechnologyExports 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Technology as an Industry 10

. . . . . . . . . Importance of High Technology in U.S. Exports 12 San Francisco International Airport Exports of Three Selected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commodities 14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Commodity Analysis 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Air Shipments In California 15

. . . . . Current Air Shipment of Selected Agricultural Commodities 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commodities Grouped by lfipe 16

. . . . . . . . . . . . Commodities By Country of Destination 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seasonality of Production 17

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diversion Strategy 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences in Route Miles 19

. . . . . . . Potential Cargo Demand Under the Diversion Strategy 21

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competing Transportation Modes 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic Markets 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cargo Technology 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible Strategies 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Time as a Factor in Future Economic Activity 32 Changes in Manufacturing. Assembly and Distribution . 32 Landside Congestion at Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Need to Augment Fruit and Vegetable Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Phase I . Initial Phase (Next Tbvo to Three Years) . . . . . . . . 37

. . . . . . . . . . . Phase 11 . Interim Phase (1995 to year 2000) 38 . . . . . Phase IlI . Industrial Airport Phase (year 2000 to year 2015) 38

Preparing for Crows Landing Air Cargo Airport for Three Phases: . . . . . Initial, Interim and Industrial Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Minimum Requirement for Fruits and Vegetables in Phase I . Initial Phase (Ready by 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 High-Tech Cargo Facilities for Phase II . Interim Phase (1995 to year 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Preparation for Phase III . Industrial Airport Phase (year 2000 to year 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Back Haul Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Determination of Transportation Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Modes of Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Air Cargo By Tonnage and Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Air Cargo By Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Preliminary Flights By Cargo 'Qpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Cargo Demand for Aviation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Destinations of Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Aircraft Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Aircraft Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Aircra£t/Airport Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Airfield Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Facility Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Airfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Terminal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Airfield Area Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Terminal Area Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Institutional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Capital Improvement Program (CLACA Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Institutional and Financial Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Assumption: Joint Use with NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Stanislaus County Airport Authority (SCAA) . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Financing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Alternative Sources for Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Cash Flow Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Financial Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiscal Impact 94

Estimate of Benefits to be Derived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Value Added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Indirect Benefits to Stanislaus County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Preliminary Cost-Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Dollar Costs/Benefits 100

Appendices

iii

List of Tables & Exhibits

Tables Page

1. Ordinal Ranking of Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Top Ten Agricultural Commodities In Stanislaus County, 1990 . . . . . .5

3. Monterey County's Top Produce Exports . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Monterey County w o r t s By Country; Top Ten Countries . . . . . . . .8 5. San Francisco Bay Area Jobs by Major Basic Industry Group, 1979-2000 . . 11

6. San Francisco Custom District, Value of Exports and Imports, 1983-1989 (billions of dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

7. International Cargo in Metric Tons, Loaded at San Francisco International Airport, by Year, 1983 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .

8. Leading Categories By Value and Weight . . . . . . . , . . . . . 17

9. Projections of Fruit and Vegetables Exported from SFIA to Japan and Divertable to CLNALF (Starting in 1997), in metric tons . . . . . . 21

10. Projections of High Technology Products Exported for SFIA to Japan and Divertable to CLNALF (Starting in 1997), in metric tons . . . . . . 22

11. Combined "Worst-Case" Fruits & Vegetables and High Technology Commodities to Japan, Divertable to CLNAL;F . . . . . , . . . . . 23

12. U.S.ExportsByAirand Water . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 26

13. Forecasts of Air Cargo Traffic . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 27

14. Growth of High Tech Employment in the Bay Area . . . . . . . . . 41 15. Phase II - Interim Phase Growth (1995 - 2000) Annual CLACA Cargo

Exports, in short tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

16. h u a l Projection of Export Tonnage Due to Arrival of Production Workers at CLACA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

17. Total Exports, Diversion plus JIT Operations, in short tons per year enplaned at CLACA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

18. Calculation of Annual Back Haul from CLACA, beginning in 1995 . . . . 47

19. Crow Landing Phase II & Phase IIX Exports, Diversions and Operations . 48

20. Eleven U.S. Airports Ranked by Enplaned Domestic Air Cargo Tonnage . . 50

iv

21 . Preliminary Allocation of International Destinations By Air Cargo 'Qpe . . 50 22 . Principal U.S. w o r t Markets and Stage-Length Distances . 51

23 . Distribution of Air Cargo Tonnage By Stage Length . . . . . . . . . 51 24 . Destinations of Enplaned Air Cargo. from CLACA, by Phase and

meofca rgo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 25 . 'Qpes of Cargo Aircraft to be used at CLACA, by phase and

origi.n/destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 26 . Aircraft Operations by m e . UACA, by phase and payload . 54

. . . . . . . . . 27 Aircraft Approach Speeds. byreferencecode category 55

28 . Airplane Design Groups. by wingspan, in feet and meters . . . 55

. 29 . Historical Runway Approaches by Large Transport Aircraft, at CLNALF . . 57 30 . Runway Length and Strength Requirements for General Aviation and

Business Jet Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

31 . Runway Length Requirements for Air Cargo Aircraft . . . . . . . . . 61 32 . Suggested Ranges i n E t Locations (DistancefromThreshold) . 62

. . . . 33 . Facility Requirements Summary; Air Cargo Airport Facilities Only 64

34 . Runway Separation Standards for Aircraft Approach Categories C & D . . 68

35 . Runway Design Standards for Aircraft Approach Categories C & D . 69

36 . Capital Improvement Program, in thousands of 1992 dollars . 74

37 . Range in Multiplier of 1992 Costs. in terms of idlation or appreciation . . 76 38 . Funding Assumptions. per item and unit cost, in thousands of 1992 dollars . 77 39 . Estimate of CLACA Land Needs. Until the Year 2015 . . . . . . . . 80

40 . Cash Flow Analysis. in thousands of 1992 dollars . . . . . . . . . 89 41 . Sources of Major Revenue by Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

42 . Application of Major Expenses by Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Exhibits After Page

1 . Growing Seasons for 39 Selected Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2 . Diversion of Fruits & Vegetables from Monterey County . SFIA to . Monterey County C L N U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3 . Diversion of High Technology from Santa Clara County . SFIA to Santa Clara County . CLNALF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 . Congestion Points in the Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5 . Superport Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6 . Plan & Section View. JlT Relative to Cargo Airpoe . . . . . . . . 36

7 . Alliance Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8 . Runway Configuration at CLNALF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

9 . Proposed Concept Plan on Existing CLNALF Background . 63

. 10 Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

11 . Terminal Area Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

12 . Practical Environmental Capacity Noise Impact, CLNAW . . . . . . . 80

13 . Prime Agricultural Land, CLNALF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

14 . Environmental Site Locations. CLNALF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Acknowledgements

Kreines & Kreines, Inc. would like to thank the following staff for their assistance and support in this effort:

0 Jim Duval, Associate Planner, Planning & Community Development Dept., Stanislaus county Charline Speck, Assistant Director, Stanislaus County Ekonomic Development Corp.

In addition, Kreines & Kreines, hc. would like to thank the members of the Air Cargo Facility Steering Committee for their input and guidance:

Wade Bingham, Mayor, City of Patterson

Janet Carben, Mayor, City of Newman

Lt. Commander Will Carpenter, Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Field

Paul Caruso, Supervisor, District No. 5, Stanislaus County

Howard Cook, Manager, Modesto Airport

Preface

Stanislaus County and the Stanislaus County Economic Development Corporation (SCEDCO) have researched and analyzed the feasibility of an air cargo airport on the site of the Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (CLNALF). Hundreds of persons and numerous organizations were contacted for this feasibility study, including representatives of business and industry as well as members of agricultural cooperatives in Stanislaus County and nearby counties. A partial list is included in Appendix A.

This report was prepared by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., consultant to Stanislaus County and SCEDCO and reviewed by the Air Cargo Facility Steering Committee, Stanislaus County staff and SCEDCO staff. The following issues were investigated and resolved:

6 A site plan shows that four new buildings, an extended runway and an expanded apron would be needed to convert CLNALF to Crows Landing Air Cargo Airport (CLACA) .

6 On-site infrastructure needs (including all development except buildings and equipment) needs would cost slightly over $16 million, most of which would be eligible for 90% Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grants.

Goods produced, processed and packaged in the San Joaquin Valley today are primarily agricultural and could not support an all-cargo airport.

If Just-In-Time high tech processing facilities were located next to CLACA, the potential for 40,000 jobs would be created.

If agricultural products are to be shipped by air, refrigeration can be supported -- and must be made available -- at CLACA.

Agricultural products that are processed are generally not amenable to air shipment.

An emphasis has been placed on international air shipment, although domestic markets exist and no particular advantage is found for establishing a free trade zone.

Fast freight forwarders, truckers, air carriers and airline passenger representatives have been contacted during the course of this feasibility study.

This feasibility report is neither a policy document nor an environmental impact report.

Alternative Sites for the Air Cargo Airport

Stanislaus County and SCEDCO selected three alternative sites for analysis in this feasibility study. These sites are:

Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Field

CLNALF is owned by the United States government.

CLNALF is primarily used by the U.S. Navy to support Moffet Field in Sunnyvale in Santa Clara County. Moffett Field is being decommissioned and the U.S. Navy mission at CLNALF has been moved to Lemoore Naval Air Station in Hanford (Kings County).

A secondary mission of the airport is to support the National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration (NASA) flight experiments.

The future of CL;NALF is uncertain, but it is clear that NASA will be in charge of the facility in the future.

Modesto Airport

The Modesto Airport is owned by the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County and main- tained and operated by the City of Modesto. The airport contains 459.4 acres. The Modesto Airport has been operating longer than any other municipal airport in the United States.

The City of Modesto grew up around the airport and now, along with the City of Ceres, surrounds it. Modesto w o r t is primarily a general aviation airport serving small, single- engine aircraft, with approximately 120,000 general aviation commercial operations per year. By the year 2009, the general aviation commercial operations are expected to increase to 150,000 per year. American Eagle and United Express operate commercial flights from the Modesto Airport and carry about 20,000 persons per year. Modesto Air- port is operating at 80% of its capacity.

Non-Site Specific Airport

A non-site specific airport is a description of an ideal airport that would be owned and operated by Stanislaus County and/or a private entity. This airport is called "non-site specific" because no such facility exists. Such an airport would need to be located on un- developed flat land with no development within several miles. Ideally, the site would be owned by only a few owners to facilitate purchase. An optimum site would be 10,000 acres with a maximum of 15,000 acres. Finding a suitable site would be difficult to almost impossible in Stanislaus County.

Alternative Selected

An "ordinal'1 system of raxiking the three sites was used in this feasibility study. In this approach, each alternative scores on its rank order (1,2 or 3) based on the information available for this alternatives analysis. The alternative with the least points would be the most desirable site and the altemative with the most points would be the least desirable site.

As Table 1, shows, the three alternatives ranked quite closely. The non-site specific airport, probably due to its size and unknown features, had the most points and is therefore the least desirable. The CLNALF had the least points and is therefore the most desirable.

Table I: Ordinal Ranking of Alternative Sites

Crow Landing Naval Auxiliary Non-Site

Site Modesto Airport Lantling Field Specific Airport

Location (Proximity to Bay Area) 2 1 3 Surrounding Land Use 3 2 1 Room for Expansion 3 2 1 Prime Agricultural Land 1 3 2 Acquisition & Development Cost 1 2 3 Lead Time Before Operational 1 2 3 Environmental Problems 9 1 2

Totals 14 13 15

Malor Stanislaus County Products

Agricultural Commodities

The top ten commodities grown in Stanislaus County, by value, are presented in Table 2; these commodities alone account for almost 80 percent of the total dollars that were generated by the agricultural production industry in Stanislaus County last year. Food processing, which is a form of manufacturing, is generally not included in "agricultural production."

Table 2: Top Ten Agricultural Commodities In Stanislaus County, 1990

Value of Rank Commodity Production Production

I Milk 22,440,000 cwt $268,261,000 I I 2 Chickens 208,083,000 head 125,564,000 I I Almond Meats 63,900 tons 109,908,000

I 4 Cattle 81 Calves 933,000 cwt 62,334,000 I I 5 Chicken Eggs 61,841,000 dozen 51,236,000 I I Tomatoes 432,000 tons 47,782,000

I Turkeys 5,741 ,OOO head 40,825,000 I I 8 Walnuts (in-shell) 38,900 tons 39,289,000 I I Peaches 159,000 tons 33,924,000

10 Gmpes (crushed)

cwt - hundred weight

168,000 tons 28,611,000

I Source: Stanislaus County 7990 AgdcuItuml Crop Report, 1990.

Production levels for all but two of these commodities increased last year (chicken production declined less than 1 percent and chicken egg production fell 12 percent). A ten-year overview by value shows category growth across the board.

Products From Surrounding Counttes With Air Shipment Potential

Merced County and San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County's immediate neighbors to the south and north, have product profiles similar to Stanislaus County. Two exceptions in San Joaquin County are cherries and asparagus, both of which are more popular with San Joaquin County growers and both of which have air shipment potential.

A thorough investigation of the feasibility of the proposed air cargo facility should include an evaluation of the air freight potential for Merced County products. Although the research and analysis of Merced County products is not within the scope of this report, it is recommended that the steering committee for this project review any data collected by Merced County as part of the Castle Air Force Base feasibility study. h general, our feel- ing is that there will not be many sigdicant air export or import opportunities associated with Merced County products.

Santa Clara County, Contra Costa County and Sacramento County are producers of some agricultural products, but their volumes are dwindling due to urban development. The nearest agricultural County with potential shipments for export is Monterey County (and to a lesser extent, Santa Cruz county)?

Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties

Value-added packaging research and application greatly increase the opportunities for utilization of air shipment of fresh, highly perishable agriculture products such as produce, and as such are being investigated as an element of this project. No areas use this value- added concept more than Monterey County (and to a lesser extent, Santa Cruz County): or the Salinas Valley.

Exports Of Fresh U.S. Produce

Exports of fresh produce from the Salinas Valley and other major U.S. agricultural regions are increasing at tremendous rates. Research for this study revealed that the major Salinas Valley produce firms involved in the export market report annual increases in fruit and vegetable export shipments of 80-150 percent. For some commodities, such as broccoli, 90+ percent of these export shipments are to Japan. For example, M~ann Packing Company, hc., a Salinas, California based growerlshipper, is one of the nation's largest shippers of fresh broccoli. Mann Packing reports current shipments of value- added broccoli florets to Japan at an average of 15 loads (370,000 lbs. total) per week. This represents an annual increase in M m s broccoli shipments to Japan of over 100 percent per year for the past two years.

1 References to Monterey County Indude Santa Cruz County since their products are largely the same. 2. lbid.

Other commodities such as Iceberg lettuce, asparagus, strawberries and leaf lettuce are also increasing in export volume to Europe, Taiwan and Hong Kong. To date, with the exceptions of strawberries, cherries, asparagus and some leaf lettuce items, 95 + percent of the export volume is moving via sea. Export air shipments of the major volume products are reportedly limited to samples and spot market requirements.

Large Japanese buying organizations, or trading companies, as they are often referred to, are opening year-round offices in California and the Northwest to better coordinate their purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables. This trend, another indication of the growing export market, will also increase throughout the 1990's.

Although export data for agricultural products are not tracked by Stanislaus County, the following data from Monterey County is presented as an indication of the haeasing trends in the export of California agriculture.

The dramatic increase in the export volume of Monterey County's top ten agricultural export commodities is reflected in Table 3. Broccoli, lettuce and celery in particular have en- joyed significant increases in foreign demand.

Table 3: Monterey County's Top Produce Exports

Rank Commodity 1988 Pounds 1989Pounds 1990Pounds

1 Broccoli 2,433,000 7,676,000 25,813,000 2 Lettuce 4,721,000 7,178,000 12,034,000 3 Celery 7,397,000 6,130,232 15,528,091 4 Tomato 50,000 943,000 6,998,000 5 Strawberry 5,538,000 4,377,000 4,329,000 6 Potato 0 0 4,191,000 7 Onion 3,469,000 4,516,000 4,126,000 8 Carrot 592,000 1,916,000 3,010,000 9 Asparagus 2,414,000 1,545,000 2,338,000 10 Cabbage 701,000 1,840,000 2,271,000

Source: Monterey Counfy Annual Crop Report, 1990

Table 4 identifies the leading ten destination markets for Monterey County's agricultural export commodities. Taiwan, Japan and Mexico have all dramatically increased their purchase of Monterey County agricultural products.

I Table 4: Monterey County &orb By Country; Top Ten Countries 1 Rank Commodity 1888 Pounds 1989 Pounds 1890 Pounds

Taiwan 6,463,000 Japan 1 1,287,000 Mexico 1,006,000 Great Britain 2,904,000 Guam 1,712,000 United Arab Emirates 353,000 Northern Marlana Islands 215,000 Italy 492,000 Panama 383,000 Netherlands 804,000

Source: Monterey County Annual Crop Report, 1990

Domestic and Foreign Market Demands For Year-Round Supply of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

Domestic and foreign demands for year-round supply of high quality fruits and vegetables may have significant import/export implications for Stanislaus County and the surrounding areas.

Growing regions in Mexico, South America and Europe have made significant strides in incorporating modern growing, harvesting, handling and marketing techniques. These countries, which were recently considered to produce inferior quality produce, are now in many cases able to produce products of higher quality at lower costs than their U.S. counterparts.

Through advances in communication technology, many U.S. and foreign growers and wholesalers are forming two-way partnerships to import and export commodities which extend their respective shipping season of a given product line. For example, during the recent U.S. citrus freeze, product was brought into the U.S. from Spain to supplement supply losses and meet consumer demand for this product category. Grapes and melons will soon be available to U.S. and European markets on a year-round basis through U.S., Chilean and European growing regions.

Produce Industry Movement Toward Large Centralized Consolidation and Distribution Facilities

Fueled by competition among producers to better service the market, and the increased strength through the previously mentioned mergers and acquisitions within the retail and foodse~ce food segment, produce suppliers have expanded their product lines and are rapidly moving toward the utilization of large consolidation and distribution facilities.

In the early 1980's, some shippers began to position themselves more as marketing organizations and away from being only growers. In other words, they contracted with various growers to supply a given commodity which the marketing organization would sell for a marketing fee. This allowed both grower and marketer to do what they did best. Marketing organizations were then able to contract, grow, or purchase, a range of commodities which could be brought into a centralized warehouse and sales facility for consolidation and marketing. This function has generally replaced the terminal market handlers located throughout the U.S. that characterized the fresh produce business from the 1920's through the 70 '2

Need for Better Airport Facilities

Eleven years later, supply-side consolidation has become an important competitive factor in the U.S. fresh produce business. Growerlshippers that failed to move their operations toward consolidation have either already gone out of business, or are currently struggling to remain competitive.

A consolidation facility located at the proposed air cargo facility could be a major selling point for various producers of highly perishable agriculture products. The basic physical requirements for consolidation facilities are refrigeration, drainage, racks and a standard- height loading dock for trucks. Such a facility is lacking at San Francisco International Airport ( s ~ A ) ~ and shippers are reluctant to expose their products to non-refrigerated or poorly refrigerated storage and undesirable handling practices at SFLe However, there are no alternatives for air shipment facilities in Northern California to date.

-

3. McLaughlin 81 Pierson, I=. 4. SFIA is alw known as SFO.

High Technology Exports

The authors of this paper assume that agricultural commodities may not, in and of themselves, be sufficient to support an air cargo airport in Stanislaus County. Therefore, high technology manufaduring was studied to see if there is any potential for air shipment from Stanislaus County or the surrounding area.

For purposes of this section, "high technology" includes the following types of manufacturing:

Semiconductors and Other Electric Components

Instruments

Workstations

Personal Computers

Local Area Networks (LANs)

Software

Many definitions of high technology industries would include biotechnology, aerospace and communications devices. These industries have not been included in this discussion because of their relative lack of data in Northern California.

High Technology as an Industry

High technology industries as a whole are gaining in importance in the United States. This can be measured two ways: jobs and dollar value of goods produced. In California, for the moment, high technology is receding, at least in terms of employment. Even though high technology is projected to increase nationally, the California share is decreasing and, in real terms, California is expected to stagnate or even lose high technology jobs in the future. This is particularly true of the Bay Area as shown in Table 5.

Total sales in high technology products are strong. In 1987, almost $40 billion in sales were accounted for by high technology industries in California. This compares to 1987 agricultural sales in of $15.6 billion in Californias

- - --

5. Center for Continuing Study of the Caiifomla Economy, The lithe~, p. CAL-5.

Stanislaus County has only a few small high technology firms. The nine top manufacturing employers in Stanislaus County are agricultural processors! The next three top processors in Stanislaus County deal with materials processing, such as paper packaging and glass for bottles. While it is clear that Stanislaus County cannot support an air cargo airport on the basis of its high technology firms, its neighbor to the west, Santa Clara County, is the premier high technology location in the world. This feasibility study looks to neighboring counties for the possible demand needed for air cargo, and Santa Clara County is a perfect case in point.

Table 5: San Fmclsco Bay Area Jobs by Major Basic Industry Group, 1979-2000 (thousands)

Change Change 1979 1989 2000 197889 1 9892000

High Technology 142.4 198.8 199.1 56.4 0.3

Diversified Manufacturing 254.1 232.2 ' 238.5 -21.9 6.3

AircraltlSpacelDefense 78.9 87.0 70.3 8.1 -1 6.7

Resource Based 48.0 38.0 29.3 -1 0.0 -8.7

Transportation 75.1 76.7 99.1 1.6 22.4

Basic Servlces 422.6 623.2 793.5 200.6 170.3

Total Basic Jobs 1,021 .I 1,255.9 1,429.8 234.8 173.9

Source: Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, The Outlook for the California Economy, 11/91, p. SF-5.

The six top high technology firms in Santa Clara County have twice as many employees as all manufactwing employment in Stanislaus County. In 1987, the dollar sales value of high technology roducts ($40 billion) in California are comprised of $22.5 billion in the P Bay Area alone. These numbers show a high concentration of high technology sales in the Bay Area, most of which occur from production facilities in Santa Clara County. Com- pare these numbers with the $1 billion agricultural products value in Stanislaus County.

6. Modesto Chamber of Commerce, Bulletin. July 1991. 7. Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, Op. Cit., pp. SF-3 to SF4.

Importance of High Technology in U.S. Exports

Even if high technology is losing employment in the near term, and even if California is projected to lose its high technology share of total national sales, high technology products still constitute an important export industry. In 1989, computers ranked first in dollar value for exports from California and second in electronic components?

In the United States as a whole, computers accounted for $8.2 billion worth of exports while electronic components accounted for $7.6 billion? No food commodities are in the twenty top exports from the United States except for meats. Only poultry meats are a production factor in Stanislaus County, and there is very little export activity reported at this time for poultry meats.

The leading trading partner for the United States is, by far, Japan. The same is true for California, the state which provides 35.9 percent of all exports to Japan from the United states." $53 million dollars' worth of exports and imports were handled by all California points of entry and ports (sea and air) in 1989. In 1989, the last year for which data is available, $17.9 billion worth of high technology was exported from California to all destinations, which means that, in two years, California was exporting almost as much value as it was producing two years before?'

There are many arguments as to whether the U.S. is losing its high technology edge to Japan, and what the implications of such erosion would be to California. California As- semblyman Sam Fan notes that the U.S. as a whole lost 15% of its market share to Japan. The point that gets lost in these arguments is that exports lost to Japan will show up as imports gained from Japan. Because much technology is not aimed directly at the end user, joint operating agreements between Japanese companies such as Canon, Sharp, SONY, Fujitsu, and Toshiba are established with Bay Area-headquartered firms such as AMD, IBM, Apple and INTEL. The latest list of these alliances is in Appendix B and bodes promise for air shipment of jointly produced high technology goods. The result will be a greater dependence on one country by another and, for both countries, a greater dependence on air cargo. The deciding factor for a Stanislaus County air cargo airport may be the possibility of Just-In-Time manufacturing facilities within the air cargo airport facilities. Only air cargo could make that happen.

-

8. Ibid., p. CAL-15. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., p. CAL-12 11. Ibid., p. CAL-15. Derived from adding computers, electronic components and measuring, and control instruments.

While California is in danger of losing high technology jobs and may be decreasing its share of national high technology employment, California is still the leader in high technology production and is increasing its percent of high technology exports. The air shipment factor is crucial: California is increasing its dollar value of trade in both exports and imports. As Table 6 shows, the percent of air cargo dollar value being shipped out of San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) has been steadily increasing to where it now accounts for more than 50 percent of the value all products exported from the San Francis- co customs district.

Table 6: San Francisco Custom District, Value of Exports and Imports, 1983- 1989 (biilions of dollars)

Shipped Exports Imports Total By Air

1983 $1 1.3 $1 1.3 $22.6 $9.1 1 984 12.4 16.4 28.8 12.2 <- 1985 11.3 15.5 26.8 11.4 1986 11.4 19.0 30.4 13.3 1987 14.3 21.8 36.0 16.7 1988 19.1 25.1 44.1 22.8 1 989 21.4 27.3 48.7 24.9

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Highlights of U.S. Exports and Imports Trade.

Because the data in Table 6 are not commodity-specific, we can only assume that a large portion of the total value is high technology. It should be noted that SFLA ships air cargo that originates from outside the Bay Area - and even from outside of California We can only assume that a large portion of SFIA exports are from the Bay Area and that a large portion of Bay Area air shipments are high technology.

Table 7 shows the total amount of export air cargo shipped (international cargo loaded) on an bmal basis between 1983 and 1990 from SFIA. The growth in exports between 1983 and 1990 for this period is almost 150 percent, or an increase from 42,127 metric tons to 104,504 metric tons. Cargo shipments from SFIA are carried on passenger airlines, air cargo shippers (e.g., Emery, DHL, Flying Tiger, Federal Express, UPS and Evergreen) and charter airlines.

Table 7: International Cargo in Metric Tons, Loaded at San Francisco International Airport, by Year, 7983 - 7990

1983 1984 1985 1 986 1987 1988 1989 1990

42,127.0 51,593.4 56,811.8 69,453.2 93,245.4 108,226.9 113277.9 104,503.8

Source: San Francisco International Airport, Comparative Traffic Reports, 12/84, 12/85, 12/86, 12/87, 1 2/88, 12/89 & 12/90.

San Francisco International Airport Exports of Three Selected Commodities

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued data on a monthly basis for all commodities leaving San Francisco, including SFIA. This service was discontinued as of December, 1991. Because these data are specific to both type of commodity as well as destination, it is important for this study to understand the magnitude, and seasonal variation, of air shipment to Japan of the following three commodities:

F ~ t s and vegetables.

Office machines, automatic data processing machines and their parts.

Electrical machinery, apparatus, appliances and their parts.

While the above list does not include all high technology products, the latter two categories are used to serve as a representation of high technology shipments by air. Not all office machines and electrical machinery are high technology products. Even more high tech products would not be listed in those two categories.

Appendix C shows very slight growth from as far back as data is available. Shipments of fruits and vegetables are seasonal and reach their peak in May.

The dollar values of high technology air shipment from SFIA to Japan completely dwarf the f ~ t and vegetable shipments to Japan, the country of greatest destination for h i t s and vegetables. As a result, it can be postulated that, if sufficient tonnage is being shipped to Japan out of SFIA, perhaps some of that tonnage could be diverted to a new air cargo airport in Stanislaus County.

Selected Commodity Analysis

The Role of Air Shipments In California

Air cargo is an important mode of freight transportation in California. In a joint economic study undertaken in the late 1980s by the California Department of Commerce (Office of Economic Research) and the California State World Trade Commission, it was reported that 60 percent of the value of all exports from the State of California reached their destination by air. This percentage is more than twice the national level of 28 percent.

Since we already know that the Bay Area Customs Office has more than 50% of its export value shipped by air, for California as a state to reach 60 percent of value means that Southern California relies even more heavily on air shipments abroad. The data suggest that San Diego (Lindbergh Field) is hardly significant as an international air cargo facility, shifting our attention to Los Angeles Airport (LAX), the premier air cargo airport in California.

Because of the important role of air cargo and the tremendous growth in this mode of transportation, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Transporta- tion Department, conducted a regional study in 1991 to analyze current air cargo activity levels and to project future levels. In order to arrive at LAX projections, SCAG began with W o r n i a as a whole. By the year 2010, SCAG estimates that all California air cargo shipments will reach almost 2 million tons. If this growth becomes a reality, it will exceed the forecasted growth rate for enplaned passengers by 20 percent.

As impressive as this may sound, an entirely different picture emerges when agricultural commodities are viewed separately. In the California Department of Commerce/Califor- nia State World Trade Commission joint study, it was found that only 6 percent of the value of crop (including non-food crops) products and 5 percent of the food products were exported by air from California. Though these percentages exceed the national levels (1 percent and 2 percent respectively), they fell well below air shipments in other categories like instruments (88 percent of value exported by air) and electronic equipment (86 percent of value exported by air).

A statewide view also sheds some light on how other export categories overshadow agricultural exports and how little of the agricultural exports are shipped by air. In 1986, agricultural exports via all modes through the Los Angeles Customs District accounted for only 5 percent of the total exports by value and 7 percent by weight. During this same year, 7 percent by value and 1 percent by weight of all the agricultural exports sent through the Los Angeles Customs District were shipped by air. Finally, agricultural exports sent by air comprise less than 1 percent by value and weight of the total value and weight of exports moved by all modes through the Lus Angeles Customs District.

Current Air Shipment of Selected Agricultural Commodities

There were 44 commodities identified at the outset of the feasibility study. Data were gathered on the value and weight of air shipments by commodity and in total, the weight of air shipments by coinmodity by country of destination and the total weight of air shipments by country. T6e data are from 1990, the most recent year available at the time of collection. Five of the commodities - cabbage, carrots, eggs for eating, fish and turkey breeding stock - were dropped from the list because there were no air shipments out of California in 1990. The data that follow represent the air shipment activity in California generated by the remaining 39 commodities.

Commodities Grouped by Type

The 39 selected commodities were broken into 10 categories as follows:

Breeding Stock: bovine semen, cattle, chickens and eggs (hatching)

~ r u i t l ' i n e : ' ~ apples, apricots, berries, cherries, kiwi, melons, peacheslnec- tarines, strawberries and wine

Grains: rice - freshlstored

Meat: beeflveal, chicken and turkey

Nursery Products: cut flowers, mushroom spawn, orchid plants, roses and trees/shrubs/bushes

Nuts: almonds

Seed: cantaloupe, cucumber, lettuce, pepper and tomato

Specialty Foods: caramel coloring

Vegetables: asparagus, cauliflower/broccoli, celery, lettuce, onions, peas, potatoes, spinach and tomatoes

12. Wine is only a small part of this category (in terms of weight or value) $0 that instead of having its own category (like nuts or grains), it was combined with fruit.

The top five categories by value and weight are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Leading Categories By Velue and Welght

Percent of Percent of Total Exports Total Exports Averaged

Category By Value By Weight Ranking

FruitslWine 33% 48% 1st Meat 26% 22% 2nd Vegetables 14% 24% 3rd Breeding Stock 19% 2% 4th Seed 5% 2% 5th

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade DMsion, U.S. Exports of Merchandise, 1990. .

Table 8 tells us, when the commodities are grouped into categories, that more h i t and wine is exported by air out of California than any other category considered in this analysis. Very little of this category is in wine due to its container weight.

Commodities By Country of Destination

The commodities considered in this scenario are being shipped through California airports to 79 countries on every continent throughout the world. One-quarter of these countries receive less than one short ton (2,000 pounds) annually. These smaller amounts tend to flow to smaller countries or developing nations and the commodities that are sent are for internal growth. e.g., bovine semen and seed.

Because over 60 percent of the agricultural commodities considered in this analysis flow to Japan, that country is the leading destination point. The United Kingdom follows with 10 percent, then Taiwan with 6 percent. Germany, Canada and Korea follow with 3 percent each.

Seasonality of Production

Not all the commodities selected for review are produced year-round. Exhibit 1 shows the statewide growing season and the local (defined as Stanislaus County and neighboring counties in the San Joaquin Valley) growing season for each commodity.

Slightly more than half the commodities are produced year-round, but it should be noted that almost half are produced only six months out of the year and that these commodities - - fruits and vegetables -- play a major role in the air shipment activity generated in 1990 as shown in Appendix D.

Cherries Apricots

Berries - Apples

Melons PeachesiNectarines

Strawberries Tomatoes

I Wine

Celery Lettuce

Onions - Dry Peas

Potatoes Spinach

Cut Flowers I Mushroom Spawn

Orchid Plants Roses

- --

Cantaloupe Seed Cucumber Seed

Lettuce Seed - --

Pepper Seed - -- - ~-

Caramel Coloring Rice - FreshlStored

Mil Wream Almonds - FresWtored

Beeftveal Chicken

- -

Eggs - Hatching

Cattle - Breeding Khnli

Exhibit 1: Growing Seasons for 39 Selected Commodities

California growing season, outside of the San 0 .,oaquinvally

Stanislaus County (including neighboring counties in San Joaquin Valley) & California growing season

Note that some commodities are exported soon after they are harvested (e.g., cherries) while others can be stored and exported at a later date (e.g., wine). Because of these dis- parities, it should be emphasized that although Exhibit 1 provides a clear picture of the seasonality of production, from which we can only infer the seasonality of exportation. Generally speaking, April through October is a time of intense activity in Stanislaus Coun- ty and the surrounding areas.

Projected Monthly Tonnages

As the feasibility of an air cargo airport is considered further, the aviation consultant will be able to use the detailed data that have been gathered to project the demand for a cargo airport in Stanislaus County. One consideration will be the seasonal nature of the agricultural industry and how that will affect an air cargo airport.

For purposes of this section of the report, Appendix D shows how the seasonality of production can impact the demand on an air cargo airport. The figures shown in Appen- dix D are for all current air shipments from California airports. Although not all the product currently being shipped from existing airports in California could be diverted to a Stanislaus County air cargo airport; the best-case will be calculated on the basis of capturing a percentage of total air shipment out of California. These 1990 data (rather than projections) represent the high end of a potential range of shipments from CLNALF. As mentioned before, the time frames provide a general sense of when this activity is actually occurring (production vs. shipment by air).

Though concentrated production occurs during the period April through October, two- thirds of the potential export shipping weight is produced between February and June with almost 40 percent ready for market in May and June alone.

Diversion Stratesy

This feasibility study has showed that Stanislaus County crops in particular, and San Joa- quin Valley crops in general, are insufficient to justify an air cargo airport on their own. However, when looking at the neighboring counties of Monterey, and to a lesser extent, Santa Cruz, there appears to be a growing supply of fresh produce which is leaving the U.S. via San Francisco International Airport (SFIA).

Stanislaus County has very little high technology industry. However, the Bay Area is a center of high technology production, with Santa Clara County at its center. Most high technology exports that are air shipped from Silicon Valley bave the Bay Area via SFM.

In examining exports from SFIA, it became obvious that Japan was, by far, the leading destination for fruit and vegetable shipments. Appendix E shows the growth in fruit and vegetable shipments to Japan from SFIA, in metric tons. Japan is also the leading destination for high-techno lo^ products, but not as prominent a leader as it is in fruits and vegetables. When the two types of commodities are compared in Appendix E, it can be seen that fruits and vegetables are highly seasonal, one-half the time exceeding high-technology in tonnage and the other half being exceeded by high technology.

The question is raised "What if an air cargo airport in Stanislaus County provided air shipment facilities that are superior to those facilities at SFIA for the shipment of h i t s and vegetables?" For example, SFIA lacks some basic physical requirements such as refrigeration, drainage racks and standard-height loading docks. The provision of these facilities at a Stanislaus County air cargo airport could divert substantial amounts of fruit and vegetable shipments from SFIA. Is it possible, therefore, with the knowledge that some scheduled flights for fruits and vegetables would now be available in a congestion-free environment, that some high technology exports would also migrate to Stanislaus County?

Differences in Route Miles

For fruits and vegetables to be diverted from Monterey County to SFIA, there would be no disadvantage in overall land route mileage that would have to be overcome. SFIA is 97 route miles from Salinas, while CLNALF is 93 route miles from Salinas. Exhibit 2 shows the route from Salinas to SFIA and the diversion route to CLNALF. For diversion of high technology from Santa Clara County, the difference in mileage would be in favor of SFUL Exhibit 3 shows the route from the interchange of U.S. 101 and 1-880 to SFIA as compared to the route to CLNAW via I-680,I-580 and 1-5. While the route to SFIA is approximately 37 miles, the route to CLNALF is approximately 82 miles, or 130 percent longer. The only way that any high technology exports could be diverted from SFIA to CLNALF would be to provide some needed type of facility at CLNALF not available at SFIA.

- Truck route to SFlA

Diversion of fiuits & Vegetables from Monterey County - SFLA

to Monterey County - CLNALF

Not to Scale - - I. Truck route to CLNALF Exhibit 2

This feasibility study will examine the possibility of providing "Just-In-Time" (JIT) manufacturing facilities either inside CLNALP or immediately adjacent to the CLNALF property, The JIT concept means that joint ventures between American firms and Japanese firms, for example, could assemble products from different international and domestic sources in Stanislaus County and have them shipped to different international and domestic destinations with a minimum of interruption due to trans-shipment, warehousing and inventory control. On high-value products where 'book-to-bill" ratios are critical, the ?IT process becomes attractive to international joint operations. Portside JIT capability is not available and could not be provided at S m k

Potential Cargo Demand Under the Diversion Strategy

A "worst-case" assumption is made by this feasibility study that 50 percent of all fruits and vegetables shipped from SFIA to Japan done could be diverted to a new airport at CLNALF', beginning in 1997. Table 9 shows a projection of fruits and vegetables to be shipped to Japan on an annud basis from SFIk Using the annual growth rates reported between 1988 and 1991, the increase is projected in seventeen-month increments into the year 2010. Seventeen-month increments are used to "spread" seasonality from one increment to the other.

Tabre 8: PrNections of Fruit and Vegetables Exported from SFIA to Japan and Divertabie to CLNALF (Starting in 1997), in metric tons

Percent 17-Month Change at Total 1 7-Month SFlA From Divertable Total

Earlier 17- Month to CLNALF Converted 17- Month Total (Startin$ Monthly to Shsrt Monthly

Month & Year Period at S R A ~ in 1997) ~verage' Tons ~verage'

April 1990 September 1991 February 1993 July 1994 December 1 995 May 1997 October 1998 March 2000 August 2001 January 2003 June 2004 November 2005 April 2007 September 2008 February 201 0

a. Projected by Kreines & Kreines, Inc. to grow at a decreasing rate evidenced between 12/88 and 9/91.

b. Assumes a 50% diversion. c. Does not account for seasonality.

t Table 10 shows high technology shipments from SFIA to Japan. Table 10 shows the same type of data as shown in Table 9 for fruits and vegetables, only with a ten percent diversion to SFIA, which is also considered to be a worst-case scenario for high technology.

Table 10: Projections of High Technology Products Ekported for SFIA to Japan and Divertable to C W (Starting in 1997), in metric tons

Percent Change at SFIA From

Earlier 17- Month

Month & Year Period

April 1999

September 1991 106%

February 1993 101%

-

17-Month Total 17-Month

Divertable Total 17- Month to CLNALF Converted

Total (Startin% Monthly to Shtrt Monthly at SFIA~ in 1997) Average Tons Average

July 1994 100% 1 1,220

December 1995 100% 1 1,221

May 1997 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234 73

October 1998 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234

March 2000 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234

August 2001 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234

January 2003 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234

June 2004 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234

November 2005 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234

April 2007 100% 1 1,221 1,122 66 1,234

September 2008 100% 1 1,221 1,122 66 1,234

February 201 0 100% 11,221 1,122 66 1,234

a. Projected by Kreines & Kreines, inc. until 1995, when a constant rate would be achieved. 1 b. Assumes a 10% diversion.

If both the fruit and vegetables as well as high technology were sbipped from CLNALF on the basis of diversion as assumed, their combined metric tonnage is shown in Table 11.

Table I I: Combined "Worst-Case" Fruits & Vegetables and High Technology Commodities to Japan, Divertable to CLNALF, in Metric Tons and Short Tons

Monthly Monthly Average in Average in

Metric Tons, Metric Tons, Fruits & Hbh

Month & Year Vegetable Technology

May 1997 1,133 66

October 1998 1,269 66

March 2000 1,381 66

August 2001 1,470 66

Januaty 2003 1,538 66

June 2004 1,591 66

November 2005 1,631 66

April 2007 1,660 66

September 2008 1,683 66

February 2010 1,699 66

Total Monthly

Average In Metric Tons

Monthly Average in Short Tons,

Fruits & Vegetable

Monthly Average in Total Short Tons, Monthly

High Average in Technology Short Tons

73 1,319

73 1,469

73 1,592

73 1,689

73 1,765

73 1,823

73 1,869

73 1,-

73 1,924

73 1,942

Competing Transportation Modes

An understanding of the role that air cargo has played -- and wil l play -- in the movement of goods both in the domestic and international markets is important information as a background to comprehending the potential for the use of CLNALF as a civilian air cargo facility.

Airfreight is a mall component of overall freight movement in California, accounting for less than one percent of total tonnage. However, airfreight has been the fatest growing of the fre9ht indwtries, and one of particular importance to producers of certain perishable and high value-to-weight goods. Growth in airfreight has led to the emergence of a number of fiight-only air services. In addition, airfiefreight fdities are cited as important in the location &cisions of high-technology industies. Airport issues thus must be considered from a freight pmpective as well as a assenger perspective, and truck access to airports nee& to be accounted for. S

Air cargo's increasing role in exports will be filled primarily by perishable and high-value commodities. Examples of the former are the fruits and vegetables and examples of some of the latter are high technology machinery and components and parts.

Any potential for the success of an air cargo airport at CLNALF would depend upon the ability to divert high technology cargo from San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) to this new air cargo facility. This, in turn, would depend upon offering exporters (and importers) of high technology substantial advantages at CLNALF not available at SFIA. These advantages would be associated with the Just-In-Time (JIT) concept which this feasibility study explores.

13. Elizabeth Deakin, Transportation and Economic Development, University of California, 9/87, p. 16.

Domestic Markets

Production of Transportation

When measured as aproducer of ton-miles of freight transportation, the air cargo industry is an insignificant part of the U.S. transportation system - about one half of one percent?4 Measured in terms of the dollars spent for transportation of freight as compared to highway, rail, water and pipeline, air again is the smallest producer.

However, when one looks at average revenue obtained per ton-mile of freight moved, the unique value of air cargo becomes apparent. Air outperforms rail about 15:l and motor carriers about 4:l. These comparisons indicate the premium value that air transportation can provide as perceived by the consumer. This premium is related to the savings of time for high value or important products. This point was documented for fruits and vegetables earlier in this report.

Principal Markets

Since the introduction of wide-bodied aircraft in the late 1960s, the airline industry has placed huge air cargo capacity in the belly holds of their passenger aircraft. In fact, a 747- 200 passenger aircraft has a belly capacity about equal to an entire B707F, an aircraft used totally for cargo. Because of this, only one domestic passenger airline still operates all- cargo aircraft and about 90% of air freight is carried as belly cargo in passenger aircraft.

14. U.S. Bureau of Census, 1991

+ Export Markets

There are thee principal areas of the world for U.S. airborne trade, Europe (45%), Asia/Pacific (35%) and Latin America (20%), according to the U.S. Department of Transportation in their publication entitled Analysis of US. Intematr'ond Air Cargo ~ a r k e t . ~ In each of these areas, sea transportation is still the dominant cargo mode as measured by weight. This is also true when measured by value, with the exception of Europe, which imports more valuable exports from the U.S. by air. Exports to selected countries in these three world areas are shown in Table 12 according to the Department of Transportation Study.

1 Table 12: U.S. Wtts By Air and Water

Percent By Air Continew Total Total Based Based Country Value* Weight** on Value on Weight

Dominant Export Commodities By Value

Europe France $5,446 14,173 62% 0.7% Computer-related, agricultural-

related, electronic & aircraft Computer-related, electronic, aircraft & machinery Computer-related, agricultural related, electronic & aircraft

West Germany 7,655 11,578 55% 1.1%

United Kingdom 9,034

Aslaff acific Japan 20,517 Medical, computer-related,

electronic & aircraft Electronic, aircraft & machinery Computer-related, electronic & aircraft Electronic

Korea 5,412

Australia 4,447

Taiwan 4,311

Latln America Brazil 2,790 Computer-related, electronic

& aircraft Computer-related, aircraft & machinery Electronic & aircraft Electronic & machinery

Mexico 1,696 Venezuela 3,086

* millions of U.S. dollars ** millions of oounds

15. U.S. Oopartment of Transportation. 1988.

Note in Table 12, Japan's prominence is obvious amongst importers of U.S. goods. Note also that agricultural-related shipments are only a factor in Europe.

Potential For Shi~ment Bv Air

The possible agricultural-related products and high technology commodities that might be suitable for shipment by air from WALF are analyzed in the following context:

Forecasts of cargo trends and activity as developed for national, state and local levels.

The implications of new air cargo technology/strategies.

Projections of Future Air Cargo Use

Forecasts of world, national, California and San Francisco Bay Area air cargo traffic are given in the following table.

I Table 13: Forecasts of Air Cargo Trafflc 1

Source

Enplaned Air Cargo By Year Year 1990 Year 2000

(000 Tons) (000 Tons)

world*16 78,705 147,200 United states**'' 6,188 22,282 ~alifornia**'~ 944 1,531 San Francisco Bay Area**""

San Francisco International Airport 624 924 OaMand Metropolitan International Airport 235 346 San Jose International Airport 92 136 - * These projections are shown in metric tons. ** These projections are shown In short tons.

Percent Growth Over

Ten Years

These projections show ten-year growth rates that range between 47 and 260 percent; these are much higher growth rates than are being used in air passenger forecasts.

16. Boeing Aircraft Corp., -, 1990. 17. Federal Aviation Administration, 1991. 18. California Department of Transportation, 1989. 19. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Wadate. 1991.

+ In California, 98% of the air cargo activity occurs in the three largest metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, San biego and San Francisco. Five airports, Los Angeles International, Oak- land Metropolitan International, San Diego International, San Francisco International and San Jose International, handle 95% of the total tonnage. Unless there is a deliberate change in policy (which operations are handled where), these trends are expected to continue.

Passenger aircraft are projected to continue to dominate the movement of air cargo carrying about 88% of the tonnage into and out of California airports. The remaining 12% is shared by cargo planes (all cargo) and charters (non-scheduled, air cargo).

Cargo Technology

Wide-Bodied Aircraft

Development of large, wide-bodied aircraft with significantly larger engines has had a profound impact on the air cargo industry. As noted before, the weight-wrying capacity in the belly hold of wide-bodied passenger aircraft is enormous by comparison to older aircraft. The 747-400 with four PW 4056 engines can carry 400 passengers and their bag- gage for 5,000 nautical miles with additional space in the belly hold for about 60,000 pounds (30 short tons) of cargoma ln the all-cargo configuration (using main deck and belly hold) the same aircraft can carry 168,000 pounds (84 tons) over the same distance.

Another variation of new aircraft types with larger engines are the 757-200 and 767- 200ER. These twin-engine aircraft have received Federal Aviation Administration cer- tification to operate up to 120 minutes from the nearest available airport, which means they can fly over large expanses of water, even in the unlikely event that one of two engines should fail, This extended twin-engine operations authority doubles the previous 60- minute restriction.

These aircraft now fly to Europe and to Hawaii in regularly scheduled services. While not as large as the 747, these passenger aircraft have significant capacity in their belly holds. The 767-200ER for example can fly 216 passengers for 5,000 nautical miles while carrying about 15 tons of cargo?'

These existing, large twin-engine aircraft have three other advantages:

They are a two-person crew operation. . They are the quietest in the current jet aircraft fleet.

20. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 747600 For 1990. 21. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 1989.

They do not need long runways (7,800 feet for sea level, standard ay conditions, if the aircraft is a 767-200ER) at Maximum Gross Take-Off Weight. !L

In the development stage is the new Boeing 777, which is a large, twin-engine aircraft. This wide-bodied aircraft is expected to be in operation in the mid-1990s with a passenger -capacity of 300 to 440 and will have a long-range capability as w e p

Noise Characteristics

- a Enactment of the 1990 Airport Noise and, Capacity -Act;and-the subsequent revisions to- Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91, require removal of Stage 2 (noisy) aircraft by the year 2000 and their replacement with new Stage 3 (quieter) aircraft or with re-engined Stage 2 aircraft meeting Stage 3 cert5cation requirements.

This federal requirement will be difficult for the all-cargo airlines to meet because their aircraft fleets are comprised mostly of older, Stage 2 jets. Passenger airlines, by comparison, have a much bigher proportion of Stage 3 aircraft already in service. The new Stage 3 aircraft are quieter, which serves to limit the restrictions placed on their operations.

The requirement to upgrade all-cargo fleets will place an economic burden on all-cargo airlines and wil l probably restrict their operations to high volume markets. This require-

* ment could also force all cargo-exclusive operations to less noise-sensitive environments. CLNALF may qualify as one of these environments.

Terminal Automation

New, electronically controlled cargo processing terminals, coupled with the hub-airport route system, is a successful concept pioneered by the small package air carriers (UPS, Federal Fxpress, etc.), but now also widely used by carriers of larger bulk and con- tainerized air cargo. While all-cargo carriers may use separate hub airports, the passenger airlines incorporate their cargo operations near or, preferably, at the airports where their passenger operations are located.

This concentration of cargo activity at large airports allows for investment in sophisticated automated handling equipment. Procedures like electronic documentation of shipping bills allows movement control in the air and in landside pickups and delivery. Electronic documentation also speeds customs processing.

--

22. The main runway at GLNALF is slightly over 8,000 feet long. 23. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, m 11991.

Combination Aircraft

The technology of combination aircraft (COMBI) is being applied in Europe and the Pacific Rim. It involves using the main deck for cargo and passengers. By using move- able bulkheads, the proportion of the two payloads can be varied to better match the demand on various routes. These combination aircraft may become more prevalent on routes where the air cargo volume is not high enough for all-cargo operations.

Possible Strategies

Belly Hold

For most U.S. airlines, the 'belly hold" approach represents the current and planned future strategy. There was a 52% load factor in 1990 in the cargo capability in domestic service, which means that 48% of the cargo-carrying capacity went unused. Using the same measure, a 59% load factor in international service was measured, so that a sizeable capacity for growth already exists. With the conversion to larger aircraft as a result of Stage 3 noise compliance, substantial new air cargo capacity will be added to the passenger-carrying fleet. Most passenger airlines view the carriage of cargo as a marginal cost because the core expenses are covered by passenger revenues. As a result, revenues from cargo are viewed as a revenue bonus.

'ILvo additional factors favor the 'belly hold" approach. First the major problem of a market for 'back haul" is solved, if it is assumed that the costs of operation are covered by revenue from passenger operations. This means that no back haul is necessary to make a belly hold run financially feasible, since the passengers pay for the run. Second, a greater frequency of cargo service can be offered to more markets because passenger service is more frequent than all-cargo service.

All-Cargo

Where the market is specialized by either product andfor locale, then all-cargo operations have proven viable and will continue to be so in the future. The small package carriers (UPS, Federal E?xpress, etc.) are examples of this application. Of more applicable interest to the WALF site are the special all-cargo support flights of automobile parts to assembly plant locations. If the CLNALF site included nearby JTI' (Just-In-Time) operations, then all-cargo support would be justified by the surrounding assembly plants. This kind of operation has already been successful at separate or isolated airports such as near Detroit (Willow Run Airport) and the hub for Federal Express at the Memphis Interna- tional Airport, which was at one time overshadowed by St. Louis, Nashville and Atlanta, and is still surpassed by Atlanta and St. Louis in enplaned passengers.

The all-cargo application may be ideal for seasonal crops but, at the same time, suffers the problems of finding a cargo load for the "back haul". Unless a cargo run is scheduled year-round, it becomes dif£icult to find loads for what is essentially a "chartert1 (non- scheduled) night. UnfortunateIy, the current trade imbalance almost guarantees more back haul than exports to Pacific Rim destinations.

Time as a Factor in Future Economic Activity

Alvin Toffler in his new book ~ o w e r s h @ ~ hypothesizes that world economies will fall into two classes: fast economies and sIow economies.

Fast economies will be those who offer turnaround in "real time" where decisions are made during the business process rather than in advance or -- worse -- after the fact. For example, businesses that rely on demographic data were at one time forced to accept up- dates of the decennial census. This type of time delay, for example, between 1990 and 1992, can no longer be tolerated by demographics-dependent businesses and their data must be as timely as the decisions they need to make.

According to Toffler, this dependency on "real timef1 leads entire countries down two different paths. One buys its materials and components rapidly while the other country shops on a goods-available basis. Consequently, producing countries must have products at the ready when "real time" buying countries are making immediate decisions. Those countries that can produce at the time of - not in advance of -- need, must deliver their products, such as assembly components, at the time of -- not in advance of -- need. Deliveries of components can't be in advance because the need hasn't arisen. Deliveries can't be late because the seed will have passed.

Toffler calls this "delivery delayed is delivery denied." The real time businesses make their decisions in process and their suppliers, as well as their customers, are locked into what Toffler calls "parallel processing." Components come in the front door of an estab- lishment at the same time that value-added product goes out the back door. Cheap labor, often found in slow economies, is no longer a driving force in fast economies because highly synchronized business processes require only a few skilled operators and profes- sional managers.

Changes In Manufacturing, Assembly and Distribution

The JIT concept depends upon a confluence of activity in space and in time. If all the components to a production process do not arrive in time for the value-added product to be created, JlT does not work. JIT also depends upon the following trends:

Production processes are becoming less labor intensive.

As a result, the cost of labor is less of a factor in production.

Instead, the need for specialized components is becoming more important.

Most importantly, the need for distribution of value-added product is essential to the JlT process.

-

24. AMn Toffiet, P6wershitt. Bantam, 11/90.

Buying materials ahead of time has always been the rule in planning a smoothly run production process. However, inventory is no longer desirable for several reasons:

Components, styles and technology are changing too rapidly to allow for inventorying large amounts of supplies.

Inventory means space, and space is becoming more valuable.

Inventory purchasing usually means credit and credit is costly.

Distribution was once geared only to weight: the heavier a product or component, the more that a product or component would cost to ship. The more an internationally assembled product or component would cost to ship, the more that slower modes such as sea and rail would be used. But now the decision for distribution is shifting to value. Higher cost items warrant higher cost shipping, and this usually means the faster modes, such as air. The importance of a global market also supports the use of faster means of shipment, almost always air.

And once the concept of real time is understood, then one can see how decisions are either made while goods are in transit or while they are in the production process itself. These decisions are not made by unskilled labor, and the automated processes usually demand fewer people with greater skills and salaries. Components to assembly must arrive concurrently, value-added product must be shipped soon thereafter and the emphasis in JIT is on speed. Increasingly, in complex production processes, speed means air shipment in as well as out.

Landside Congestion at Ports

Air transportation, like its trans-oceanic alternative, is dependent upon land-based transportation systems. So, while sea-borne cargo is less expensive than air cargo, it suffers from some of the same problems at the point where the land transportation interface is met: in the sea port or at the airports.

Therefore, while sea transport is slow at sea, it is increasingly also slow in port. These porfsik problems stem primarily from congestion in and around California seaports which, almost invariably, are located near the older cores of metropolitan areas.

The same landside congestion that burdens seaports ia California could be applied to airports as well and these are described as follows:

Califrnia ports provide significant economic benefit to the state and the nation in t e r n of jobs, personal income, business revenue and taxes. In terms of tonnage, dollar vahe of cargo, and wntainem -(I, the state's ports would compare fmorably with most major trading countries in the world However, their Cport's) ability to provide the vital interfwe between water and land modes of transportation is being seriously impacted by the congestion on Califom'aZ highways aruQv& that threatens the quality of hfe and economic vitaliw of the entire state.

While seaports are dependent upon both rail and highway linkages, airports must con- centrate all of their congestion into highway linkages.

Port access studies conducted in several regions of California have identified critical issues that need to be addrewed regarding the rail and highway in- fimtmcture serving the harbor mas. Sign@cant improvements in port access are essential if California's ports are to maintain a leademhip role in world trade. Diversion of cargos -- and the associated economic bene$its -- to other West Coast ports b like[y if h i g h p and rail access improvements to California's porn are not made.

Therefore, the mandate for providing good port access is as important to airports as it is to seaports, particularly when air cargo is at issue.

Bay Area Airports

The Bay Area has three commercial airports:

. San Francisco International Airport . Oakland Metropolitan International Airport . San Jose International Airport

AJl three of these airports are close to freeways and depend on these freeways for passenger traffic as well as cargo shipments. Exhibit 4 shows that, in the late 1980s, delays were experienced in the vicinity of all three airports. Today, these conditions are even worse. AU three airports are dependent upon improved landside connections in order to increase their respective capacities.

25. California Transportation Commission, p 2/90, Executive Summary. 26. Ibid., p. 1.

N Not to Scale

SFlA San Francisco lnternational Airport SJC San Jose International Airport OAK Oakland lnternational Airport

Congestion Points in the Bay Area

I Source: Exhibit 4

t As soon as 1997, the number of take-of% and landings at all three Bay Area airports will require capacity for an additional 300,000 operations.n Most of these increased operations, or take-offs and landings, will accommodate passenger traffic to and from the Pacific Rim. At this time, the capacity for this additional increment is not present in any combination of the three airports.

However, this "airside" congestion will be overshadowed by the landside congestion at the freeways serving the three Bay Area airports. There will be a search for additional capacity with the possibility of new or expanded airports outside of the Bay Area to accommodate the San FranciscoIOaklandlSan Jose senrice area in the next five years. The question before this effort is "can CLNALF provide some or all of that additional capacity?"

Airports of the Future

New or expanded airports of the future are looking more and more to cargo operations as a determinant of both size and location. For example, not- only do the new airports choose remote locations, but they require substantial amounts of surrounding land for purposes of adjacent development. Here are the most recent examples:

The Chicago area, currently served by the busiest airport in the world, O'Hare Inter- national, is planning to build a new combined passengerlcargo airport adjacent to the lllinois state line and partially within the State of Indiana. This planned facility, called Lake Calumet Airport, will require 8,800 acres and will cost $10.8 billion.

The largest airport currently under construction is Denver International, which at a cost of $2.7 billion, will still have a separate private cargo airport three miles away: the Front Range Airport. The two airports will have exclusive highway Linkages, thereby enabling transhipment without mixing trucks and surrounding area traffic together.

While these new airports may be out of scale with any expansion anticipated at CLNALlF, both of the above, and several other planned airports, anticipate the prospect of surrounding development taking advantage of air cargo accessibility. The potential for surrounding development may be possible at CLNALF and this prospect needs to be taken into consideration at this time.

27. Federal Aviation Administration, Joint Use Committee for Congested Alrports in Metropolitan Areas, presentation at Moffett Field, 2/5/92.

Just-In-Time

The JIT concept favors locations adjacent to cargo airports. The concept of Just-In-Time manufacturing requires substantial space for assembly plants and exclusive ground transportation. A concept now under development in North Carolina by the Kenan In- stitute of Private Enterprise will place a "superportff airport somewhere in North Carolina. The "superport" would be built at least 10 miles born any tall structure and at least five miles from my major development. In the diagrammatic (non-site specific site) plan shown in Exhibit 5, the area within the rectilinear pattern is approximately 10,000 acres, while the entire area within the belt line freeway is 15,000 acres. While this may be larger than any potential development around UNALF, the concept could be similar.

Exhibit 6 shows how the JIT concept works with loading and unloading a 747-400. Notice that while the same aircraft is being unloaded, it is also being loaded so that no time is lost in the cargo transfer process.

While the North Carolina example has yet to be built (or located), a smaller version of this superport is up and running outside of Dallas, Texas. The Alliance Airport, built by the Perot Group, already has four factories in association with Alliance Airport. The remainder of this feasibility report will explore the possibility of JIT development around the CLNALF in Stanislaus County.

Whv Just-In-Time Can't Work Within Urban Areas

JIT was developed in Japan and is a way of life in large urban areas such as Tokyo, where everything from components to food is delivered "Just-In-Time." The problem with JIT locations in urban areas is trmc, as dramatized in the recent article in Appendix F.

If JTT is to work in the Bay Area, it can't be in the nine counties that are already ur- banized. Ideally, JTT would be located remote from all other traf£ic. Even more ideal, if an air cargo airport needs JIT facilities around it, then both should be remote from urban areas. The potential for CLNALF is that it both meets these criteria and it is close enough to the Bay Area to divert high technology components away from current shipping points such as San Francisco International Airport.

Source: Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise

Plan & Section View, JIT Relative to Cargo Airport

Central Distribution

Terminal

.....I -... ". -..... .%ir Containers

Source: John D. Kasarda, "An Industrial/Avilation Complex for the Future," 88/16/91.

I Exhibit 6

B B E n ' V.S. Customs r I I Tmcks ,

Office Monorail .

lr Need to Augment Fruit and Vegetable Cargo

Preceding data have shown that h i t s and vegetables will not achieve sufficient demand for export to warrant the upgrading of CWALF. However, the U.S. Economic Develop- ment Administration envisioned that high tech should also be examined and we have sug-

-- gested that an air cargo airport not unlike that of Alliance Center in Texas be explored.

. . . - _ _ : .. Alliance Center, is actually an Aircraft Industrial Development with 4,800 acres of JIT - - . . manufacturing surrounding a dual runway field.. A copy of the plan is shown in Exhibit 7

and other documents are in Appendix G.

This feasibility report calculates the near-term and mid-term (until the year 2015) demand for air cargo facilities at CLNALF, which we anticipate becoming CLACA. There are basic variables which need to be determined at this point:

How much additional air cargo can be generated by mr activities?

Where will the aircraft be destined for (and returning from) in terms of distance (stage length)?

Domestic flights will play a role in JIT activities and stage lengths may be shorter than once assumed. At an ultimate grand total of 181 short tons per day and with most stage lengths under 5,000 miles, some 'types of ultimate aircraft equipment are probably not going to be "jjumbo jets." These types of aircraft have implications for the length and strength of runway improvements.

. The following discussion lays out the concept for the conversion of CLNALF to an air cargo airport, which we will call "CLACAt ((Crows Landing Air Cargo Airport).

Phase I - Initial Phase (Next Two to Three Years)

Phase I would be the most critical period in the conversion of CLNALF to an air cargo . airport. Even though no freight might be enplaned during this period, minimal physical

improvements must be made so that the interim phase (Phase 11) can occur between 1995 and the year 2000. The physical improvements should be oriented toward the fruit and vegetable shipments. Cargo facilities, though minimal, will be sufficient for both ultimate fruit and vegetable cargo as well as an initial start at diverting high tech cargo from SFIA.

Most of the progress for the next two years will be institutional. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) will be assuming control over CLNALF in Novem- ber, 1992. Stanislaus County will have to make arrangements with NASA for the development of CWALF, the transfer of ownership or sharing in control and the ultimate operating agreements that would be essential to its relationship with the airport managed by the City and County of San Francisco, where air cargo will be diverted from.

-. Phase II - Interim Phase (1995 to year 2000)

During this phase, the CLN- will achieve our very modest diversion projections.

50% of al l hits and vegetables will be diverted from SFIA to U C A .

10% of all high tech shipment. will be diverted from SFLA to CLAW

By the year 2000, CLACA will achieve the mhimum that its worst-case scenario projected. This demand will be sufficient enough to establish CLACA as a functioning air cargo airport, but it wil l not be enough to make the necessary improvements financially feasible.

Phase Ill - industrial Airport Phase (year 2000 to year 2015)

CLACA has the ability to become a major cargo airport if it can develop airport industrial uses within it and around it. No longer would this remote location be dependent upon diversion from SFIA alone. Instead, airport industrial development, which would be dependent upon Jrr manufacturing processes, will both export materials assembled on-site as we11 as import components from all over the world to CLACA. By the year 2015, CLACA should be a h c i a l l y successful venture and will create approximately 40,000 jobs in Southwestern Stanislaus County.

Preparing for Crows Landing Air Cargo Airport for Three Phases: Initial, Interim and Industrial Airport

It is assumed that some type of joint operating agreement would be reached with the Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) by the end of 1992. This means that any physical plan must meet NASA's specifications as well as those indicated here. Furthermore, these plans will be subject to NASA as well as FAA review.

Minimum Requirement for Fruits and Vegetables in Phase I - Initial Phase (Ready by 1995)

Pre-Cooling Operations

Although the majority of product pre-cooling is performed near the crop production site, there are occasions when having pre-cooling facilities at the proposed a cargo airport would serve as an added attraction to gn>wer/producers. For example: . Grower/shipper or producer cooling equipment breaks down. In the event of a break-

down of a given grower's cooling equipment, the palletized produce could be transported to the air cargo airport which could be pre-cooled on arrival.

Excess or unpredicted increases in production which surpass the growerlshipper's ability to pre-cool the product in a time effective manner. The palletized produce could be routed directly from the field to the air cargo airport for pre-cooling, storage and shipment.

Transportation breakdowns between the growing region and the proposed air cargo airport which results in product temperature increases. Transportation equipment and refrigerated units on trucks tend to break down. All product upon arrival at the air cargo airport should be checked for proper temperature. If the product temperature increased beyond acceptable limits for any reason, pre-cooling services would be extremely valuable to the growerlshipper or producer.

t Growerslshippers located within a 100-mile radius of the air cargo airport could use the airport as their primary means of pre-cooling products destined for air export markets. For those products capable of waiting several hours to receive pre-cooling, it could be advantageous for a producer to streamline operations by sending products direct from the field to the air cargo airport for pre-cooling, storage, consolidation and shipment. If for any reason, the pulp temperature exceeded producer specifications, the product could be run through the appropriate pre-cooler.

Other Necessary Physical Improvements

Earlier portions of this feasibility report allude to the need for loading docks at produce truck heights. Drying racks allowing drainage of ice water and wash of debris are also needed. Fumigation chambers, ordinarily located in the field, should be centralized and located as close to the point of shipment as possible.

High-Tech Cargo Facilities for Phase II - Interim Phase (1995 to year 2000)

By 1995, we should assume minimum high tech diversion of freight from SFIA. At best, this could mean one or two additional operations per month in the first few years. Ideal- ly, cargo diversion from SFIA could mean several more operations per month by the year 2000.

Preparation for Phase Ill - Industrial Airport Phase (year 2000 to year 201 5)

This entire period would depend upon approvals of Aircraft Industrial (JTI') development adjacent to C L A C k The reader should keep in mind that a small air carrier and charter- only operation is assumed to have been going on in the interim period (1995 to the year 2000).

. f

Silicon Valley Has Been Expanding But Not in Sillcon Valley

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, projections were rampant about the anticipated growth of high tech employment in Silicon Valley, then primarily limited to Northern Santa Clara County. In 1981, a serious projection saw 400,000 high tech employees in an expanded Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County, Alameda County and parts of Contra Costa County and San Mateo County) by the year 2000. As Table 14 shows, high tech growth in Silicon Valley has (and will continue to do so) leveled out, using data from the entire nine-county Bay Area as a criterion.

Table 14: Growth of High Tech Employment in the Bay Area

Year

- - Number of Employees

Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco Bay Area, Economic Profile, 12/79, p. 31. Center for Csntinulng Study of the California Economy, California Economic Growth, 1991, p. SF-3. SRI International, The JobsAabor Supply Mismatch, 5/83, p. 7. Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, Califomia Economic Growth, 1991, p. CAL-20. Interpolated. Assumes California's declining share of a growing U.S. high-tech industry. Center for Continuing Study of the Califomia Economy, California Economic Growth, 1991, p. SF-7.

Yet, in terms of productivity, high tech is still growing tremendously. Somehow, increased numbers of finished products are leaving the Bay Area for shipment to markets, while the number of employees is stabilizing. While this could be accounted for in a dramatic increase in productivity, the reason is far more subtle:

s Low-skilled and semi-skilled workers cannot afford to live in the Bay Area, so that many basic components are now manufactured off-shore or in other parts of the U.S., which has a slowly increasing high-tech employment forecast.

Space in Silicon Valley once used for manufacturing and warehousing is slowly revert- ing to research and development (R&D) and office. Many, but not all, of these kinds of employees can afford to at least live in far-flung areas from Silicon Valley and corn-. mute. . Meanwhile, production continues in Silicon Valley on higher-value products made from lower-value components imported from elsewhere.

e It is this trend of shifting in the worker population which gives the misleading perception that high tech is actually a stagnant sector of industry. In fact, an exchange of employees is going on in Silicon Valley, where lower paid and lower-skilled employees are leaving along with the fabrication and assembly functions that employ them. At the same time, high tech engineers and researchers are taking up their work places and buying their homes which have grossly appreciated in value. Imports and exports still use SFIA because that airport is still the nearest air cargo facility,28

..The proceeding scenario -has been summarized by the Center for Continuing Study of the California cono om^:^^

High tech manufizcturing can be characterized by several stages of development, as follows:

Science and engineering - development of a concept.

Start up - organizing the human and capital resources to pursue the concept.

Initial product development and manufacture.

Marketing the product - will sales take o f?

Routine manufacture of a successful product.

To a great extent, the Santa Clara high tech complex is already heavily oriented to its thriving "initial stage" role which is the area on which the national industry must depend for continued growth. By 1987 (the latest year for which this data is mailable for Santa Clara), the valley's high tech complex contained fewer than 40% production workers.

m e biggest risk to the California high tech industry ts not competition from other states but competition from abroad

A number of f d o n suggest that the US. industry will r e m h strong in the 1990s. First, world markets will grow substantially. Even a slight decline in the US. share will bring very strong growth in domestic high tech production. Second, the 1990s seem likely to bring renewed emphasis on increased private capital investment in the U.S. Third, private capital investment is a major determinant of high tech production in many product areas.

28. The ill-fated attempt to convert Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento to an all-cargo facility may have been linked to capturing some of the high-tech imports and exports. Diversion by itself does not justify an air cargo airport.

29. The Outlook for the California Economy, 11/91, p. CAL-21 to CAL-22.

Ekportz of capital equipment wiU be a major growth market nationwide for high tech manufacturing. l7ae long tem growth prospects for markets in East- em Europe, the fomer Soviet Union, and third world countries add an extra plus to the long term trends for the increasing use of technology.

Fourth, private and public sector de&m maken have become aware of the need to consider a national policy on tech &vebpment ... Waile there is no agreement on the scope of a national technology agenda, m y policies are now being actively debated

Fph, the U.S. remains ahead in many areas of technology. Examples include computerized work stations, mini-cornputen, expert systems, medical tech, fiber optics, genetic engineering and computer aided design. US. firms are developing alliances with foreign firmr to jointly pursue new technologies. Foreign jkm, wa Japanese fims, still seek joint ventures with US. fim in some areas of technology development.

It is these joint ventures which will spawn JTT manufacturing, similar to the NUMMI plant in Fremont for automobiles. As a result, growth potential for high tech would be possible in W o m i a if two trends could be captured:

Housing prices have to remain close to the $100,000 to $150,000 per unit range.

Some central place must be developed where components can be received from international points, undergo assembly, and be distributed as value-added products to other places.

It is under this premise that the CLACA can prosper.

Cargo Estimates for the Crows Landing Air Cargo Airport

Table 15 shows the 1995 to year 2000 "worst case" scenario of fruits and vegetables plus a 10% diversion of al l air a g o from SFIA by the year 2000 (Interim Phase). As was previously found, these tonnages are too small to warrant the large-scale rehabilitation work required at CLACA.

I Table 15: Phase 11 - Interim Phase Growth (1995 - 2000) Annual CLACA Cargo Exports, in shm tons

H lg h-Tech Total Tons per day Fruits & Diversion Diversion at 300 days

Year Vegetables* from SFIA** from SFlA per year

* ~ k r n Table 11, which shows monthly (30 or 31 days) totals, assuming immediate operational capability In 1995.

** From Table 11, which shows monthly (30 or 31 days) totals, assuming a gradual build-up starting at 10% diversion potential In 1995,20% by 1996, 40% by 1997, 70% by 1998 and a full 100% by 1999.

Note: These tonnages are based on worst-case assumptions. They are not sufficient by - I themselves to lust& the rede~elo~ment of CLNALF.

However, Table 16 shows that, during Phase lU - Industrial Airport Phase, production workers will begin to arrive at JIT operations at CLACA in the year 2000. Ultimately, 31T operations will produce 11,250 short tons of cargo per year. When added to the constant flow of agricultural commodities, and high tech diversion from SFIA, CLACA will be enplaning over 35,000 tons per year by the year 2015.

Table 16: Annual Pm]ection of Export Tonnage Due to Arrival of Production Workers at C W A 1 Short Tons

Percentage of Short Number of Employees Production Exported Employees bn Tons of Productiond Per Export Employees from

Year ~xployees' Production Exports Employees Ton at CIACA CLACA'

1989 198,800 40% 6,253 79,520 12.7 0 39% 38% 37% 36% 35%

1995 199,000 34% 7,921 67,600 8.5 0 33% 32% 31 % 30%

2000 199,100 29% 7,921 57,739 7.3 1,991 273 28% 27% 26% 25%

2005 201,100 24% 7,921 48,264 6.1 10,500 1,721 23% 22% 21 % 20%

2010 201,800 19% 7,921 28,342 4.8 20,180 4,204 1 8% 1 796 16% 1 5%

2015 202,500 14% 7,921 28,350 3.6 40,500 11,250

a. From Table 14. b. Assumes that, while Bay Area high-tech employment is stagnant, production workers are

gradually leaving, being replaced by R&D, managerial and professlonal workers. d. 40% of 1989 employment, the last year for which data plus q r t s are available. e. Assumes increasing productMty based on stagnant exports but decreasing numbers of

production workers. f. Assumes increasing productivity applied to CLACA production workers.

By the year 2000, Aircraft Industrial development is shown in Table 16 to capture 1% of the employment away from Silicon Valley for purposes of fabrication at CLACA. This percentage grows steamy to 5% by the year 2005,15% by the year 2010 and 20% by the year 2015. This is the only assumption upon which necessary growth at CLACA can be based.

These employees wiU bring with them the need to ship components in, and to ship products out, of the CLAW area.

The assumption is that these CLACA workers are all production workers, and that they will be bringing their share of production with them from the nine-county Bay Area

If 40% of the high tech in the Bay Area to date is production oriented, then the majority - of those that will leave the Bay Area will be production workers whose employment is no

longer economically viable in the Bay Area. While they will be replaced by researchers and engineers, the production workers will be the ones to bring the actual cargo demand with them. In order to determine what the cargo demand is for high tech employees, Table 16 shows the 1989 Bay Area high tech employment relative to high tech cargo shipped from SFIG Assuming increased productivity, or a fewer number of employees per export ton, Table 16 shows the best-case scenario of JIT exports that would be enplaned at CLACA from the year 2000 to the year 2015. However, since the workers leaving the Bay Area for the CLACA will be primarily production workers, they will bring a greater percentage of the cargo demand with them than wikl remain in the Bay Area. This rapid increase in productivity is due to the type of activity that would be transferred to a JIT facility. -,

Table 17 adds the enplaned cargo in the best case from the CLACA Just-In-Time operation to the fruits and vegetables and diversion of high-tech discussed earlier. The totals are the amounts of exports that can be expected from the new facility.

I Table 17: Total Exports, Diverdon plus JIT Operations, h short tons per year enplaned at CLACA ( Hig h-Tech

Fruits & Diversion Year Vegetables from SFlA

- -- -

JIT Operations at CLACA

--- --

Total Tons

Enplaned

Back Haul Demands

It is assumed that CLACA cannot succeed as an exporting facility alone. In addition to sending planes to foreign destinations with high tech and agricultural cargo, there must be demand for bringing some type of cargo back into the U.S. at CLACA. The entire concept of JI'T is based around the maxim of "components in-product out" commodity flow. The question remains, then, how much back haul cargo will there be originating from foreign destinations that are served by CLACA?

- Table 18 is based on data for the last year we have complete records (1989) showing the amount of export of high tech compared to the amount of import of high tech at SFLk By dividing Sl% high tech hports from Japan in 1989 (9,876 metric tons) by our high- tech exports to Japanfiom SFIA in 1989 (6,253 metric tons), the back haul ratio of 1.58 (9,876 divided by 6,253) is derived. This means that for every metric ton shipped out of the U.S. to Japan, approximately 1.58 metric tons are shipped back in similar types of products, us* components. The result of this analysis tells us that CLACA would probably be more successful as an import-oriented air cargo airport than one that exists primarily for export. Therefore, because back haul is a necessary part of the equation, some estimate of back haul must be made.

Table 18: Calculation of Annual Back Haul from CLACA, beginning in 1995, in short tons

Year Type of Export ,

Total Import-to- CLACA Export Back- Exports Ratio Haul

I 1995 High-tech diversion 88 1.58 139 1 2000 High tech diversion

plus minimum JIT 1,149 1.58 1,815

2005 High tech diversion plus growing JIT 3,746 1.58 5,919

201 0 High tech diversion plus established JIT operations 5,080 1.58 8,026

201 5 High tech diversion plus fully developed JIT operations 12,126 1.58 19,159

Table 18 shows the impom to exports ratio of 1.58 when applied to a11 high-tech cargo suggested to be exported from CLACA. By this method the total back haul is seen to be substantially larger than that of Jr ' exports from the U.S.

Determination of Transportation Demand

This section details the need for inter-facility transfer as well as the considerations leading to identifying the types of aircraft that would be demanded through the year 2015.

Modes of Transfer

Locations and routing of agricultural and high tech commodities suggest the use of trucks and tractors with trailers as the sole mode of transfer. Lighter and less bulky cargo, probably high tech commodities, are probably carried by a single-unit truck or possibly a tractor-trailer rig. Agricultural products are more likely to be transferred by single- trailer semi-rigs or double bottom tractor-tder rigs. Just In Time (JIT) cargo, on the other hand, is likely to be transferred from areas immediate to the airport in smaller trucks, vans and possibly pre-loaded'cargo containers on special airport trailers instead of line-haul vehicles.

A sumnzary of the data shown in Tables 17 and 18 appears in Table 19 below. The data is expressed as the average daily enplaned and deplaned tonnage based on a 30eday year. From this information it can be seen that enplaned cargo in the Interim Phase (Phase 11) years would probably require less than 10 small-truck trips per day.

Table 19: Crows Landing Phase I1 & Phase Ill Exports, Diverdons and Operations (300-day yeartshort tons)

Average Daily Enplaned Tonnage PhaseNear FN HT JIT Total*

Phase II - lnterlm Phase 1995 42.8 0.3 0.0 43.1 1 996 60.8 0.6 0.0 61.3 1 997 71.8 1.2 0.0 72.9 1998 74.2 2.0 0.0 76.2 1 999 76.7 2.9 0.0 79.6

Phase Ill - Industrial Airport Phase 2000 76.7 29 0.9 80.5 2005 76.7 2.9 5.1 85.3 201 0 76.7 2.9 14.0 93.6 2015 76.7 2.9 37.5 117.1

Average Daily HTIJIT Deplaned

Tonnage Grand Total*

* Totats may differ do to rounding. FN Fruits and VeaetaMes - HT High Tech JIT Just In Time

During Phase III, the truck activity might increase to 15 vehicles per day and these vehicles might be larger. During Phase 11, the number of vehicles needed to serve deplaned high tech and JIT cargo would be very small and the number of vehicles required would remain relatively low (less than 10 smaller trucks per day) until the beginning of Phase Dl.

Air Cargo By Tonnage and Type

- - - - - As noted previously, information about enplanedand deplaned cargo projections for .--

Phase 11 and Phase III are provided in Table 19. As can be seen, agricultural commodities will be the dominant enplaned cargo during Phase II; there would be a relatively small amount of back haul. This condition would continue into the latter stage of Phase III when high tech and JlT commodities become the predominant enplaned and deplaned cargo. .

Air Cargo By Destination

As noted earlier in this feasibility report, there are identifiable, principal markets for domestic and international cargo. According to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Statistical Handbook of Aviation, about two-thirds of air cargo enplaned in the United States is destined for domestic markets while the remaining one-third is international cargo. At San Francisco the ratio is 60% domestic and 40% international.

While CLNALF is being considered for an importlexport facility, the existence of a large domestic market should not be overlooked, particularly during Phase III.

Domestic Markets

When ranked by air cargo tonnage enplaned, 11 of the top 20 U.S. airports account for nearly 80% of the total air cargo moved within the U.S. as shown in Table 20.

These are the likely destinations of enplaned domestic cargo that might be shipped from CLACA. Note that these destinations are all within 2,500 nautical miles (nm) of CLACA and that most are within 1,500 to 2,000 nautical miles.

c

International Markets

Table 20: Eleven U.S. Airports Ranked by Enplaned Domestic Air Cargo Tonnage

Distance From Percent of Enplaned San Francisco**

Airport Domestic Air Cargo* (nautical miles)

Chicago (O'Hare) 10.3 1,599 Los Angeles (LAX) 10.0 293 Memphis 8.9 1,566 New York (JFK) 8.5 2,240 Anchorage 7.8 1,749 San Francisco (SFIA) 6.6 0 Atlanta 6.5 1,853 Dallas - Ft. Worth 5.7 1,269 Miami 5.1 2,241 Honolulu 4.1 2,080 Newark 4.0 2,240

* From Ah. Transport Association. Air Transport, 1991. ** From International Air Transport Association. Great Circle Route Distance in

Nautical Miles. Air Distance Manual, 1992.

The allocations shown in Table 21 are the probable destination markets for air cargo enplaned at CLACA. As the feasibility report explains later, they are preliminary in nature. As noted earlier in this feasibility report, the AsiafPacific market is the primary destination for agricultural products while both Asia/Pacific and Europe are principal destha- tion candidates for high tech and JXT commodities.

Table 2 1: Preliminary AIIocation of International Destinations By Air Cargo Type

Destinations (Percentage of Tonnage) Europe AsiaIPaeific Latin America'

Phase FN HT JIT FN HT JlT F/V HT JIT

Phase ll . - - 100 100 - - - - Phase Ill 10 30 20 8 0 6 0 8 0 10 10 -

In Table 22, the current pattern of distribution of U.S. exports within each of the three U.S. Department of Transportation geographic areas and the great circle route of non- stop flights from San Francisco can be seen Most principal markets are within 5,000 nm though Taipei and Sidney are at a distance of 5,600 nm and 6,500 nm respectively.

I Table 22: Principal U.S. Export Markets and Stage-Length Distances I Proportion of Distance from

Export Tonnage* San Francisco** Market (percentage) Service Point to Europe

France 11 Parls West Germany 14 Frankfurt United Kingdom 20 London

AsiaPacific Japan Korea Australia Taiwan

35 20 Tokyo 6 * Seoul 6 Sidney 3 Taipei

Distance from San Francisco in nautical mile**

Latin America 20 Brazil 4 Sao Paulo 5,627 Columbia 8 Bogota 3,290 Mexico 4 Mexico City 1,634 Venezuela 4 Caracas 3,379

* From U.S. Department of Transportation. Analysis of lntematianal Air Cargo Market, 1988. ( ** From International Air Transport Association. Alr Distance Manual, 1992.

Preliminary Flights By Cargo Type

In Table 23 a distribution estimate of air cargo tonnage by trip segment is provided. As will be discussed later in this feasibility report, these data are preliminary in nature. This information will be necessary to evaluate the aircraft type and facility requirements that are considered later in this feasibility report.

Table 23: Distribution of Air Cargo Tonnage By Stage Length

Proportion of Cargo Tonnage By Stage Length 0 - 2,000 2,000 - 5,000 Over 5,000

Time Period nautical miles nautical miles nautical miles

Phase I1 - 90 10 Phase 111 - 70 20

Cargo Demand for Aviation Planning

Phase I will have no operations except those initiated by the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA). As of November 1,1992, NASA will be the operator of CLNALF, and U.S. Navy flights will cease.

During 1991, NASA had 818 operations at C L N A I L F . ~ These ranged from a high of approximately 210 in December to a low of none in May. Summer months appear to be the least used by NASA and would be the most used by fMt/vegetable carriers.

Destinations of Cargo

Enplaned cargo is the controlling factor for determining aircraft operations because the deplaned cargo or back haul is the less (than half) important portion of the CLACA operations.

Table 24: Destinations of Enplaned Alr Cargo, from CLACA, by Phase and Type of Cargo - Maximum

Stage Fruits1 High Len~th Vegetables Tech Just-In-Time Total

Time Period (nm) % DST % DST % DST % DST

Phase ll

Domestic 2,000 - - 20 0.6 - - 1 0.6 International 5,000 Imr 26.2 BP 23 - - 99 199 Total 100 76.7 100 2.9 100 79.6

Phase 111

Domestic 2,500 20 15.3 30 0.9 30 11.3 23 27.5 International 6,000 8Q 6IA ZQ Za 2 2 26.2 72 m.6 Total 100 76.7 100 2.9 100 37.5 100 117.1

nm Nautical miles DST Daily Short Tons

Table 24 differs slightly from assumptions made in Table 23. Phase II will have a small percentage of operations ia small aircraft (less than 2,000 nautical miles stage length) while Phase III sets maximum stage lengths slightly beyond those shown in Table 22. This is because two principal markets (Taipei and Eastern Europe) would fit within the expanded 6,000 nautical miles maximum.

30. Memorandum from CLNALF Tower Manger to the Officer in Charge, 12/10/91.

Aircraft Types

It was assumed that older aircraft would be used during Phase 11 and newer, higher capacity aircraft would be used during Phase III. Manufacturer's data was used to determine maximum payload for the stage lengths involved. The payload includes the weight of pallets and containers.

Table 25: Types of Cargo Aircraft to be used at CLACA, by phase and or;g;nldestination

Stage Length Allowable tolfrom CLACA Payload

Time Period Aircraft Types (nautical miles) (pounds)

Phase ll

Domestic 727-1 OOC 2,000 32,000 International DC-10-30CF 5,000 90,000

Phase Ill

Domestic 757-200PF 2,500 86,000 International 747-400F 6,000 120,000

Source: Wadeil Engineering Corporation

During Phases I, II and III, NASA will be flying various standard -- as well as experimental -- aircraft at random times. These craft would not require longer stage lengths or larger payloads than those described above.

Aircraft Operations

The number of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) was determined by introducing a load factor to account for less-than-full aircraft and by subtracting the weight of pallets and containers. Enplaned cargo tonnage, which is the determining factor, was used to determine the number of aircraft departures. In order to consider backhaul, the number of departures was doubled to estimate the total number of aircraft operations. As previously noted, due to the h i t s on enplaned cargo that our balance of trade makes, the enplaned cargo is the controlling factor. The number of average daily operations was expanded to the number of annual operations based on a 300-day year.

I Table 26: Aircraft Operations by Type, CLACA, by phase and payload I - -- -

Aircraft MPL LF APL lime Period Type (#) (%) Cr)

Phase ll

Domestic 727-1 OOC 32 50 8.0 l ntemational DGl OaCF 90 70 31.5

Total

Phase Ill

Domestic 757-200PF 86 70 30.1 International 747-400F 120 80 48.0

Total

# Pounds % Percentage AAO Annual Aircraft Operations ADAD Average Daily Aircraft Departures ADEC Average Daily Enplaned Cargo APL Actual Payload LF Load Factor MBL Maximum Payload for the CLACA markets T Short Tons Source: Wadell Engineering Corporation

- --

ADEC rn

--

ADAD AAO

Note that the above estimates are similar in magnitude to those annual operations flown by NASA at CLNAJJ? in 1991.

AircraftlAir port Classlf icatlons

Airports are planned and developed to serve certain categories of existing and future user aircraft. In order to select appropriate dimensional standards, it is necessary to identify the various categories and design groups of aircraft.

Aircraft Approach Category

An aircraft approach category is a grouping of aircraft based on an approach speed and the maximum certificated landing weight. Approach categories are established for the aircraft by the certificating authority of the country of registry. The aircraft approach categories are presented in the following table.

Table 27: Aircraft Approach Speeds, by reference code category

Category Approach Speed

A Speed less than 91 knots 6 Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots C Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots D Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots E Speed 166 knots or more

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-1 3

Airplane Design Group

The airplane design group subdivides airplanes by wingspan. The airplane design group concept links an airport's dimensional standards to aircraft approach categories or it links airplane design groups or to runway instrumentation configurations. The airplane design groups are presented in Table 28.

Table 28: Nrplane Design Groups, by wingspan, in feet and meters

Group Wingspan

I Up to but not including 49 feet (15 m) II 49 feet (15 m) up to but not including 79 feet (24 m) 111 79 feet (24 m) up to but not including 11 8 feet (36 m) IV 118 feet (36 m) up to but not Including 171 feet (52 m) V 171 feet (52 m) up to but not including 197 feet (60 m) VI 197 feet (60 m) up to but not Including 262 feet (80 m)

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-1 3

Airport Types

Runway length separates utility airports into basic and general utility types. The small airplanes, commonly used for personal and business flying as well as for commuter and air taxi operations, are served by Basic Utility and General Utility--Stage I airports. The airport types in terms of type of equipment served are as follows:31

Basic Utility--Stage I. This type of airport serves about 75 percent of the single-engine and small twin-engine airplanes used for personal and business purposes. Precision approach operations are not usually anticipated. This airport is designed for small airplanes in airport reference code B-I, which combines Table 27 approach speeds with Table 28 design groups.

Basic Utility--Stage rl;. This type of airport serves all the airplanes of Stage I, plus some small business and air taxi-type twin-engine airplanes. Precision approach operations are not usually anticipated. This airport is also designed for small airplanes in airport reference code B-I, which combines Table 27 approach speeds with Table 28 design groups.

General Utility--Stage I. This type of airport serves all small airplanes. Precision approach operations are not usually anticipated. This airport is also designed for airplanes in airport reference code B-11, which combines Table 27 approach speeds with Table 28 design groups.

General Utility--Stage II. This type of airport serves large airplanes in aircraft approach category A and B and usually has the capability for precision approach operations. This airport is normally designed for airplanes in airport reference code B-DI, which combines Table 27 approach speeds with Table 28 design groups.

Transport. This type of airport serves all large airplanes in aircraft approach categories C and D. Precision approaches are necessary components of transport airports.

Airport Service Role

CLACA would be a transport airport serving aircraft through Approach Category D (aircraft with approach speeds up to but not including 166 knots), and through Design Group V. The typical aircraft of this type is the Boeing 747, although this "jumbo jet" is not seen at CLACA until after the year 2000. Because it is advisable to plan for the future use by the Boeing 747, it is recommended that a D-V role is appropriate for concept planning purposes.

-- - -- - - - -

31. FAA Advisary Clrcutw lS0/530C)-l3.

Airfield Capacity

CLNALF facilities were evaluated for their ability to satisfy projected aviation demand at the airport. Hourly runway capacities and annual service volumes were estimated. Hour- ly runway capacity is defined as the maximum number of aircraft operations that can take place in one hour for given conditions. Annual service volume is a measure of annual aircraft operations that can be used as a reference in preliminary airfield planning. Ex- hibit 8 shows the runway configuration existing at CLNALF.

Runwav Use

Runway use encompasses the number, location, and orientation of active runways, as well as the directions and types of operations using each runway. Runway use depends primarily on wind direction and wind speed, but aiso depends on other factors such as air traffic control rules and noise abatement procedures, runway instrumentation, taxiing distance, and runway length. The historical percent use of each runway by large transport aircraft operating at CLNAI.3 is shown below,

Table 29: Historical Runway Approaches by Large Transport Nrcraft, at CLNALF

Runway Percent Annual Use

35 (South end) 72 30 (Southeast end) 16 17 (North end) 10 12 (Northwest end) 2

Total 100

Source: U.S. Navy Reports

Airspace and Alr Traffic Control

CLNALF has excellent navigational and air traffic control facilities. The airport is presently equipped with a TACAN system allowing for instrument approaches. The airport has a military air traffic control tower; however, upgrading and new civil radio equipment would be needed to meet FAA (civilian) standards.

Oddand Center, a FAA facility, has responsibility for control of instrument night rules (IFR) aircraft within this area. In the future, it is assumed that, like today, the overall airspace of UACA and its neighboring airports is generally unrestricted. Immediate airport control airspace for a five-nautical mile radius is under the control of the airport control tower.

Runwav Ca~acitv

Hourly runway capacity is the maximum number of aircraft operations that can take place in one hour for given conditions. Factors that affect hourly capacity include:

Runway use

Airspace and air traffic control

Ceiling and visibility conditions

Aircraft mix

Estimated airport hourly capacity is approximately 55 operations, assuming the equipment mix is all one size (up to 300,000 pounds) or larger (over 300,000 pounds) aircraft.

Annual Service Volume (ASV)

ASV is based on hourly capacities for the airfield operating conditions that could occur throughout the year and on monthly, daily, and hourly variations in aircraft operations.

The estimated ASV is approximately 215,000 operations per year. The estimated ASV was based on the same assumptions and operational characteristics used to estimate hourly airport capacity. On the basis of the analyses of the existing airfield, it is concluded that ~LNALT capacity far exceeds aviation demand throughout the planning period. How- ever, since FAA requires that operations not be restricted to only heavy aircraft, there may be more light plane demand than currently foreseen.

Facility Requirements

An airport is comprised of a number of major elements which contribute to its overall size and shape. The principal components are:

Airfield including runways, taxiways, and visual aid~lighting

Terminal Area including aircraft aprons, buildings/hangars, roads/automobile parking and support facilities

. Land Area Requirements

This section discusses the facilities required to accommodate the forecast aviation demand. Each of the major facility requirement categories noted above is described separately. The facility requirements are summarized in tabular form at the end of this section.

Airfield

The airfield requirements analysis is prepared to determine future needs for the runway, taxiway, and visual aids/lighting systems. These requirements relate the extent and type of development necessary to accommodate the forecast demand and the capacity required of the airfield system.

Runways

Runway Length

Runway length is determined analytically by evaluating the elevation of the airport above mean sea level and the design temperature, which is the mean of the maximum temperature during the hottest month of the year. An assumed design elevation of 165 feet and a critical temperature of 86 degrees F was used. Based on these figures, Table 30 was prepared. All types of existing and potential airport sizes are shown to indicate the capability of the existing facility. It is realized that the primary civil use would be air cargo, at least as far as the current planning scenario is concerned. It should be understood that, due to probable FAA participation, the use of the facility cannot be restricted. This means that some general aviation use is probable.

The 'Transport" or business jet runway length requirements are based on aircraft size and useful load carried. The 75 percent level of 'Transport" or business jet fleet includes all business jets weighing up to 30,000 pounds, which are typically the smaller business jets. If 100 percent of the business of 'Transport" fleet is assumed, then any calculations include the largest planes up to 60,000 pounds, such as the Gulfstream 111.

Table 30: Runway Length and Strength Requirements for General Aviation and Business Jet Use

I Airpor( Classification

Msting Airport: Runway 17-35 Runway 12-30

Basic Utility Stage I Basic Utility Stage I1 General Utility Stage I General Utility Stage I1

Runway Length

8,000 feet 7,000 feet

2,500 feet 3,100 feet 3,600 feet 4,200 feet

5,300 feet 7,000 feet 5,500 feet 8,100 feet

Runway Strength*

* "S" is pounds of slngle wheel gear configuration load; " D is pounds of dual wheel load. The existing strength is based on 150 p.s.1. tire pressures. The existing pavement can reportedly carry 200,000 # gross weight aircraft.

** First percent is aircraft size within business jet fleet; second percent Is amount of useful load carried.

I Source: Wadell Engineering Corporation I

It is apparent that the existing Runway 17-35 with a length of 8,000 feet can readily handle all general aviation aircraft and all business jets, including the largest in the 100 percent size category requiring a useful load of 90 percent.

The manufacturers' aircraft manuals provide the runway length estimates for airport planning purposes. Assumptions are a balanced field length and sea level conditions. The summer temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley are higher than the standard temperature levels that are used; hotter days require the use of a longer runway.

If the runway at CLNALF is not extended, the DC-10-30CF would have to be operated over a shorter stage length to perform economically; the 747-400F could be off-loaded but not re-loaded and still perform economically. Unfortunately, this means a reduced or no backhaul which makes use of the current runway for 747400F equipment questionable.

Table 31: Runway Length Requirements for Air Cargo Aircraft

Actual Temperature Takeoff Weight Runway Length

Aircraft Type (degrees F) @ounds) (feet)

727-1 00C 84 154,000 6,500 DG1030CF 85 528,000 10,500 757-2WPF 84 231,000 6,500 747-400F 86 846,000 10,000

Source: Boeing and McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Manuals

Runway Strength

The runway strength is determined by the airport runway category and the type of aircraft anticipated to operate at the airport. The runway pavement strengths of each runway adequately meet the standards required for general aviation aircraft, yet falls short of the strength needed for cargo aircraft except for the relatively light Boeing 727-100C.

Runway Orientation

The configuration of the airport is determined by the number of, and orientation of, the runways. The primary factors related to the number of runways required are airfield capacity and demand. One of the primary factors influencing runway orientation is wind. FAA criteria for a utility airport spe* that a crosswind runway is required if the primary runway is oriented so that the crosswind on it exceeds 11.5 miles per hour (10 knots) more than 5 percent of the time. ms would be the only way an airport could end up providing more than 95 percent wind coverage.) Where a single runway orientation does not provide this usability factor of at least 95 percent, the airport system should include a crosswind runway. For a business jet or transport type runway, the criteria is 15 miles per hour (13 knots). For CLNALF, both runways are available to meet crosswind criteria.

Runway/laxiway Markings

For paved runways, white runway numbers and centerbe stripes are minimum markings. Yellow taxiway markings along the centerline and a transverse holding line shall be a minimum of 280 feet (measured from runway centerline) for both runways.

Taxiways

The addition of high speed taxiways increases the airport operational efficiency and the runway capacity potential. Exit taxiways should be located at frequent intervals along a runway to serve each type of aircraft operating under variable landing conditions, They should provide for a, free flow of aircraft to a point where the aircraft is clear of the runway, thereby ensuring continuous flow and maximum capacity. Table 32, Suggested Ran- ges in Fxit Locations, shows the range of acceptable exit locations for air carrier jets. Parallel taxiways are recommended to enhance airport operational flexibility efficiency. No additional exits are necessary for either runway at CLNALF. - -

Table 32: Suggested Ranges in Exit Locations (Distance from Threshold)

Exit Type General Aviation Aircraft Air Carrier Jets

Right Angle (90') 1,150-4,300 feet 3,100-7,700 feet Angle (459 1,0005,850 feet 2,800-7,500 feet High Speed (30") 850-2,400 feet 2,200-6,100 feet

Source: Wadell Engineering Corporation L

Visual Aids/Lighting

- The following visual aids and markings are considered to be the minimum necessary at a good public airport:

Basic runway markings Segmented circle Lighted wind cone Rotating beacon Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) - high intensity ligbting may be added later, but is not part of the cost package. Precision Approach Path Indicator System (PAPI)

In addition to the above visual aids and markings, airports with precision or non-precision approaches and larger aircraft would automatically have signage as well as some of the following: 4 Runway End Identifier Lights (REiIL)

High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) Runway distance marker signs Approach light systems with sequence flashing lights Touchdown zone lighting . Non-precision or precision runway markings

CLACA may ultimately become a Category 3 ILS (010 flying visibility) but it is not proposed for those requirements at this time.

CLNAW does not have (and therefore CLACA would need) the following additional facilities: REIL, Approach Lights, PAP1 system for large aircraft, and an Instrument Land- ing System (ILS) meeting FAA criteria.

Terminal Area

Terminal area requirements include: aircraft aprons, buildings and hangars, and roads and auto parking. Table 33 presents a summary of necessary facilities.

Aircraft Aprons

The facility requirements for airplane parking were determined by relating planned apron positions with projected demand by aircraft type. The apron parallel to runway 17-35 averages 350 feet by 3850 feet and is 31 acres in area, However, the parallel taxiway pas- ses through the apron, thereby reducing the useable area. Based on the forecast of air cargo demand, three heavy aircraft positions are needed in Phase 11, and two heavy aircraft and one large aircraft position in Phase III.

Buildings and Hangars

The necessary terminal area buildings include the cargo terminal, cold storage facilities, aircraft maintenance shop, airline offices, airport maintenance building, air trffic control tower, and Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) building. Additional buildings may include on-site warehousing and storage facilities.

Roads and Auto Parkina

Access to the airport is very important if the airport is to meet demand levels. The existing access is Bell Road, which leads to 1-5 via Fink Road. The paved two-lane interior Ike Crow Road connects the main road and the airport terminal roads with S.R. 33. A loop roadway system serves the terminal complex Automobile access and parking facilities can be easily developed. Truck turn lanes and widened driveways will be required to serve truck traffic to the terminal area. A separate access point to the cargo area is necessary.

Support F aclllties

Support facilities for an airport should include communications, fuel storage and distribution, electric power, water supplies, waste water disposal, and storm water collection and disposal. Availability of these facilities are essential in the operation of the airport. The existing airport has 33 acres of buildings, roads, storage areas and associated land. The following are shown on Exhibit 9.

I Tabrs 33: Faciiily Requirements Summaiy; Air Cargo Airport Facilities Only I Existing (CLNALF)

Airfield Facilities Phase li Phase Ill

Runways - Number 2 Longest Length (feet) 8,000 Widest W t h (feet) 200 Greatest Strength (pounds) 200,000

Navakls TACAN

Lighting NIA MALSAR

Apron Maximum capacity of spaces:

727 NIA DC-10-30 NIA 747-400 NIA

-m

757-200 NIA

Acres NIA

Cargo Support Acres NIA

Total Terminal Area Acres Unknown Building Requirements

Cargo Buildings (sq. ft.) NIA Fire Station

Vehicles 2 Area (sq. ft.) NIA

Mine Offices (sq. ft.) NIA Customs (sq. ft.) NIA

Access Access Road Lanes 2

NIA None available. TACAN Tactical Air Navigation (non-precision). HIRL High Intensity Runway Lights. PAPI Precidon Approach Path Indicator System. MALSAR Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment indicator Lights. ILS Instrument Landing System. * Required for fully loaded DC-10-30, but not necessary planned if DC-10-30 are

enplaned less than full. Note: ~ k g e requirements will vary depending on specific layout and geometrics.

Source: Wadell Engineering Corporation

Operations facilities, including fuel storage and dispensing, are located in two general areas: one area fronts directly on Runway 17-35, and the other area is adjacent to Bell Road. The area along Runway 17-35 contains aircraft line operations (Building 40), the fuel farm (structures 9, 148, and 149), the aircraft compass calibration pad (structure 120), and a Quonset hut for storage.

The Bell Road facilities include the control tower (Building 101), runwayltaxiway high voltage electric distribution (Building 103), and the mash hazard facility (Building 109, west half). These buildings are described further in Appendix H and evaluated in terms of their present construction. Overall, the buildings are aging and not recommended for civilian use.

The sewerage collection system at the airport consists of a trunk line paralleling Bell Road and a lateral line westward to Building 40. The main line consists of a double eight- inch terra cotta tile line connecting these facilities with all water-using buildings. The system drains northward to a processing tank (primary settling) and a holding pond beyond

. - the NASA facility at the north end of the installation. Apparently, sludge is removed peri- odically but liquid waste permeates the ground.

The airport obtains its potable water supply from two wells at the south end of the station. A water storage tank and pumphouse are located southwest of the fuel farm. There is a six-inch main line. This system is old, and one well permits leaking of water with high nitrates (probably fertilizer) into the system. The U.S. Navy currently uses bottled water for drinking purposes.

The electrical distribution system provides 4,160 volts AC from a stepdown transformer located east of Bell Road. Building 103 provides the distribution point for high voltage power to all runway and taxiway facilities.

Land Area Requirements

The initial step in any airport development is the determination of sufficient land to ensure that (1) the airport can accommodate the long term air traffic requirements, and that (2) the land area contains airport operational areas under appropriate control to ensure compatibility of land use around the airport. The amount of land needed can vary consid- erably in size depending on many factors including landing area (e.g., length, number, and layout of runways and taxiways), approach areas (e.g., runway protection zones), and building area (e-g., hangars, aircraft aprons, buildings, auto parking). The airport has 1,528 acres including 1,140 acres with leases for agricultural and other uses, which will be sufficient thoughout the planning period for aviation purposes. It should be noted that the Just-In-Time manufacturing concept will require substantial land areas, only some of which can be accommodated within the existing airport property.

The foregoing comments about facilities required are direct input to the Concept Plan and are used in developing physical layouts. Once the layouts are prepared, quantities are determined and serve as the basis for the Capital Improvement Program Cost Estimates.

Concept Plan

The Concept Plan, as shown in Exhibit 10, represents the end-result of considering alternative configurations of facilities, particularly the extension of a single runway, the location of parallel taxiways, thi aircraft parking aprons, and the support facilities. Note that the improvement of Runway 12-30 is neither considered necessary nor desirable in this report. Incorporated in the Concept Plan are the development items for the three major airport components: the airfield, the aircraft terminal area, and the access and parking system.

The specific objectives of the Concept Plan are to provide:

A safe airfield system with adequate runway length, strength, and clearances for commercial cargo aircraft.

Termid facilities for international and domestic commercial cargo operations, with adequate and convenient buildings, auto parking, and access.

A flexible concept with space and use relationships that will enhance service and provide user and community benefits.

An economical plan that will provide minimal required facilities and generate revenues for proper operation, management and development of the cargo airport.

The Concept Plan presents the development for the airfield area, and an enlarged depic- tion of the terminal area.

Airfield Area Plan

The Airfield Area Plan, as shown on the Concept Plan in Exhibit 10, illustrates the airfield system in the simplified format using a topographic base map of the existing facilities. It includes the runways, taxiways, lighting, on-airport navaids, and the runway protection zones.

The existing runway system consists of two intersecting runways. The main runway, 17-35, is 8,000 feet long and 200 feet wide. The other runway, 12-30, is 7,000 feet by 200 feet.

Only runway 17-35 has length adequate for cargo jets, and lengthening to 10,500 feet will be necessary for Phase 11 DC-lo's and at least 10,000 feet will be necessary for heavy cargo jets. The recommendation of 10,000 feet will restrict the enplaned loads on DC-10- 30's. The pavement is capable of 200,000 pound aircraft, therefore strengthening with an estimated 10.5 inch concrete overlay will be necessary. Since only 150 feet of width is needed, the remaining width will become shoulder. Narrowing the runway necessitates in- stalling a new high intensity edge lighting system. The plan calls for full instrument capabilities, therefore a new instrument landing system with glide slope antenna, localizer, and approach lighting system would be installed.

Table 34 indicates the runway separation standards for aircraft in approach categories C and D. As discussed previously, only runway 17-35 will be capable of serving Category C and D aircraft. Table 35 indicates design standards for runways serving aircraft in approach categories C and D. As previously noted, Design Group V criteria are being used.

The existing parallel taxiway system will be used; however, that taxiway also needs strengthening. The 75-foot width will be retained. The existing apron falls within the parallel taxiway setback and the taxiway safety area, which means that none of the existing apron can be used. The same 105-inch overlay will be placed on the taxiway system. New taxiway edge lighting will be installed to guide aircraft.

I Table 34: Runway Separation Standards for Aircraft Approach Categories C & D 1 Airplane Design Group

Item I II 111 IV V VI

Nonprecision Instrument and Visual Runway Centerline to:

I Parallel Runway Centerline* Varies from 700 ft. WR) up to 4,300 ft. and above (IFR)

Hold Line** 250' 250' 250' 250' 250' *** 250' Taxiwayflaxilane Centerline** 300' 300' 400' 400' 600' Aircraft Parking Area 400' 400' 500' 500' 500' 500' Precision lnstrument Runway Centerline to:

( Parallel Runway Centerline Varies from 1,000 ft. (VFR) up to 4,300 R and above (IFR)

Hold Line** 250' 250' 250' 250' 280' *** 325' TaxiwayTraxilane Centerline** 400' 400' 400' 400' 600' Aircraft Parking Area 500' 500' 500' 500' 500' 500'

IFR lnstrument Flight Rules VFR Visual Flight Rules * Group V and VI runway separation is 1200 feet minimum. ** No part of an aircraft (tail tlp, wing tip) at a holding location or on a taxiway centerline can be

within the runway safety area or penetrate the obstacle free zone (OFZ). An increase to these separation distances may be needed at higher elevations. *** For Airplane Design Group V, the standard runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline separation distance is 400 feet for airports at or below an elevation of 1,345 feet; 450 feet for airports between elevations of 1,345 feet and 6,560 feet; and 500 feet for airports above an elevation of 6,560 feet.

I Source: Wadell Engineering Corporation. based on FAA Advlsoy Circular 150/5300-13

1 Table 35: Runway Design Standards for Aircraft Approach Categories C & D I Item

Runway Length

Airplane Design Group I II 111 IV v VI

(Varies-See Aircraft Right Manuals)

( Runway Width 100' 100' loo'* 150' 1 50' 200' 1 I Runway Shoulder WldmH 10' 10' 20'* 25' 35' 1 I Runway Blast Pad Width 120' 120' 1409* 200' 220' 280' 1 I Runway Blast Pad Length 100' 150' 200' 200' 400'

4oo' 1 I Runway Safety Area WMth*** 500' 500' 500' 500' 500'

=0°' 1 I Runway Safety Area Length I I Beyond Runway End**** l,WOV 1.000' 1,000' 1,000' 1,000' 1,000' / I Runway Object Free Area Width 800' 800' 800' 800' 800' 800' I.

Runway Object Free Area Length Beyond Runway End**** 1,000' 1,000' 1,000* 1,000' 1,000' 1,000'

Runway Obstacle Free Zone (length = runway length + 400'; Width and Length Width varies from 120' to 400')

* For Airplane Design Group Ill sewing airplanes with maximum certificated takeoff weight greater than 150,000 pounds, the standard runway wldth is 150 feet, the shoulder width is 25 feet, and the runway Mast pad width is 200 feet.

/ ** Deslgn Groups V and VI normally require stabnked or paved shoulder surfaces.

** For Airport Reference Code GI and Gill a runway safety area width of 400 feet is permissible. For runways designed after 2/28/83 to serve Aircraft Approach Category D, the runway safety area width Increases 20 feet for each 1,000 feet of airport elevation above MSL.

**** The runway safety area and runway object free area lengths begin at each runway end. With the declared distance concept, these lengths begin at the stop end of each ASDA and both ends of each LDA, whichever is greater.

Source: Wadell Engineering Corporation, based on FAA Advisory Circular 1 5015300-1 3

The plan proposes an area for a 2,000-foot runway extension to the north. Since the length is provided for takeoff purposes, a full length paraIlel taxiway extension is not man- datory. A turn around apron is shown for aircraft that may land using the full length, or for aircraft that depart to the south when winds allow such operations.

Heavy aircraft can handle reasonable crosswinds, therefore, runway 17-35 will handle all traffic, and runway 12-30 would be used for light non-cargo aircraft in crosswind conditions. No development or expenditure on 12-30 will be required for cargo operations.

The airfield lighting at CLACA will consist of runway edge lighting, taxiway edge lighting, apron flood lighting, approach lights, precision approach path indicators (PAPI), runway end identifier lights (REIL), and a rotating beacon.

Terminal Area Plan

The Terminal Area Plan, as shown in Exhibit 11, was prepared with the Airfield Area Plan to assure workability within the total plan, as well as appropriate integration in the staging process.

Some considerations in the development of the terminal plan are:

. Maximum use of existing facilities

Proximity of existing utilities

Auto access and circulation

Impacts on surrounding land uses and support facilities

. Operating efficiencies and safety

Development costs

Business viability

Security, customs, health and immigration

Flexibility for future change

The terminal area includes a new cargo apron with adequate space for both Phase II and Phase III aircraft. The apron has three Boeing 747-400 aircraft positions. The construction includes in-apron utilities such as jet fuel hydrants, apron edge lighting, and apron floodlighting. The new pavement is assumed to be a 13.5-inch thick PCC slab with ce- ment treated base material.

The support facilities include four 30,000-square foot cold storagelcargo transfer facilities with internal administration and customs offices. Large truck parking areas and unloading docks are surrounding the buildings. Ramp access for aircraft containers and vehicles would be through the end of the buildings, so all cargo make-up and breakdown takes place indoors. Truck/trailer storage space has also been provided.

The terminal complex is north of the existing facilities, so extension of utilities is minimal. The site is lower than the sewer facilities, so minor pumping will be needed for the domestic waste generated from the new terminal. The existing 6-inch water line would be extended; however, a much larger water system would be needed for current fire protection standards. It is understood that the Navy would leave fire equipment in place; however, a $900,000 fire fighting vehicle was identified in the Capital Improvement Program to supplement existing equipment.

The jet fuel facility would be expanded to handle larger volumes of fuel. The air traffic control tower would be upgraded and modernized to meet FAA standards.

There are not many remaining existing airport facilities which could be utilized by other users in order to make best use of existing assets. A primary user with expensive equipment in place is NASA. Their facilities are north of the new cargo area, and the cargo apron was sited to minimize conflict with NASA equipment.

Institutional Considerations

The CLNAU? site is owned by the U.S. Government (not the U.S. Navy, which would require decommissioning protocol when the Navy leaves). NASA, an agency of the U.S. Government, is assuming control of CLNALF as the U.S. Navy departs. No ceremonies or documents are required in this change of supervision.

NASA: A limited User . ..

NASA occupies a small area just north of the Navy support facilities. NASA uses CLNALF for STOL and rotocraft flight research. The Microwave Landing System (MLS) was prototyped here, so there are radar, laser and video systems in place for tracking landing aircraft. About six contract staff are employed to operate the equipment with NASA engineers arrives from Ames during flight testing.

NASA plans to continue using only a small portion of CLNALS, with some improvements, and foresees no permanent aviation crew stationed at CLNALF. The only NASA personnel that would be stationed at CLNALF in any single event would be limited to no more than 25 to 40 employees who would be testing equipment, handling data received from observation facilities and security personnel.

Under NASA control, CL;NA]LF would not be used for a majority of the time. NASA would bring a small contingent of people to test experimental aircraft on an irregular basis. The total of 818 operations NASA had in 1991 equals approximately 16 operations per week or 2.25 operations per day. However, the operations would probably not occur on a daily basis.

NASA: A Willing Partner

NASA would like to see a larger use for CLNALF. In the current fiscal climate, a 1,528- acre facility hotping six employees with a maximum use by no more than 25 to 40 employees requiring tight security is a difficult budget item to protect.

On the other hand, a busy airport which might compromise the need for security to NASA's missions would not suit NASA's interest.

% The proposed Concept Plan can only succeed if both NASA and CLACA can pursue their objectives concurrently. An institutional arrangement to guarantee that concurrence will need to be developed, and such a "joint use" concept is discussed further in this memo. The military concept of joint use is described in Appendix I.

Timing & Seasonal Conflict

Cargo has no set operational schedules, as passenger aircraft do; therefore, aircraft will depart when convenient relative to loading of aircraft and enroute weather conditions. The 300-day year implies no weekend or holiday use. It is assumed that neither crops nor high-tech cargo would be transferred to the airport on a 7-day basis. However, JIT may be difficult to attract without a 7-day week operation.

Fog is a factor in the valley; however, the airports are not always fogged in for 24 hours. Night flights are both possible and desirable, which is the reason why airport lighting systems are being proposed for reconstruction, and which is also necessary due to the change in pavement thickness with the overlay. The major obstacle to night flights will be noise, since CNEL standards exaggerate noise impacts.

In terms of time of year, the peak periods for fruits and vegetables is June, July and August. However, some cargo would be flown year-round. The peak month operations are estimated to be twice the average month. Peak operations are relatively insignificant since daily operations are so low. The maximum number of operations would be three in the peak hour, which would probably occur in the early afternoon.

This type of scheduling should fit with NASA's demands for total shutdown on some occasions. NASA does not prefer summer usage and CLACA would notify its users with sufficient notice that flights would be discontinued for, say, 24 hours.

Timing and seasonal conflicts are not seen as fatal flaws, but they will require coordina- tion in the Master Plan and by the airport sponsor.

Capital Improvement Program (CLACA Only)

It is understood that NASA will have some improvements to make at CLNALF in the next several years. These are unknown and not part of this effort, which is prepared from the CLACA perspective only.

The CLACA development program is presented in date sequence so that all projects can be undertaken when demand justifies development. The cost estimates are prepared in current dollars, and are to be used for planning purposes only.

Objectives

The objectives of CLACA Phase II development, up to and including 1999, are (1) strengthening of the air£ie1d pavements to accommodate heavy cargo aircraft, (2) development of new cargo apron with site utilities, and (3) construction of the cargo support buildings, truck operation areas, and access.

CLACA Phase III, year 2000 to year 2010, includes (1) extension of the runway to 10,500 feet to provide for improved heavy aircraft operations, and (2) expansion of the ground handling facilities and support structures.

The Capital Improvement Program in Table 36 shows that the most significant expenditures during the capital improvement program occur in the early years. These expenditures are needed primarily for airfield facilities,

Assumptions

This feasibility study deals with order of magnitude costs which are useful for planning purposes only. The project costs are separated as to FAA share and local share. The FAA portion is based on 90 percent funding available from FAA in California. The local share is normally 10 percent of eligible projects, and 100 percent of non-eligible projects.

Items presently not eligible for FAA funds include automobile parking, hangar and cargo buildings, fueling systems, and utilities serving ineligible facilities.

Definitions of capacity in planning manuals incorporate a reasonable amount of maximum delay. The t h i n g of development indicated provides airfield development benefits commensurate with costs. Each improvement is timed with respect to safety to users and with the goal of commencing facility development, preferably two to three years before demand exceeds capacity. Construction prior to the operational dates may occur depending upon the availability of funds, changes in demand, and other opportunities.

- --- -

Tabie 36: Capital I m p m n t Program (in 0005 1992 doiim)*

GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES, AND FENCING Runway 17-35 Strengthening Taxiway Strengthening Pavement Marking Cargo Apron Construction Apron Fuefing Hydrants Fuel Farm Expansion Terminal Area Fencing Access Contrd Gates hrternal Access Road Autoflruck Parking Underground Utilities Allocation Runway Extension (2000 lineal feet)

SUBTOTAL

UGHTING/NAVAIDS Runway Lighting System Taxiway Lighting System Precision Approach Path indicators Airport Rotating Beacon Reconstruct Airport Lighting Vault Reconstruct Runway End Identifier Lights Approach UgM System Apron Edge Lighting Apron Security Floodlighting instrument Landing System AWOS System Runway Extension Lighting

SUBTOTAL

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES Cold Storage - Phase I1 Warehousing - Phase II Warehousing - Phase Ill AdministrationlCustoms - Phase Iii Air Traffic Contrd Tower Renovations

i SUBTOTAL

Year Built

FAA Share (so%)

$3,375.0 2,306.3

45.0 1476.5

0.0 0.0

27.0 22.5 33.8 0.0 0.0

1,535.7

$8,821.8

$675.0 1,350.0

67.5 13.5 56.3 33.8

135.0 33.8

121.5 843.8 67.5

225.0

$3,622.7

$0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

$0.0

Local Share (10%)

$375.0 256.2

5.0 164.1 30.0

625.0 3.0 2.5 3.7

1,321.9 312.5 170.6

$3,269.5

$75.0 150.0

7.5 1.5 6.2 3.7

15.0 3.7

13.5 93.7 7.5

25.0

$402.3

$4,474.1 113.4

3330.0 843.8 75.0

$8,836.3

Project Total

FAA Local Year Share Share Project Buih (90%) (10%) Total

EQUIPMENT Fire Fighting Equipment 1996 $900.0 $100.0 $1,000.0 TractorsJMowing 1996 0.0 125.0 125.0 SecurityPatrol 1996 0.0 75.0 75.0

Table 36 (continued): Capital lmprovement Program (in 000's 1992 dollars)*

SUBTOTAL $900.0 $300.0 $1,200.0

..

GRAND TOTAL $13,344.5 $12,808.1 $26,152.6

* Preliminary cost analysis, for conceptual planning purposes only. includes 25% engineering, and administration.

.I All construction costs are based on 1992 dollar values. Quantities are for minimum improvements necessary to provide acceptable facilities to meet forecast demands. For planning purposes, the following multipliers may be applied to estimate future construction costs, although the future economy cannot be precisely projected. These escalations are based on an extrapolated average annual increase at 5 percent compound interest.

Table 37: Range In Multiplier of 1992 Costs, In terms of Inflation or appreciation

Years Range of Multiplier

1992 to 1995 1.0 to 1.2 1996 to 2000 1.2 to 1.5 2001 to 2005 1.5 to 1.9 2006 to 201 0 1.9 to 2.4

There are many uncertainties with respect to forecasting costs, especially in long-range plans. The airport owner or sponsor should incorporate adequate contingencies to cover changes in costs, sophistication of equipment, environmental protection requirements, and special studies or programs.

Cost estimates are order-of-magnitude costs for planning and programming purposes only. Detailed topographic mapping, soil investigations, and field investigation during the design process will result in more accurate estimates of future development costs.

Development Costs

As Table 36 shows, CLACA will cost $26.2 million in improvements, only 51% of which is eligible for FAA funding. This means that more than $12.8 million must be raised locally. It is assumed that this local share can be bonded, since large infusions of capital would be needed early on. This local share does not occur at one time: it can be spread over three different development periods:

The end of Phase I.

The beginning of Phase II.

The beginning of Phase III.

The financial analysis in the following section assumes funding by FAA, as broken out in Table 38. If FAA funding cannot be obtained, the UACA concept is not feasible, since no private source is available to extend this type of £inancing.

Table 38: Funding Assumptions, per item and unit cost, in 000's of 1992 dolkrs

Local Costs Required as of Approximate Date

Tats1 1995* 1996** 2000*** Quantity Unit

GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES, AND FENCING Runway 17-35 Strengthening $375.0 1,200,000 SF Taxiway Strengthening 256.2 820,000 SF Pavement Marking 5.0 1 LS Cargo Apron Construction 1 64.1 375,000 SF Apron Fueling Hydrants 30.0 6 EA Fuel Farm Expansion 625.0 1 LS Terminal Area Fencing $3.0 2,000 LG Access Control Gates 2.5 2 EA Internal Access Road 3.7 15,000 SF Auto/mrck Parking 1,321.9 352,500 SF Underground UtilRies Allocation 312.5 1 LS Runway Extension (2,000 lineal feet) $170.6 390,000 SF

SUBTOTAL

Multi- plier

To Include

cost Soft per Unit Costs

Percent Funda ble

by FAA

Total Funda ble

by FAA

LlGHTING/NAVAlDS Runway Lighting System $75.0 8,000 LF $75.0 1.25 90% $675.0 Taxiway Lighting System 150.0 9,600 LF 125.0 1.25 90% 1,350 Precision Approach Path Indicators 7.5 2 EA 30,000 1.25 90% 67.5 Airport Rotating Beacon Reconstruct 1.5 1 lS 12,OOO 1.25 90% 13.5 Airport Lighting Vault Reconstruct 6.2 1 LS 50,000 1.25 90% 56.3 Runway End Identifier Lights $3.7 2 EA 15,000 1.25 90% 33.8 Approach Light System 15.0 1 EA 120,000 1.25 90% 135.0 Apron Edge Lighting 3.7 1,080 LF 30 1.25 90% 33.8 Apron Security Floodlighting 13.5 6 EA 18,000 1.25 90% 121.5 Instrument Landing System 93.7 1 EA 750,000 1.25 90% 843.8 AWOS System 75.0 1 EA 60,000 1.25 90% 67.5 Runway Extension Lighting $25.0 2,000 LF 100 1.25 90% 22fia

SUBTOTAL $3,622.7

I Table 38 (continued) Funding Assumptions, per item and unit cost, in 000's of 1992 dollars I

Local Costs Required as of Approximate Date

Total 1995* 1996** 2000*** Quantity Unit

BUlLDlNGS AND FACILITIES Cdd Storage - Phase H $4,474.1 51,133 SF Warehousing - Phase 11 1 13.4 2,267 SF Warehousing - Phase Ill $3,330.0 66,600 SF Administration/Customs - Phase Ill - 843.8 9,000 SF Air Trafftc Contrd Tower Renovations 75.0 1 LS

SUBTOTAL

EQUIPMENT Fire Fighting Equipment Tractors/Mowing SecurityPatrol

SUBTOTAL

I GRAND TOTAL $1,695.5 $6,743.2 $4,369.4

* End of Phase I ** Beginning of Phase II *** Beginning of Phase Ill SF Square feet LS Labor and Supplies EA Each LF Uneal foot

Note: A FAA Master Plan is not included in the above capital costs

Muff i- plier

To Include

Cost Soft per Unit Costs

Percent Fundable

by FAA

Total Fundable

by FAA

Institutional and Financial Considerations

The Concept Plan defines the capital improvement program necessary to support the Phase XI and Phase III development at CLACA. These capital costs data are combined in this section with estimates of operating costs and operating revenues to provide a picture of the probable financial status of the CLACA program through the year 2010.

There is also a general discussion of the financing options that could be considered to implement the CLACA development program, These options are largely dependent upon the institutional arrangement at CLACk

Assumption: Joint Use with NASA

We assume that NASA wishes to retain control over its operations and any surrounding activities which might affect those operations. Accordingly, any cargo and industrial use of CLACA would be under a joint use arrangement with NASA.

Joint use is a common concept with military bases in the U.S., but NASA is not a military branch of the federal government. Therefore, for NASA, the following would be a new and unprecedented concept. The joint use concept assumes a rent-free or token ($1 per year) lease payment for using land. NASA must have its own site, free and secure from all CLACA operations.

Military Concept of Joint Use as a Prototype

Appendix I contains quotations of the rules that might be applicable to CLACA These quotations are from The P h for Joint Use of Military Airfields, prepared by the U.S. Secretary of Defense and U.S. Secretary of rans sport at ion?^

It is assumed that CLACA can - or will be able to - meet these requirements

Environmental Assessment

The proposed CLACA must be subjected to an environmental impact report (EIR). If CLACA is to be master planwd under a FAA grant, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may require sn environmental impact statement @IS) as well as an EIR.

L, Land Use Compatibility

CLNAW has been a "good neighbor" with Stanislaus County and the City of Patterson, a p~licy reflected in joint agreements to undertake work or change flight patterns with these entities. Exhibit 12 shows the agreed upon Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) which is a determined effort to keep flights from CLNAWF away from the southern edge of Patterson, particularly because of noise impacts..

The greatest land use issue will involve any proposed expansion of operations into neighboring farms. While the direction and location of this expansion can only be assumed at this time, Table 39 shows the worst-case assumptions.

Table 30: Estimate of CLACA Land Needs, Until the Year 2015

Acres

Currentiy ownership of CLNALF 1,528

Needed for CLACA facilities 12 Needed for CLACA runways, taxiways and shoulders 355 Needed for NASA activities 20 Needed for flight clearance from adjoining development 2M

Total CLACWASA land requirement 532

Surplus land available for JIT 941

Total land needed for JIT operations 2.QQQ

Adjacent land needed for JlT operations 1,059

Table 39 shows that at least 1,059 acres of off-site farms would be converted to industrial use, although it is too early to tell which parcels would be most efficiently connected to CLACA for JlT purposes. There are over 1,850 acres of farm property directly con- tiguous to the CLNALF land owned by the U.S. Government. There are thousands more acres close by CLNALF.

Whichever direction land assembly around CLNALF takes, prime agricultural land would be purchased and converted to JIT activities. Exhibit 13 shows CLNALF as it relates to prime agricultural land.

4 Practical Environmental

Area impacted by 94,000 annual operations Capacity Noise Impacts,

N p74 Area impacted by 180.000 annual CLNALF 4

1 miles operations

I Source: Wlsey & Ham, $986 AICUZ study Exhibit 1 2

7 Prime Agricultural Land

I 4

1 miles b

Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service Exhibit I 3

Noise - Exhibit 12 shows the latest Air Installation Compatible Use Zune (AICUZ) study for CLNALF, conducted in 1977. The Capacity Noise Regions (CNR) areas show activities where noise would be an impact under the following level of operations (take-offs and landings):

CNR2 Increase - up to 94,000 annual operations

CNR3 Increase - up to 180,000 annual operations

The level of operations at CLNALF in 1991 was approximately 25,000?~ CLACA would have annual operations of approximately 840 at its maximum in Phase III. This does not include NASA Bights and tests, which totalled 818 in 1991.~ Together, these 1,658 operations would be 2 percent of these operations anticipated in CNR2 and are only 7 percent of the CWALF operations ih 1991.

While military planes (and NASA equipment) are noisier than civilian aircraft, large cargo planes envisioned at CLACA will have noise impacts on the surrounding area. It should be assumed that the City of Patterson and the unincorporated Crows Landing community would be noise impacted by CLACA.

Transportation/Circulation Off-Site

Increased truck traffic generated by CLAW would be minimal, as will increased railroad operations. However, 3IT activities, when fully developed in the year 2015, would generate traffic for 40,000 employees.

It is too early to speculate on work shifts, travel modes, and whether the "MOCOCO"~ line of the SIT Co. will be carrying passengers by the year 2015. However, the traffic impacts of the Kt' commuters would be significant and adverse on the surrounding farm road system, 1-5 and S.R. 33.

Hazardous Materials

The most common -- and most feared -- airport environmental problems are hazardous materials, particularly at military facilities. Unexploded ordnance, jet fuel leaks, aban- doned equipment and many other sources of t o h are common to military bases.

W A L F has reported two sources of hazardous materials:

. Memorandum from C L W T o w Manger to the Omcot in Charge, 12110191. 34. bid. 35. The Mohave W Contra Costa line, which Is now SPT Co. only as far as Bakersfield, from which it joins the ATSF & Co and

crosses the Tehachapi Range to the Town of Mohave.

11 underground fuel tanks, all of which have been removed and sealed to the c specifications of the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources.

1,250 cubic yards of contaminated soil (with total petroleum hydrocarbons) which were remediated on-site by a low temperature thermal treatment. The treated soils have been returned to their excavated site.

Other concerns at CL;NALP have yet to be resolved. They include:

The U.S. Navy leases 1,100 acres of land to farmers who have diesel gas tanks on the land. The farmers' tanks are not secondarily contained. This increases the risk of site contamhation due to fuel lealrs or spills.

CLNALF has its own sanitary landfill. The landfill is located at Site 11 of the Navy's Site Investigation. Groundwater samples from Site 11 contain diesel contamination. The cover material is not sufficient to prevent the migration of hazardous substances to ground water, surface water, and air. Because of the detection of petroleum oil contamination in the soil and diesel in the groundwater, additional investigations are needed at Site 11. The investigation should include recommendations and implementation for appropriate pit soil cover material and grading.

There are three other sites of concern:

Site 12, Auto Maintenance Shop. Because of the detection of petroleum oil contamination in the soil and diesel in the groundwater, additional investigations ?re needed at Site 12.

Site 13, TACAN Transformer Oil Spill Area. Toxaphene was detected above the proposed Federal Action Level at Site 13. Additional investigations are needed at this site.

Site 16, Pesticide Mixing Area. The U.S. Navy found no contamination in this area.

These sites are shown in Exhibit 14.

There is always the possibility that additional pollution could be discovered at CLNALF' such as:

Older buildings contained asbestos, although a survey performed by the U.S. Navy found no asbestos. . PCB (Polycholorinated Biphenyl) transformers exist on-site, although no irregularities or. deficiencies were found by the U.S. Navy.

Air quality degradation is possible via both fuel pumpinglfilling as well as aircraft ex- hausts. These have been under review by a U.S. Navy air quality management pro- &r-

e Groundwater contamination may exist and have spread throughout the aquifer.

Environmental Site Locations 4

I N 2,000 feet

b

Source: NEESA IAS NAS Moffett Field Exhibit I 4

At this time, CLNALF is not certified free of hazardous materials and further investiga- %

tion would be needed as part of the FAA Master Plan. If specific sites are characterized as contaminated, then remediation would be required before CLACA or JIT could begin operations in those areas.

Rare, Endangered or Threatened Species

The project area is known to be the habitat of the San Joaquin Kit Fox, although no sight- ing~ have occurred and the cultivated fields are usually avoided by the kit fox.

CLNALF is also a potential habitat for the Molestan Beetle, the Giant Garter Snake, the Tricolored Blackbird, the Spiny Sepaled Coyote Thistle, and the Delta Coyote Thistle. A survey for rare, endangered and threatened species would be needed.

Cumulative Impacts

The most challenging environmental issue would be combining CLACA's impacts with those expected from the following development:

JIT on and off the CLAW site.

Expansion of the City of Patterson.

Expansion of the City of Newman.

Development of the New Town of Lakeborough.

Development of the New Town of Diablo Grande.

Although all five developments may be able to co-exist, the environmental impact reports on the individual projects fail to take in the cumulative effects of all projects on each other. A sub-regional plan will be needed to assure all parties that each project may proceed in conjunction with the others,

Stanklaus County Airport Authority (SCAA)

In order for joint operations with NASA to ensue, Stanislaus County would have to initiate a public body with the power to:

Eater into agreements. . Buy, sell and/or lease land and/or improvements thereon.

Maintain a staff.

hcur debt.

Raise revenues through fees, charges or strictly limited t a g power.

% Stanislaus County need not "own" any portion of CLACA to operate as a joint user. SCAA could use or lease U.S. government land from NASA and merely act as master developer, subject to a joint use agreement with NASA A non-profit or private operator would deaI with NASA through SCAA, since private sector entities are not eligible for FAA funding.

NASA: A Non-Developer

It is assumed that NASA is not interested in undertaking any of the concept plan improvements and would not be a source of funding or an active manager. But NASA must be a willing and active party to the joint use arrangement.

NASA: A Willing Seller

NASA has indicated its interest in disposing of those portions of CLNALF not necessary or useful for NASA operations. SCAA could buy land from NASA, but in doing so only gains the responsibilities that accrue from ownership, including the debt from purchase. It is assumed that Stanislaus County is not in a position to engage in real property acquisition when control (land use and management decisions) must still be shared with NASA under a joint use arrangement.

SCAA as "Sponsor"

For purposes of this section, it is assumed that SCAA, or a similar public entity, will be the "sponsor" of the proposed CLACA. When the term "sponsor" is used in this feasibility report, it is intended to indicate a SCAA or some other branch of the Stanislaus County government.

The SCAA or sponsor should not be construed as the airport owner, although all of the functions and operations may be undertaken by the sponsor. The sponsor does not need to engage in negotiations of fee title transfer with NASA unless absolutely necessary.

However, SCAA or the sponsor may be interested in purchasing additional land outside the U.S. government ownership. This land would be necessary for Phase III JIT expansion, probably in the latter period of Phase III between year 2010 and year 2015. Until the year 2010, there is sufficient land to construct JIT on U.S. government property, subject to the joint use agreement with NASA.

Financing Considerations

A sound financial program is instrumental to the successful development of the airport. Proper planning, design, and feasibility studies are efforts that are not helpful unless an adequate financing program can be developed to accomplish the improvements indicated. The goals of airport financial planning are to (1) achieve a sound economic operation, (2) provide an adequate level of aviation service, and (3) avoid taxpayer burdens by developing a reasonable financial return fiom the airport facility. The desirability of future airport development depends on the ability of an airport to achieve a self-supporting status and, within a reasonable time, to cover local development costs. Estimated revenues should be sufficient to help offset annual cost of capital investment and operations.

While the primary responsibility for financing proposed facility development rests with the sponsor, there are many ways that airport development funds can be supplemented. Money for capital improvements may come from a number of sources and may be used singly or in combination to accomplish airport development. Sources available during recent years for financing airport facilities include the FAA's Airport Improvement Pro- gram (AIP), Federal revenue sharing funds, private donations, leasebacks, direct revenue loans, certificates of participation, revenue and general obligation bonds, tax assessment district, special airport tax district, and tax increment bonds. Also, capital improvements can be financed from funds that are accumulated from annual operating and tax revenues.

Alternative Sources for Funding

FAA Funds

Moneys for airport development are derived from user taxes and are available for land acquisition, construction, alteration, fire fighting, and rescue vehicles and facilities, as well as for establishing and improving air navigation facilities. Both publicly-owned and privately owned public use airports are eligible for such aid provided the proposed project is included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Presently, the Federal share of these projects at CLAW would be 90 percent of eligible costs.

A Nan-Profit Corporation

The sponsor could lease portions of the airport from NASA, construct facilities, and then lease the entire improvement back for a fixed period of years, calculated to recoup the investment plus interest. Rates will be high, but no initial public capital is required for this form of financing. This might be one way to develop needed warehouse buildings, although private enterprise is not eligible for Federal grants for site preparation and taxiways at publicly owned airports.

Certificates of Participation (COPs)

COPs are long-term financing techniques using either a lease purchase or installment sale arrangement. While usually used for long-term financing of major facilities such as city or county administration, public safety, court house, jail, and parking garage buildings, it has also been used to finance equipment over a 3-to 10-year period. The parties to the trans- action include (1) the lessee, which in this case is the sponsor; (2) the lessor, which can be a public agency such as NASA; (3) the trustee, who holds the security for the payments of

- the lease; (4) the paying agent (who may be the same as the trustee), who disburses the lease payments to (5) the investors, who purchase the COPs. The funds to meet the lease payments are raised on an annual appropriation basis and non-appropriation may mean the return of the asset financed or action at law or in equity. As further security for the lease payments, insurance or a third-party guarantee may be used or project revenues may be used to make lease payments if the facility is revenue-producing.

Municipal Lease Purchase Financing

This financing (tax-exempt leasing) is an alternative method for financing the sponsor's use and acquisition of equipment or facilities otherwise too expensive to be included in annual budgets. Leasing is a method which permits political subdivisions to enter into installment sale or lease purchase contracts with principal and tax-free interest increments payable over time. Tax-exempt lease contracts have two requirements: (1) the governmental body must pay the purchase price plus interest over a period of years, and (2) it must have the right to purchase the property for a nominal price at the end of the contract term. The funds to pay the contract installments can come from any source available to the public body. The appropriation is put in the annual budget. Should the appropriation not take place, the balance due on the contract is accelerated and the investor either receives back the asset for which the funds were spent or otherwise seeks relief.

Revenue Bonds

Bonds are sold with repayment based on income from anticipated revenues. Adequate earning capability of the project must be convincingly demonstrated. Earnings from the airport must go first toward retirement of the bonds, and future financing may be in- hibited while bond debt is outstanding. Interest rates are usually higher than for general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds are an excellent form of financing for air carrier runways, terminal buildings, and industrial parks, where revenues are strong.

General Obligation (GO) Bonds

Bonds are backed by the taxing power of the community (Stanislaus County) and are generally the most economical bonding method to finance airport development. Proceeds from the' sale of general obligation bonds are usuaUy not available to finance private or exclusive operation facilities such as T-hangars and exclusive-use aprons. General obligation bonds are useful in financing public use facilities whether revenue producing or not, such as runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, and auto parking. Since the advent of Proposition 13 and several lawsuits, a two-thirds majority of the voters is necessary to issue GO bonds.

Countv General Fund

The General Fund would use the broad, county-wide tax base as a source of funding on the presumption that the benefits to be gained are widely distributed to most residents and businesses in the county. This would be most difficult to prove to the elected officials and voters in Stanislaus County.

Assessment District or Special Airport District

A District would provide a more focused area that would benefit fiom the economic activity at the airport. It would depend on a more locally defined property tax base to provide funds to augment the short fall in operating revenues. A tax increment funding district could be used to finance both the airport improvements and the development of surrounding land needed for TIT development.

Tax Increment Bonds

This approach to financing the project would focus even more sharply on the direct beneficiaries of the airport activity, such as the Just-In-Time business activities adjacent to (or within) the airport. As property values rise, the increment is used to retire the debt rather than allowed to flow directly to the public treasury.

Cash Flow Analysis

Pricing of airport services and facilities is a sensitive issue and subject to controversy. Each party may have a different perspective and motivation. While a public entity may seek a yearly return equal to yearly expenditures, private business may seek to maximize profits, and some airport users feel that a facility supported by public funds should be willing to charge less and operate at a deficit. Local governments have to be certain they are capable of covering costs, or they must accept a deficit with the view that other community revenues are increased adequately to warrant a deficit.

Many airports seek to attain a high degree of self-sufficiency and have rates and charges commensurate with the operating costs and capital improvement expenses. At other airports, local conditions and circumstances preclude charging full actual costs and a public entity may choose to absorb some of the financial burden and not pass it on to the user.

The preceding section on financing considerations indicates some of the mechanisms typically used for financing the local share for airport projects. An early determination should be made by the airport sponsor as to the most desirable and feasible approach to initiate implementation. The only long-term satisfactory way to resolve concerns regarding financing is through a strong 'statement of airport financial policy and aggressive implementation of that policy. For this reason, it is essential that a financial policy and program be established and monitored regularly.

Integration of Capital Requirements Into Cash Flow Analysis

The estimated CLACA Financial Analysis, presented on the Cash Flow Analysis, Table 40, is a key element of the feasibility study. Assumptions for this table are shown in Ap- pendix J. Through this analysis, the capital improvement program and the projection of annual operating income and expenses are brought together to establish an estimate of the future financial condition over the twenty-year planning period for the airport,

The Cash Flow Analysis is based on several components: . Operating income

. Operating expense

. Operating profit/loss . Capital requirements

Annual cash flow

Cumulative cash flow

A philosophy and fee schedule must be established in order to assure that adequate operating income is collected. It is necessary to generate significant revenue at the airport to provide for matching of FAA grants in order to implement the capital improvement program. The underlying assumption for the income schedule is that the tenants and other users sincerely desire development of new airfield and terminal facilities, and are willing to pay appropriate fees.

The CLACA will compete with other airports in the region for receiving Federal aid. Only airports with available grant matching funds can receive grants. Revenue must be generated on the airport with the intent that it will be refumed to users in the form of grants for capital improvements.

Table 40: Cash Flow Analysis (Year 1993 to Year 2001), In thousands of 1992 doliars

INCOME Landing Fees $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $76.9 $153.2 $153.2 $153.2 $207.9 $207.9 Fuel Flowage 0.0 0.0 0.0 722.9 1441.2 1441.2 1441.2 1799.6 1799.6 Cold Storage Rent 0.0 0.0 0.0 460.2 460.2 460.2 460.2 460.2 460.2 Warehouse Rent 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 413.2 413.2 ld./Com. Land Lease 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 37.5 75.0 93.8 I TOTAL INCOME $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,273.6 $2,068.2 $2,105.7 $2,105.7 $2,955.9 $2,974.6

EXPENSES Salaries $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1 85.0 $1 85.0 $185.0 $185.0 $280.0 $280.0 SuppliesIOther 0.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 45.0 45.0 Insurance 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 75.0 Utilities 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 75.0 Misc. 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

TOTAL EXPENSES $0.0 $0.0 $1 45.0 $330.0 $330.0 $330.0 $330.0 $485.0 $485.0

( PROFIT (LOSS) $0.0 $0.0 ($145.0) $943.6 $1,738.2 $1,775.7 $1,775.7 $2,470.9 $2,489.6

1 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS Local Capital* I ANNUAL CASH M W $0.0 $0.0 ($1 ,840.5) ($5,799.6) $1,738.2 $1,175.7 $1,175.7 ($1 8898.5) $2n489-6

( ACCUMULATED CASH FLOW $0.0 $0.0 ($1,&1~).5) ($7,640.1) ($5,901.9) ($4,126.2) ($28350.5) ($4~249.~ ) ($1*759.4)

* 1995 capital from first bond sale or local Investment. 1996 capital from second bond sale or local investment. Year 2000 capital from third bond sale or local investment. See Appendix J for assumptions used for each line above. Source: Wadell Engineering Corp.

Table 40 (continued): Cash Flow Analpls Year 2002 to Year 2010, in thousands of 1992 dollars

2002 2003 2604 I INCOME Landing Fees $207.9 $207.9 $207.9 Fuel Flowage 1799.6 1799.6 1799.6 Cold Storage Rent 460.2 460.2 460.2 Warehouse Rent 41 3.2 41 3.2 41 3.2 Ind./Com. Land Lease 1 12.5 131.3 150.0

TOTAL INCOME

EXPENSES Salaries Supplies/Other Insurance Utlities Misc.

I TOTAL EXPENSES $485.0 $485.0 $485.0

/ PROFIT (LOSS) $2,508.4 $2,527.1 $2,545.9

CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS Local Capital*

I ANNUAL CASH FLOW $2,508.4 $2,527.1 $2,545.9

I AMXlMUlATED CASH FLOW $749.0 $3,276.1 55,822.0

See Appendix J for assumptions upd for each line above. Source: Wadell Engineering Corp.

Competitive Airports

Aside from Modesto Airport, which is the nearest large airport to CLNALF, there are two airports within a 50-mile radius of CLNAW that would be competitive for FAA funding. They are:

Castle Air Force Base. Planning is underway for a conversion to passenger and cargo use.

Stockton Metropolitan Airport. This is a fully functioning passenger and cargo operation.

Castle Air Force Base is currently studying several aviation and non-aviation uses. The U.S. Air Force will not be completely vacated until 1995, by which time, CLACA should be a reality.

Castle Air Force Base considers its physical plant superior to the situation at CLNALF~ However, it is beset with environmental cleanup problems which may limit its ultimate dis- position and use. Appendix K documents the latest situation at Castle Air Force Base. It is also 46 miles further from the Bay Area than CLNALF via narrow roadways and particularly congested traffic in the MercedfAtwater area. According to the Merced County Association of Governments, at least five key intersections within one mile of Castle Air Force Base will be deficient after the year 2000. Fifty percent of Castle Air Force Base is swrounded by urban area.

Stockton Metropolitan Airport is losing both passengers and cargo traffic on a year-to- year basis. While h o s t 800 acres of industrial land are available at Stockton Metropolitan Airport, the unincorporated community of French Camp is within two miles of the facility. (The unincorporated community of Crows Landing is also two miles from CLNALF, but has fewer residences.) Although Stockton Metropolitan Airport has a favorable AICZJZ, showing impacts on primarily agricultural land, it is surrounded by growing communities and potentially congested roadways. If the contemplated "Gold Rush City" and Kearney Ventures projects are realized, the I-5/I-205/I-120 linkages to the south of Stockton Metropolitan Airport will be a gridlocked passage to the Bay Area. To its credit, Stockton Metropolitan Airport is three road miles closer than CLNALF to the Bay Area.

Stockton Metropolitan Airport attributes its falling operations to the increasing draw of passengers from San Joaquin County to the Sacramento Metropolitan Airport. However, most of the growth in San Joaquin County is projected to occur in the southern part of the County, so that long-term increases in passenger use are f~recast.~' The only concern Stockton Metropolitan Airport might have is sharing air space with CLACA, although:

36. Richard Martin, Director, Castle Joint Powers Authority, 12/12/91. 37. Dan DeAngelis, Airport Manager, Stockton Metropolitan Airport, 6/9/92.

Stockton Metropolitan Airport is steadily decreasing in its number of operations, and b *. ...

CLACA, at its busiest during the year 2015, would never have the number of operations CLNALF had as a U.S. Navy facility. What this means is that there were many more operations in the 1980's at both Stockton Metropolitan Airport and CLNALF and they did not conflict with each other.

According to the Airport Manager, Stockton Metropolitan Airport seeks to enhance its passenger volume and is not concerned about the cargo plans for CLACG~~ CLACA,on the other hand, has little potential for - and does not seek -- passenger traffic.

Offsetting Debt and Expenses

By absorbing $26.2 million in improvements, CLACA will become a major asset. In order to amortize its debt and to defray expenses, the w o r t needs to generate revenues. The major sources of revenues are shown in Table 41.

Table 4 1: Sources of Malor Revenue by Percentage

Land Lease (sub-lease) 8.3% Cold Storage Rent 14.6% Warehouse Rent 13.2% Landing Fees 6.6% Fuel Flowage (includes federal & state taxes) 57.3%


The income is comprised of non-aviation related land lease, building rentals, landing and fuel flowage fees. The land leases are not JIT-related, but rather for fruits and vegetables and high tech shipments. The sponsor would either use or lease land from NASA and sub-lease it to end users.

The major expense assumptions are listed in Table 42.

38. Ibid.

Tabre 42: Application of Major Expenses by Percentage

Salaries 57.6% Supplies 9.3% Insurance 15.5% Utilities 15.5% Miscellaneous 2.1%


For the purpose of the Financial Analysis, the specific assumptions were made for income and expenditures. However, there are also a series of generalized assumptions underlying the entire analysis. . The forecast activity levels will occur as projected in this report. . No capital improvement expenditures in addition to those presented in the report will

be required. (This assumes that lessees who build buildings and J1T will pay development fees not covered by the tax increment funding district.)

. Improvements will be financed to the maximum extent possible with Federal funds (assumed to be 90 percent of eligible items). . All 1992 dollars are used for income, expenses, and capital improvements costs during the 18-year period.

. Specific analysis will be made prior to major commitments, and the airport cost accounting system and development plan will be monitored and updated as necessary.

Based on the revenue and expense assumptions, the annual income and expenses were combined to determine the operating profit (loss). %?hen the operating profit (loss) is coupled with the local share of new capital requirements, the cash flow results. It is apparent that the new revenues and the collection of current revenues generate an operating profit continuing for all but 3 years through the year 2010. However, when combined with the local share of new capital to match grants for capital improvements, there is a negative annual cash flow. The cash flow remains negative on a cumulative basis until year 2002.

The cash flow analysis utilizes current dollars and airport operations on a "cash basis!' Sources of financing have not been applied, such as loans for buildings, fuel farm, and utility development and other facilities. If bonding is to be used, debt service is not d c u - lated and could be substantial. Therefore, by the dates mentioned above, the airport will have been reconstructed, expanded, and new revenue-producing buildings developed and paid for out of operating profit. After the planning period, there would be further facility expansion, but there would not be any major FAA and local capital requirements for maintenance and repair of facilities. The years beyond the planning period, under the Master Plan assumptions, would yield annual operating profits of the magnitude indicated in the Cash Flow Analysis tables.

Two vital assumptions used in the Cash Flow Analysis tables are (1) the willingness and cooperation of the airport tenants to pay rent and (2) the FAA funding will occu and will be 90 percent of a l l eligible items.

Financlal Feasibility

As was noted in the costjrevenue analysis, it is likely that net funds will be developed from direct operating revenues after direct operating costs are deducted to finance the on- site share of the capital improvements, and maintenance and operating expenses. R o options for financing the $8 million of local funds needed for an FAA supported capital program -- accumulated surpluses and revenue bond financing -- are both available.

Fiscal Impact

There are several unknowns that make a sophisticated estimate of .fiscal impact to Stanis- laus County difficult - if not impossible to undertake:

Who would own the CLACA? * If the U.S. goverament retains ownership, then property taxes will be limited to

improvements on leaseholds and adjacent property. * If private parties own land, then their improvements and land values will redound

to the County's benefit.

How much JIT would be developed?

If the conceptual estimate of 2,000 acres of JIT developed is reached, then substantial improvement (and some land) values will generate tax revenues to Stanis- laus County. Without JIT, property tax revenues will be minimal and not sufficient to offset operations and improvements required to surrounding infrastructure.

Will a tax increment infrastructure district be established?

If so, all property tax increment will be "captured" for the benefit of the project (CLAW plus JlT) and no significant property tax revenues will redound to Stanislaus County.

If not, Stanislaus County would probably lose money by upgrading surrounding 5- frastructure to support CLACA alone, not to mention the JIT operations. . Who would pay for infraitructure if not Stanislaus County?

JIT developers should pay their fair share through development fees, but they will resist this charge if they are to be induced to move to Stanislaus County.

The CLACA (or SCAA) could assume these costs at a later date, but if they were to front-end costs, CLACA would not be financially feasible.

If a local sales tax on top of a $.IS per gallon surtax is charged for each gallon of fuel pumped at CLACA, the operations of Stanislaus County facilities (e.g., fire, sheriff, courts) would easily be defrayed. Until an EIR which itemizes how legal disputes, un- employment and all other county functions are to be handled at CLACA, it can only be assumed that the airport is a sub-division of the County.

Worst Case Fiscal Impact

Without JIT and a tax increment funding district for infrastructure, Stanislaus County stands to lose more than it could gain fiscally for at least 10 years. When CLACA becomes a money-making venture, it could repay the County for improvements, but the his- tory of special purpose authorities is not supportive of this scenario. Port authorities and districts, the Golden Gate Bridge District and most airports, tend to spend their profits on expansion rather than revenue sharing. Unless fiscal steps are taken prior to the forma- tion of CLACA, it could become an agency serving its own fiscal ends to the detriment of Stanislaus County.

Best Case Fiscal Impact

CLACA would be administered by a SCAA and would plow its operating profits back into predetermined fiscal accounts, e.g., the West Stanislaus Fire District. Plow-back to the Stanislaus County General Fund would not ensure that service providers would be adequately compensated.

A tax increment financing district would be established to "capture" property taxes on:

Leasehold developments on public property. Buildings erected on a long-term lease with SCAA (or the U.S. government) constitute a Possessory interest" which is taxed at one percent of fair market value.

JTT expansion on private property. These improvements are subject to property taxes as are any other development.

The tax increment should be sufficient to defray all off-site costs of CLACA and the cor- responding JIT development.

Sales taxes would be charged on fuel flowage at CLACA. These are necessary revenues for paying Stanislaus County back for its start-up costs and continuing oversight of the project.

Qualified Conclusion

In the best case, CLACA and JFT would provide positive fiscal benefit to Stanislaus Coun- ty. In the worst case, Stanislaus County would not seek positive fiscal impact from CLACA until the 21st Century, and even then the revenues will tend to be "shielded" by SCAA or the project sponsor.

Estimate of Benefits to be Derived

The benefits of CLACA are minimal from a financial perspective:

CLACA only makes sense with FAA funding.

. Deficits are assumed until JIT flights start taking effect.

In the worst case, the CLACA concept is probably a fiscal drain on Stanislaus County, although CLACA is a money-maker in the long term. (If CLACA had a 40-year life, it would have a substantial economic benefit.)

Only JIT is clearly a financial benefit, and JIT depends entirely on CLACA.

However, direct financial benefit is not the only criterion by which benefit can be measured. The public sector must also be considered. In the best case, the CLACA and JlT concepts will deliver a positive fiscal impact to Stanislaus County.

The labor benefits of CLACA are limited without the JlT concept: 30 to 40 new jobs would be created With JIT, the labor benefits would be high: approximately 40,000 new jobs that will leave Santa Clara County (and other parts of the Bay Area) could come to U C A due to JIT. Because of the current jobs/housing imbalance in Stanislaus County, this would be a primary and "driving" benefit of CLACk But, this foremost benefit depends on three "ifs":

Will CLACA be built? Only the FAA can assure this possibility.

Will JIT be attracted to CLACA? It seems plausible, but more market research is needed on this question.

Will JIT be as successful as hoped for? The experts say 'yes."

Overall, the jobs portion of CLACA with JIT is extremely positive.

Value Added

The latest quest in economic development is to "add value." Even the much-maligned service industry is desirable to the extent that it adds value. But manufacturing is still the classic value added model: raw materials are processed into a saleable product.

Taken by itself, air transport of goods (and some services) adds only the value of time and distance. Time is indispensable under deadline situations and we have discussed its importance with perishable commodities in earlier sections of this feasibility report. Distance is critical to any economic activity, but air transport is the most expensive form of goods shipment. Consequently air transport is only adding value to perishable commodities that need to travel far and fast, e.g., bing cherries to Japan, where locals will pay $1 for a single bing cherry. For fruits and vegetables, however, the value added of air transport is limited.

In addition, JIT processing is the ultimate value added economic activity. Components arrive from all points of origin with limited value, they are assembled into a product worth far more than the sum values of the components, and they are delivered to constantly changing markets "just in time." The second most important benefit of the JIT concept to CLACA is its value added to components we know are being produced elsewhere. The added value accrues to the point where they are assembled, and CLACA would allow that point to be Stanislaus County,

Indirect Benefits to Stanislaus County

The value added by Jrr is distributed in the form of wages, rent, taxes, profit and other benefits. But unless this money is spent in Stanislaus County, there may be few indirect benefits. Fortunately, the greatest indirect benefits, wages, will be largely spent in Stanis- lgus County, although Merced and Santa Clara Counties may also see some of these indirect benefits.

Rents will be shared by the sponsor (sub-lessor) and NASA (lessor). These benefits could be increased if Stanislaus County were the lessor, but ownership of CLACA is not preferable to leasing by the sponsor.

Taxes remain a question: Stanislaus County could derive the majority of these benefits depending on whether a tax increment infrastructure district and sales tax on fuel were established. On the other band, the only way that Silicon Valley firms may consider locating JTlr at CLACA is by tax relief in such forms as enterprise zones or a free trade zone. While these attempts to attract industry have varied results, ranging from none to successful, CLACA should stay away from forgiving taxes in any form.

Stanislaus County, the State of W o r n i a and the U.S. government have few reasons to waive taxes on a concept that doesn't exist anywhere in the Pacific Rim. On the other hand, all three governments are in dire fiscal positions at this writing. At this point, we are recommending no special tax relief on CLACA or JIT until further study is done.

Linkages to the JIT operations will be minor: some transport and vendor business will be strengthened and the construction industry will enjoy a short-term benefit. But the ration- ale of JIT is largely a dosed system: goods (and some services) arrive and leave by . airplane. They are barely augmented by Stanislaus County industry. Other industries in Stanislaus County would hardly be affected, since they won't "co-locate" by JIT unless they are part of the JIT There will be very few new businesses spawned by JTC' at CLACA, but CLACA will be responsible for spawning all of the JIT operations which locate there.

39. Observers may note that the NUMMi plant in Fremont is a JIT operation with hundreds of suppliers of components in the Bay Area and at least one, Trim Masters, in Stanislaus County. But a land transportation-based Jlf operation is basically vulnerable, as NUMMl discovered in the recent railroad strike of June 1992.

Tbe only disbenefit to JlT operations will be the conversion of agricultural land to industrial, processing and very limited warehouse use. Through careful planning and mitiga- tion, this disbenefit can be overcome, but it must not be ignored. In addition, Stanislaus County has adopted an Agricultural Element which has the maintenance of productive agricultural land as a primary objective.

Profit may also be a disbenefit to Stanislaus County from JiT, since most companies will be Silicon Valley-based or, more likely, partly or totally international in ownership. Therefore, profits would probably leave the county if not the U.S. However, CLACA it- seE shows substantial profits to the sponsor, which is assumed to be a branch of the Stzmis- Iaus County government.

Preliminary Cost-Benefit Analysis

Several years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created a method for evaluating the value of projects:

What are its costs ... . Relative to its benefits?

The method is flawed from an environmental perspective, since dollars (or some other monetary measure) are used to represent costs versus benefits.

Not enough is lcnown about either CLACA or JIT to perform a meaningful cost-benefit analysis. However, it is helpfill to review the cost and benefit sides of both CLACA and m. CLACA Costs

This report assumes that costs are minimized through the receipt of a FAA grant for development and favorable terms (e.g., one dollar per year) for leasing the land from NASA. However, CLACA costs are still substantial: $26.2 million in somebody's money plus ongoing rent to NASA if joint-use is not established on a free basis.

CLACA will also have off-site costs, although these are not readily estimated. Roadways will require improvements, even if JIT is not realized, and other infrastructure costs could double the "hard" costs of CLACA.

5

Off-site costs should include additions to governmental facilities, such as fire/crasWrescue which, even if handled by CLACA, requires backu res onse by neighboring fire depart- & ments. Sheriffs vehicles, court and jail expansion, even an inspection unit of the Stanis- laus County Department of Environmental Resources, should be added to the "hard costs."

The proposed airport is a money maker, but only after years of assuming substantial debt. If one characterizes the present value of CLNAIJ? after debt service and expenses were calculated, CLACA would not be a competitive investment in today's very difficult investment market. Certainly the return of $2.7 million per year by the year 2010 is attractive, but development cost alone ($26.2 million) means a 10% return, not including discounting for debt service and expenses. When public facility costs (which could double) are considered, the return is down to S%,.about the rate of a good savings account. CLACA would put Stanislaus County "on the map," and that may be worth something tangible. But, without JlT, CLAW is probably a cost-benefit loser, although only marginally so.

JIT Costs

We don't know what the per-acre development costs of JIT will be, but the raw land itself may be in the $5,000 to $10,000 per acre range if purchased soon. At first, JIT land would be located in CLACA and could be offered rent-free. When expansion beyond CLACA, occurs, we recommend that SCAA or some other sponsor buy land and then resell it. After the year 2010, this resale value will be a multiple of the original cost. So, while SCAA will pay dearly for "land banking," it wil l more than recoup its investment in land sales after the year 2010$'

But JIT will also cost in terms of construction as opposed to development. By "construction," the actual building of buildings is meant. Some companies, usually the first few pioneers, may demand a "shell" before they move to CLACA. This is very risky business for a public sponsor, but it is done elsewhere, and SCAA may very well have to do it to "get the ball rolling!' We recommend that market analysis accompany the next phase so that the desirability of pre-construction is evaluated.

40. Any concentration of activity, such as an airport, increases the likelihood of crime. Criminals must be detected, apprehended, held and tried, all of which generate operations costs and space needs.

41. Note that previous projects took JIT growth to the year 2015, but the year 2010 is used for projections because, by that time, development must take place beyond CLACA's boundaries. It is also around that time that JIT would be a proven market in Stanislaus County and when sub-~al profits could be made on land sales andlor land development.

k JIT Benefits

This section need not mention any further benefits than 40,000 jobs. The positive impact of introducing these wages into the economy of Stanislaus County is virtually im- measurable. Cities from Oakdale to TurIock will benefit, with only Waterford perhaps un- affected in Stadslaus County. However, people cost money, so that any wage benefits should be viewed in net public terms. Once the public sector costs for supporting housing, transportation, education and other public services are factored in, new "public wages'' reduce down to retail (and other) sales and savings (or investment). These are strong positive benefits for Stanislaus County.

JIT may or may not generate substantial taxes. Improvements on public leaseholds are taxable, as will be the private JlT development. But all of these tax increments would be applied to infrastructure development if a tax increment district is established, so that the net benefit to Stanislaus County is reduced to:

Users of the tax increment improvements who are in no way paying for (or enjoying) the benefits of CLACA or d2 . Release of many public facility obligations ordinarily spent in the tax increment district for other areas in Stanislaus County.

On balance, JlT. will be a substantial net benefit to Stanislaus County and, when combined with the doubtful benefit of CLACA, makes the proposed project an economic boon to Stanislaus County.

Non-Dollar CostslBenefits

While the development of CLACA and JIT will put Stanislaus County "on the map," this is largely a non-dollar benefit. Some people in Stanislaus County may not want to be put "on the map," although given its strategic location, Stanislaus County is merely waiting to be "discovered." It is a pivotal county along 1-5 between the Pacheco Pass and the Al- tamont Pass.

42. These could be a substantla1 number of benefactors, since an interchange of 1-5, for example, is bound to be used by others than users of JIT or CLACA.

Environmentally, CLACA and JlT will present non-dollar costs that could cause the 4

proposed project to reconsider the need to generate 40,000 person trips, even in sparsely settled Southwestern Stanislaus County, and these trips will be a significant and adverse environmental impact. Air quality impacts from both vehicles and aircraft need to be quantified, but there may be a net benefit when compared to the commuting and airside congestion now being experienced in the Bay Area. Although population increase is expected in much of Stanislaus County, 40,000 workers represent 25,000 households and 68,750 people in those households. The public service costs would be high, even if JIT and CLACA help pay for them.

There is also the loss of prime agricultural land. As an economic loss it is sustainable, since JIT land would be worth far more than agricultural land.

But perhaps the ultimate question for CLACA and JIT is whether they are sustainable as a human endeavor. This feasibility report cannot address that question, but an environmental impact report should.

Appendix A: Persons and Organlzatlons Contacted

The following is a partial list of persons and organizations contacted for this feasibility study.

A&W Brands, Inc.

Aero Intelligence Space Network, Tom Azevedo

Aeroflot, Eugene Kuftin, Cgirgo Manager

Agency of International Development and Investment Monitoring System, Tracy Smith, international Business Staff

Agricultural Air Exports, Inc.

Airborne Express, Operations Manager

Almond Board of Califomla

Ameri Cold Provisioners, Craig Nash

Amopote Meat Company

Beard Land Improvement Co., Gene Ellison

Beard's Quality Nut Company

BeatriceMunt Wesson

Blue Anchor

Blue Diamond Growers

Bronco Wine Company

Bruce Church Company

Cal Almond Growers

Cai Cherry Export Assoc., James Christie

California Apricot Advisory Board

California Aquaculture Association

California Association of Nurseryman

California Association of Winegrape Growers

Catifomla Canning Peach Association

California Cattlemen's Association

California Cling Peaches Advisory Board

California Crop lmprovement Association

California Cut Rower Commission

California Egg Commission

California Fresh Market Tomato Advisory Board

California Kiwifruit Commission

California Manufacturers Milk Advisory Board

California Milk Advisory Board

California Pepper Commission

California Poultry lndustry Federation, Bill Mattos

California Processing Tomato Advisory Board

California Rice Handlers' Advisory Board

California Seed Association

California Strawberty Association

California Sweet Potato Growers Association

California Tomato Board

California Turkey Industry Board

California Walnut Commission

California Wine Commission

Campbell Soup Company

Campos Foods (business sold)

Castle Joint Powers Authority, Dick Haskett, Chair Agricultural Committee

Castle Joint Powers Authority, John Fowler, Merced County Liaison

Castle Jolnt Powers Authority, Richard Martin, Executive Director

Center for International Trade Development, Jeanette Benson

Center for lnternational Trade Development, JuDee Benton

Center for Trade at FCC, Candy Hansen

Centra Freight Services, Inc., Stanley Wong

Cherry Growers Association, James Christie

Christian Salvesen, Inc., Rich Kappmeier

City of Atwater, Matthew A. Fouratt, Community Development Director

Ci of Newman, Janet Carlsen

Ciy of Newman, Steve Hollister

City of Patterson, Wade Bingham

City of Patterson, Jeff Parker

City of Patterson, Rod Simpson

Con-Agra Frozen Foods

Con-Agra Turkey Processing

Congressman Gary A. Condit's Office, Mike Lynch, Chief of Staff

D.D. Williamson & Company, Inc.

Danco Foods, Inc.

Del Monte Foods, U.S.A.

Di Mare

Diamond Almond Growers

Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc.

Dole Fresh Fruit and Vegetables

Don Juan Foods, Inc.

Driscoll Strawberry Associates

Dry Bean Advisory Board

E & J Gallo Winery

Eckert Cold Storage

F & A Dairy of California, Inc.

Farm Bureau, Jan Ennenga

Farmers Warehouse Company

Federal Aviation Administration, Nancy Uhlmann

Federal Aviation Administration, Peter T. Melia, Capacity Officer

Federal Express, Manager, Cargo Operations

Ferry Morse Seed Company, Greg Hallquest

Fort Ord Task Force, Lt. General James E. Moore, Retired

Foster Farms

Foster Farms Dairy, Inc.

Foster Farms Feed Sales

Foster Farms, Jeff Swain

Fresh Western Marketing

Fresh Western, Mr. Ky

Frito-Lay

Gempele Enterprises

Genetics International, Inc.

Gipmarra Bros., Gene Ratzo

Golden State Walnut Growers Association

Griffin and Way, Christina Way

Griffin and Way, Eric Paul Griffin

Harris Moran Seed Company

Hawk Pacific Corp., Michael Donnelly

Hershey Chocolates U.S.A.

J.B. Designs, Jeff Bellencourt

J.S. West Milling Company

Kraft General Foods CorporationICVC

La ltalia

Langendorf United Bakeries

Larry Hooker, Farmer and Activist

Le Perino Foods

Lindemann Produce, Inc.

Louis Rich Company

Mann Packing

Manufacturer's Council, Walt Murray

Merced County, John Fowler

Merrill Farms, Bill Green

Merrill Farms, Kelly Green

Modesto Airport, Howard Cook, Manager

Modesto Chamber of Commerce, Land Use and Environmental Committee

Modesto Milling

Modesto Tallow Company

NASA, Ames Research Center, Charles Castellano

NASA, Ames Research Center, Clay Parsons

NASA, Ames Research Center, Cliff Burrous

NASA, Ames Research Center, Jack McLaughlin

NASA, Ames Research Center, James Martin

NASA, Ames Research Center, Rose Ashford

NASA, Ames Research Center, William Dean

Naturipe Berry Growers

NEWJAS International, Mike Sugimoto

Nick Sciablca & Sons

Nunes Company

Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Bernestine Allen

Orowheat Baking Company

Oxnard Berry Farm

Pacific Egg and Poultry Association

Pacific Fresh Commodities, Richard Hioki

Patterson Frozen Foods

Poultry Advisory Board

Rainbo Baking Company

Ratto Brothers Farms, Ray Ratto

Rogers Foods

S & W Fine Foods, Inc.

Sacramento City College, Dale Wrlght

San Francisco lnternational Airport, Kevin Cone, Dept. of Budget and Finance

San Joaquin Valley Cherry Shippers (Association)

SEKO Air Freight

Sierra Pacific, Roy Atkins

Small Business Administration, Export lnformation System, Office of International Trade, Nagi Kheir

Small Business Administration, Office of lnternational Trade

Squab Producers of California

Squab Producers, Robert Shipley

Stahl & Best Realty, Dick Haskett

Stanislaus County Ag Commissioner, Robert Weaver

Stanislaus County, Paul Caruso, Supervisor

Stanislaus County, Rolland Starn, Supervisor

Stanislaus County, Ron Freitas, Planning Director

Stanislaus Food Products

Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Dan DeAngelis, Airport Manager

Sun-Diamond Growers of California

Swanson Farms

Sweet Potato Council of California

Tanimura and Antle (T&A), Dave Eldridge

The Perot Group, Mike Berry

TNT Bestway Transp., Joe Johnson

Toscana Baking Company

Tri-Valley Growers

Turlock Journal, Michele Wood

University of California, Cooperative Extension, Phllip Osterli

University of California, Cooperative Extension, Jesus Valencia

U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgExport Connections Staff, AgExport Connections

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Computerized lnformation Delivery Service, Russell Forte

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Country Market Profiles, FAS lnformation Division, Sandy Johnson

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Patricia Stolfa

U.S. ~epartment of Agriculture, Inspection Certificates for Food and Agricultural Exports, Susan Boussier

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Food Safety and Technical Services, Lyle Sebranek

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Transportation, lnternational Division, Jim Caron

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Public Affairs, Doug Carroll

U.S. Department of Commerce, San Francisco District Office

U.S. Department of TransportationNisitors Program

United Foods Company

United States Navy, Lieutenant Commander Will Carpenter, Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Field

Walnut Marketing Board

Western Growers Association

Western Veal Company

Wonder Bread

Yamato Transportation USA, Inc.

Yosemite Meats (Formerly Victor Fine Foods)

Yuma lnternational Airport, Dave Gaines, Assistant Manger

Yuma International Airport, Ed Thurmond, General Manager

Appendix B . .. - ..--. .- - . - ..--. -, .< - . . - .,.,.,. *.-.. .v..i.-..L-- " < . . ' ' '.Y .;: . 3,

RECENT INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCES Companies Announced Technology Y

AMD, Fujitsu July 1992 Nonvolatile memory chips

ISM, Toshiba, Siemens July 1992 256-megabit memory chips

ISM, Toshiba June 1992 Nonvolatile memory chips

Apple Computer, T oshiba June 1992 Multimedia computers

Intel, Sharp February 1992 Nonvolatile memory chips

Apple, Sharp February 1992 Hand-held computers

IBM, S' ternens July 1991 Memory chips

Hewlett-Packard, ~ ~ r i l 1991 Memory chips Texas Instruments, Canon

Source: Chronicle research

L

i

Appendix C: Exports of Three Selected Commodity Groups, San Francisco International Airport to Japan, Dollar Value, In thousands of dollars

Fruits & Office Vegetables

Subtotal Machines as a Percent Fruits & Office & Electric of Office

Vegetables Office Electric Machines & Machines Machines & Japan Fruits & Percent Machines Machines Electric Percent Electric

Month Total Vegetables of Total & Parts & Parts Machines of f otal Machines

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, unpublished materials on file in San Francisco Department of Commerce Library.

Appendix D: Air Shipment of 39 Selected California Commodities, 1990, in Short Tons (All international destinations)

Chenjes Apricots Berries Apples Melons '

Pea&es/Necfarlnes Strawberries Tomatoes Wine -us CauliiowerlRrocwli Celery Lettuce Onions - Dry Peas Potatoes Spinach cut n0~81s Mushroom Spawn Orchid Plants Roses TreeslShrubalBushes Cantaloupe Seed Cucumber Seed Lettuceseed Pepper Seed

June

Tomato Seed Caramel Coloring Rice - Fresh/Stored MilkICream Almonds - FreshlStored BeefNeal Chicken Turkey Chickens - Breeding Eggs - Hatching Bovine Semen Cattle - Breeding Kiwi

Monthly Totals 6,936.4

Nov.

33.5 259.7 621.8 15.6 15.7

23.2 2.6 71.1 72.8 4.1

0.4 30.2 0.4 0.3 6.0 6.1 15.1 13.1 4.8 11.6

20.7 1.7 2.8 4.4 1 .o

630.4 0.1 0.2 1.2 29.7 4.5

0.4

1,904.8

Jan.

15.7

23.2 26 71.1

4.1 3.8 0.4 302 0.4 0.3 6.0 6.1 15.1 13.1 4.8 11.6

20.7 1.7 28 4.4 1 .o

630.4 0.1 0.2 1.2 29.7 4.5 44.7

949.9

Feb.

621.8

15.7 1,258.3 23.2 2.6 71.1

4.1 3.8 0.4 30.2 0.4 0.8 6.0 6.1 15.t 13.1 4.8 11.6

20.7 1.7 2.8 4.4 1 .o

630.4 0.1 0.2 1.2 29.7 4.5 44.7

2,830

March

621.8

15.7 1,258.3 23.2 2.6 71.1

4.1

0.4 30.2 0.4 Ob3 6.0 6.1 15.1 13.1 4.8 11.6

20.7 1.7 2.8 4.4 1 .o

630.4 0.1 0.2 1.2 29.7 4.5 44.7

2,826.2

Annual Total

7,182.8 118.8 395.1 34

234.5 1,817.0 6,218.0 140.4 188.4

6,291.5 278.4 31.2 853.2 582.4 49.2 30.4 4.8

362.4 4.8 3.6

72.B 73.2 181.2 157.2 57.6 139.2 248.4 20.4 33.6 52.8 12.0

7,564.8 1.2 2.4 14.4 356.4 54.0 178.8 1.6

34,041.4

Appendix E: Qwrts of Three Selected Commodify Groups, San Francisco International Airport to Japan, in metric tons

Fruits & Vegetables

Percent Subtotal Percent as a Percent Change Office Change of Office

From Percent Machines & From Percent Machines & Japan Fruits & Previous of Total Electric Previous of Total Electric Total Vegetables Month Tonnage Machines Month Tonnage Machines Month

- - -

Source: Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, unpublished materials on file in San Francisco Department of Commerce Library.

- 4 Q L ' + ' w P P o 3 ! P u y m ~ W n a XIaAigap p m

Vnr7 WBVB 0) ~awa*rnua - u = ~ ! a ~ a a q s n n u r p ~ , , a!= -a uoos ~w u o w a3easa3nq ' S'*OJ, 3% fmaddF3 '+I 7insum a)

k pew uaaq T 8 7 ~ 0 ~ =OP- a%-6-%sn[ayl s s a q p ~ a) d n m h o s p p ~ UB dn 7% mq - Xlyrnp

-UI PmaP=J, csu*~a?uIJO w - ~ ~ ~ Y Y ~ Y ~ - I L w ~ % ~ . -W?% lm SWn? '+I R!m 3n8 . ' 31qe -a+w ajg q i n aqem padpq mou - aA8q lamadaxins 3turouo3a w u8d

U'IC~IBUOMm ~ a 7 n q e h P s! uo!pnpoid 7eyl a n s 9 q ) 1 ~ ~ 1 s;)! - 3! lwm ICaq uaqm aidoad a) &u!q %uua![ap )sn[aou s! am!'+-q-3snp

' - -4dura~pq uayo am sqayl ~ q - ~ u ! vcm pang 6Y3w

J"O ~ ~ . 3 3 ! P 3 aw& mo* .WO~!rlsBH l V I H ='lf"is 87 - ~ o & wsu! ,'aw-ul-?snlpaV!Id

-ul03387a.C'+0~ aABq hq,,, .aw-7-m-7snFaq a) p!q

-sap B u! QaWS *.(@o,L - 6y3W P w s U B A J O V ~ B JO -I 'Xv a # v o e n ( ~ ~ %

(-6saudsp3 aansua o) mnoq '

04% h a ~ a s a ~ w l paamwas qsuj P I padd81~ m%3!l BJO UO$WJ

.urn 4s~~ i) pa.~qsa.x args aua!uaA -urn auo paapu~) mnoq &J &aw Xr0)ua~q qqua1da.1 uayo -og 'SUXQ~S hahgap a tq-qqsnf

W ~ P B ~ A Y hy? w -U=v=q pp3snpu! i!av SB ~ ~ s s a 3 3 n s PUB

qua!jg~a aq 0) '+WM.IIV .sa~.w h a d pua '+uawedap 'wua!u

-aAuoajo spu~snoyl 68q OQOJ,

-30 701 ~s,'+w'zI 10 01 ar[em d - L8p 8 sapaclgap

. ro auo aqem xuop norC ,,'aux!'+ -u1-7snS* &* +I!nq a , d J !

q srarr)73~jnuwn asamd~p saIq8ua t p w d d ~ uoympoad uea[ qq~,

'~YFI-d p w buapwa mnm!xlmr qaa usa &mimom e -. am!pq+n[ - papaau s,'+! axaqm PUB WqM r(luo&a)uaAU!fl-!1

-ap Kg 'uoqnpoad ay? q SMBU pa3 -"Lm pwInJalGBA[s!~tlaA -u! 'Prim 0o.L w w d €=!=I? a v p p q 0) k ~ u a ~ u ! Xr-u mnm

paw a n e a q s a q a , 76a!wdui03. % t q ~ o q a u rqtdurrn '+sa%q quad . - B ~ J O auo 'q~a JO quapga~d

-Aa u- a w sr amFI-nI-7snr.. Fuan![ap am~).u!-7sn[~1quzoq .

oss!.4y!ay? u! 3 ~ 3 ~ 7 ~ ~ 4 U U O B ~

- ~!UF lCnwq=!Iap. puu-paxarl)noIC I

ffw IP =!s)=a%~a%uZ s,oQo~, 4 a ~ ~ o . ~

urn, 11m . :. . . I !

Appendlx G: Representations of Alliance Center, a prototme

I D/FW METROPLEX 1 \

h= &ce Center

Location

Alliance* Center is a 4,800-acre businessand industrial development located along the 1-35 W corridor in Fort Worth, Texas. Situated approximately 15 miles north of downtown Fort Worth and 15 miles west of Dallas/Fort Worth International-Airport, the project surrounds Fort Worth Alliance Airport, the first

- airport conceived and built for the industrial user. Alliance offers a unique business setting in the center of a global market, providing multimodal accessibility for manufacturing and distribution users of all industries.

Land Use . Alliance has three primary land use areas: '

Industrial Aviation (Airptwt Access):

Sites adjacent to the runway/taxiway system and sites served by taxilane extensions providing direct user access. These locations are ideal for those companies requiring steady and efficient airport use.

Commercial/Light Industrial (Non-Airport Access):

Areas planned to accommodate distribution and light manufacturing facilities that do not require direct runway access, including sites with rail service. Freeway and major thoroughfare frontage sites will also provide an ideal environment for campus-style office centers, retail and service establishments.

Retail:

Alliance Crossing is a 45,000.square-foot shopping center planned for the intersection of Keller-Haslet Road & Heritage Parkway.

Pro jec t Facts

Access:

Interstate Highway Over two miles of frontage along E35 W, served by three interchanges.

Major Highways FM 156 borders the western boundary and provides parallel northhouth thoroughfare to 1-35 W system. SH 170 will link E35 W with SH 1 14, providing direct east/west access so DF W International Airport.

Railway Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (Main Line).

Air Fort Worth Alliance Airport (See other side).

Utilities:

Water City of Fort Worth Sewer Trinity River Authority Electricity TU Electric Natural Gas Lone Star Gas Telecommunications Southwestern Bell

Ma jo r Tenants

American Airlines - $481 million Maintenance and Engineering Center. Santa Fe Railway - 50-acre Automobile Distribution Center for Honda America and Ford Motor Company. Ishida Aerospace Research, Inc. - Research & Development Facility for TW-68 Tilt-Wing Aircraft. Drug Enforcement Administration - 12.3-acre site for Aviation Support Headquarters. Federal Aviation Administration - Flight Standards District office. Star Enterprise - Texaco Service Station and convenience store.

D e v e l o p m e n t S t anda rds

To assure and maintain a high standard of quality, the entire development is governed by a comprehensive set of protective covenants that set forth detailed architectural and landscaping guidelines while accommodating individual needs.

FORT WORTH ALLIANCE AIRPORT

Owned and operated by the City of Fort Worth.

9600 x 150 - foot runway (16/34); 8200 feet of primary runway with 1400 - foot displaced threshold.

Capacity and strength to serve large aircraft, including 747s, C-5% DC-10s and 727s.

Two parallel taxiways; east side is 75-feet-wide, west side is 100-feet-wide and designated an auxiliary runway.

Protected by a unique Airport Overlay District which provides for appropriate height limitatiqns on area buildings and restricts zoning to protect against non- compatible uses.

TerminaVAdministration building will incorporate a full array of services for the corporate aviation user.

CAT I ILS Runways 16 and 34 designed for upgrade CAT 111.

On-site Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Station operated by City of Fort Worth Fire Department

Alliance Center THE PEROT GROUP

HlUWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

777 Main StreetISuite 1480IFort Worth, Texas 76102 (817)877-3100

1700 Lakeside Square112377 Merit Drive/Dallas, Texas 75251 (214)788-3000

2250 Alliance Boulevard/Fort Worth, Texas 76177 (817)890-1000

Appendix H

Existing Building Types at CLNALF I Building Number Use Type of Construction

40 Aircraft Line Operations Quonset hut

Q Fuel shack Reinforced concrete

148 Fuel shack Reinforced concrete

1 49 Fuel shack Reinforced concrete

120 Aircraft compass calibration pad Concrete slab

101 Control tower Concrete block

103 High voltage electric distribution Metal (Butler) building

1 09 West half of Ctash Hazard Facility Concrete block with metal roof

Appendix I

The following rules, that might be applicable to CLACA, have been quoted from 27ze Plan for Joint Use o Military Airj?elds, prepared by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Transportation: 4&

Air navigation facilities owned or operated by the United States may be ma& mailable for public use un& such conditions and to such extent as the head of the department or other agency having jurisdiction thereof deems disable and may by regulation presm'be.

For the purpose of joint use requests (and in a c c o r ~ c e with PL 97-248) a public agency is=

A state, or agency of a state, a municipality, or other political subdivision of a State, a tau supported organization, or Indian tibe or pueblo.

n k definition ensures that the sponsor will be eligible to receive FAA grants and minimizes the risk of a military department becoming financidy responsible should a sponsor become unable to meet their sbligahbns.

Additional equipment or physical airfield changes must be funded by the civil sponsor. Specific items considered are:

b. Special military airspace requirements

c. WRlIFR approach comp&3ility

d Departure pattern

e. Tr@c flow capacity

f. ATC facility capacity

Requests for joint use will be coordinated with the appropriate FAA Regional W c e to determine the effects on the safe' and efficient use of airspace by aircraj?.

Civil Airoaf! Equipment and Aircrew Qualification Criteria: The following qualificationslcapabilities are normally required for civil aim-4 and pilots=

a. IFR qualified crews

b. Aircraj? IFR certified

c. Two-way radio

d Transponder

Facilities Criteria: The majority of land for civil facilities must be located on the perimeter of the military installation or be segregatable in a manner which does not detract from installation security. Federal legislative jurisdiction should be retroceded to the State @er joint use goes into efjrect, particularly in exclusive use and access areas. Militcuy approval is required on siting design, and construction of civil fm&. Joint use will not normally be considered at locations with single runway capacity. The following items will be considered in evaluating the impact of joint use on faciities:

a Civil Facilities:

I . Availability of existing local civil facilities

2. Practicality of constructinglexpmding a civil airjield

b. RunwaylTaxiway:

I. Pavement strength for wheel loading

2. Pavement widfhllength

3. CapmQCI@

4. Dual or single runway

5. Access to runway from civil facilities

c. Civil Location:

1. Availability of non-govemmentd Zand for tuxiway, temzinal, ramp, fuel storage, hangar, maihtenance, etc.

2. Availability of excess government-owned land for civil facilities

d Nmgation Ai&: The DOD will not provide manpower to install, operate, or maintain nuwgatbn equipment for the sole use of civil aviation. Consideration must be given to the adequacy of d g navigation aih for the civil operation.

e. Fire, Crash, Rescue:

1. Equipage

2. Manpower

f. Noise Barnamen:

1. Existing configuration.

2. Civil requirement

g. Aircraft Arresting Systems (AAS): lllze DOD will not install, alter, or remove AAS for use or convenience of non-mi'Iitary trafi; therefore, com*deration must be &en to:

1. Existing configuration

2. Civil requirements

h. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ): Study required in conjunction with airspace analyses to include=

1. Runway to be used

2. T r m c distribution

3, Peak hour use

4. Schedule of o p e r b g hours

5. Engine signatures

6. Approach/depmture profiles

Security: Clear separation of military and civil &tivities ii essential to avoid increased security costs and greater threat to priority and sensitive resources. Joint use incrmes the possibility for sabotage, terrorism, and vandalkm. Joint use will not be cornodered access by non-government personnel would be routinely required to transit the base. Specific security aspects to be considered in joint use are:

a Access of public to military resources

b. Impact on manpower if increased security is required

Manpower Criteria The following items must be considered from the perspective of impact on manpower and military career limitations=

a Workload vs. manpower level

b. Possibilities for contract or civiliankatr'on of ATC facilities (cost comparison studies)

c. Impact on rotation for air trafic control personnel

F i m ' a l Criteria: Any logistic support or utilities provided by the government ure reimbmable. Some reimbmable items include labor, equipment use, and any suppks provided The civil sponsor must pay a prorated share for main- tenanc and operation of the govemment runway. All real property out- lease dg will be processed through the Corps of Engineers at fair market value. TIze following must be considered in evaluating joint use proposals=

a. nere must be no cost to DOD appropriations

45. It is assumed that butleassd' refers to subleasing by the airport sponsor which, is in turn, leasing from the U.S. Government,

b. Reimbumement through sewices in lieu of user fees

c. There must be no sign@cant indirect costs

d The sponsor must have funding available for the civil facilities

Appendix J: Assumptions Used for Cash Flew Analysis. in 000'. of 1992 dollera

FACTORS 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NO. ANNUAL AIR- OPERATIONS B727-10OC 0 0 0 16 30 30 30 0 0 OC-10-3OCF 0 0 0 376 750 750 750 0 0 B757-20OPF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 270 B747-400P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 570 570

Pva PLOWAGE IN GALLONS B727-lOOC. per plane DC-10-3OCF. per Plane ~757-200PF. per plane 8747-4008. per plane

D- QWWITIES mAL LANDINGS

8727-10OC 0 0 0 8 15 15 15 0 0 DC-10-3OCP 0 0 0 188 375 375 375 0 0 B757-200PF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 135 B74,7-400F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 5 285

COLO STORAGE aREa RENTED (SF) 0 0 0 51133 51133 51133 51133 51133 51l33' WAIIEHOWE AREA RENTED (SF) 0 0 0 2267 2267 2267 2267 68867 68867

RATES FOR ANALYSIS LANDING RATE PER 1000 lbs. 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

B727-100C 140000 lbs. 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 DC-10-30CF 403000 lbs. 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 B757-2OOPF 210000 lbs. 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 B747-400F 630000 lbx. 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630

COD STORAGE SPACE (S/SP/YR) WAREHOUSE SPACE ($/SP/PR)

Pvn. PLOW/GALLON (SURCHARGE)

IND. /COM LAND LBRSE PER ACRE IND. /COM ACRES WSED

EXPENSE ASSUMPTf ONS Salaries Mmsger Assist. Manager Secratary security Fueling/Maintenance

Supplies/Othar Insurance Utilities Misc.

Per8onel Manaver Assist. Manager sec~tary Security Pueling/Uaintenance

FQl'EnTUf. FUEL SOLD - GALm* B727-100C 140000 lbs. 0 0 0 56119 105224 105224 105224 0 0 ?C-10-30CP 403000 lbs. , 0 0 0 6369552 12705224 12705224 12705224 0 0 B75'1-200PF 210000 lb~. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1308309 1108209 B74Z.-4OOP 630000 lbs. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14888060 14888060

There totals reflect empty fuel tanks while the line item (Fuel Flowage) in the caah flow analpais retlects tanks that are one-quarter full. requiring only s tbaee-quarters fill-up.

- - - -- -

Appendix J: Assumptions Used f o r Cash Flow Analysis, in 000's OF 1992 dol la t . (continued)

FACTORS

NO. ARlWAL AIRCRAPT OPERATIONS 8727-1OOC DC-10-3OCF 875'F-20OPP 8747-400F

FUEL FLOWAGE IN GALLONS 8727-100C. per plane DC-10-3OCB. per plane 8757-200PF. per plane B747-400F. per plane

D m QUANTITIES ANWAS. AmaaFr LANDINGS

8727-lO0C DC-10-3OCP 8757-200PF 8747-4OOP

COLD STORAGE ARER mNlm (SF) WAREROUSE ARER mNlm (SF)

RATES POR REVENUE ANALYSIS LMDING RATE PPI 1000 lbs .

8727-100C 140000 lbs . DC-10-30CP 403000 lbs . 8757-200PF 210000 lbs . 8747-400F 630000 lbs.

COD !DORAGE SPACE (Q/SF/YR) WAREHOUSE SPACE ($/SF/YR)

FUEL FLOW/GALLON (SURCAARGE)

IND./COM LAND LEASE PER AQIE ~ m . ICOM ACRES tEASm

EXPENSE msuMpTIons Salaries

Mnager

Assist. Manager Secretary

Security Fueling/Maintenance

Supplies/Other Insurance U t i l i t i e s

Personel Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-90 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00

Aasist . Hanager 1 . 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Dcsro+ory 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 Security 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:OO 1.00 1.00 Fueling/Maintenance 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

POTENTIAL PUEL SOLD. - GALm* 8727-l00C 140000 lbs. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC-10-3OCP 403000 l b s . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8757-200PF 210000 l b ~ . - 1108209 1208209 1108209 1108209 1108209 1108209 1108209 1108209 1108209 8747-4OOF 630000 l b ~ . 14888060 14888060 14888060 14888060 14888060 14888060 14888060 14888060 14888060

TOTALS 15996269 15996269 15996269 15996269 15996269 15996269 15996269 15996269 15996269

These t o t a l s r e f l e c t empty fue l tanks while t h e l i n e item (Fuel Flowage) i n t h e cash flow analysis r e t l e e t c tanka t h a t a r e one-quarter fu l l . requiring only a three-quarters f i l l -up.

Appendix K

- - - -

State EPA llssrses Warning On Some Merced Water U.S. assailed for failure in cleanup efforts

Bu Stephen Schrcrcvtr Chrvnlclr slqQ Wrltar

The state Environmental Pro- The agency pointed out that end- tection Agency has blasted fed. ronmental cleanup work at Castle era1 authorities for their failure was threatened with shutdown be to clean up a notorious plume of cause of "the failure of Congress polluted groundwater that en. and the Department of Defense to dangers drinking water in the provide adequate funding." Central Valley. The agency said the federal d e

State environmental chief fense agency has emergency funds James M. Strock announced that to cover the opedon but has fail- his agency has issued an ''immi- nent and substantial endangerment order" at Castle Air Force. The agency issued Base near Atwater in Merced a 6substantial County.

~ccording to EPA representa- endangerment tive Bob Bonelleri, major resources for "drinking water taken from order' at Castle private and municipal wells adja- Air Force Base cent to the base" are likely to be contaminated. - Bonelleri noted on Thursday ed to Wander these funds despite that the Defense Department had repeated requests from the state warned state environmental au. adnhistrauo~ including Gover- thorities that there was not nor Wson. enough money in its cleanup fund Interim environmental at for the Castle operation, but he the base, including 'pump and said "tis not acceptable; this treat" activity, would end within a work has to go OIL" few weeks, according to the state

agency. The controversy over pouuuon - The Castle air base supplied

in the region is not safe water to Atwater residents new. Five yam a01 residents re d& contaminated web, The base ferred to the town as "Badwater" wm opened in 1w and is due for because of problems allegedly closure in lw. caused by decades Of Air Force Castle AFB public aftairs ofti- dumping Of cer Major Tom Johnston said his parucularly the grease staff has not yet seen the release trichloroethylene CrCE). and could not comment without

TCE is associated with liver, thoroughly reviewing it with spe- , kidney, skin, lung, nervous system cialists. and heart ailments, including can- cer. In 1987, the Merced County Department of Health found up to 20 times the state standard for acceptable levels of TCE in wells in Atwater.

State EPA officials said they issued the order after "months of

I delays in remediation efforts."

air cargo airport feasibility study - stanislaus · pdf filedevelopment corporation air cargo...

Documents