The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-12-06 AIRPORT COMMISSION AGENDA AIRPORT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Airport Conference Room, Palm Springs International Airport 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Wednesday, December 6, 2023 - 1:00 P.M. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, this meeting may be conducted by teleconference. There will be in-person public access to the meeting location. To submit your public comment to the Airport Commission electronically. Material may be emailed to: Christina.Brown@palmspringsca.gov - Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. Any correspondence received during or after the meeting will be distributed to the Airport Commission and retained for the official record. This is a hybrid in-person and virtual meeting. To virtually observe the meeting or to virtually provide public comments, please use the following Zoom link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81787909364?pwd=Y0F6dzlrbktTenVRNkFhMGp4YmxGZz09 or call (669) 900-6833 and enter Meeting ID: 817 8790 9364 - Passcode: 802129 City of Palm Springs: Riverside County: Margaret Park City of Cathedral City: Tony Michaelis City of Palm Desert: Kevin Wiseman Aftab Dada - Chair David Feltman Kevin J. Corcoran Vice Chair J Craig Fong City of Indian Wells: Robert Berriman City of Coachella: Denise Delgado City of Rancho Mirage: Keith Young Vacant Tracy Martin Todd Burke M. Guillermo Suero City of La Quinta: Kathleen Hughes City of Desert Hot Springs: Jan Pye City of Indio: Rick Wise Daniel Caldwell Dave Banks Palm Springs City Staff Scott C. Stiles Harry Barrett Jr., A.A.E. Jeremy Keating City Manager Airport Executive Director Assistant Airport Director 1. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. POSTING OF AGENDA 3. ROLL CALL 4. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Limited to three minutes on any subject within the purview of the Commission 6. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 6.A Strategic Planning Session Update Airport Commission Special Meeting Agenda December 6, 2023 – Page 2 _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6.B Master Plan Update 6.C Cancellation of December 20, 2023 Airport Commission Meeting 7. COMMISSIONERS REQUESTS AND REPORTS ADJOURNMENT The Airport Commission will adjourn to a Regular Meeting on December 20, 2023, at 5:30 P.M. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Harry Barrett, Jr., Airport Executive Director, City of Palm Springs, California, hereby certify this agenda was posted on December 1, 2023, in accordance with established policies and procedures. PUBLIC NOTICES Pursuant to G.C. Section 54957.5(b)(2) the designated office for inspection of records in connection with the meeting is the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way. Complete Agenda Packets are available for public inspection at: City Hall Office of the City Clerk. Agenda and staff reports are available on the City’s website www.palmspringsca.gov. If you would like additional information on any item appearing on this agenda, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204. It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, or in meetings on a regular basis, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the Department of Aviation, (760) 318-3800, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. tA Presentation TitleWith More Words tfsdfsadf AIRPORT COMMISSON STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION UPDATE DECEMBER 6, 2023 •Welcome (10 Minutes) •Division Highlights (10 Minutes) •Executive Director’s Mission for 2024 Strategic Business Plan (10 Minutes) •Airline Use and Lease Agreement (AULA) (5 Minutes) •FAA Funds (10 Minutes) •5-Year Capital Plan Review & Progress Report (15 Minutes) •Airport Staffing Update (5 Minutes) •PSP Challenges (15 Minutes) •Commissioners Feedback (20 Minutes) Welcome Division Highlights Administration •Airport Re-organization •2-Year Budget Adoption •Airport Use and Lease Agreement (AULA) •Retail and Food & Beverage Concessions Awarded •3rd Annual Job Fair •Contract Processing •58 Contracts •Airport Concessionaires and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (AC/DBE) Goals for Federal Fiscal Year 2024-2026 •Turo Peer-2-Peer Vehicle Sharing •Improved Staff Development &Succession Planning •Revenue Growth •Increased revenues of $14M in last 12 months Maintenance •8,718 Work Orders Completed •Taxiway "H" Repairs •Airfield Repairs -$1,000,000 •Terminal Building Repairs -$390,000 •HVAC Repairs -$100,000 •Regional Jet Concourse Carpet Replacement •Staffing Restructuring and Training Development •Baggage Handling System Improvements •18 Maintenance On-Call Contracts & 2 Product Supplies Contracts Marketing & Air Service •Launched new brand •Launched new website •Awarded Best New Airport Website by Airports Council International – North America •Pursued Alaska nonstop service to JFK •New In-terminal Advertising Program that decluttered baggage claim and increased revenue •Launching Sunny Skies Ahead –PSP Newsletter •Implemented New Trip Planning tool for flyPSP.com •Developed new Social Media Strategy and Media Policy •Navigator Post-Security Utilization •New Lost & Found Program Operations/Security •Aircraft Gate Parking Re-survey & Markings –Increased Gate Utilization •Airport Common Use Service (ACUS) -Increased Gate Utilization •Signature Flight Support (FBO) Ramp Aircraft Ingress/Egress Redesign-Increased General Aviation Aircraft Accommodation •Gatekeeper –New Commercial Ground Transportation System •AirBadge –New Security Identity Management System •Overflow Parking Lighting and Vehicle Location Signage •Aviation Worker Screening Implementation •FAA Required Safety Management Systems (SMS) Program Development •Renovated the Airport Control Center Executive Director’s Mission to Establish 2024 Strategic Business Plan What we hope to achieve via the Airport’s business plan: •Communicate vision to community and stakeholders •Give the PSP organization direction •Define and track progress toward key goals •Improve Business Decisions Strategic Business Plan Framework Define & Articulate Pillars in 2024 Envisioned to set the priorities for the subsequent 4-5 years •Mission –Completed (established 2023) •Vision –Completed (established 2023) •Strategic Goals •Objectives •Action Plans •Performance Measures •Strategic Plan to be presented to the Commission in December 2024 and quarterly updates will be provided on staff's progress Airline Use and Lease Agreement (AULA) OLD AULA NEW AULA Rate Method Residual Rate Method Hybrid Rate Method (Residual Airfield/Compensatory Terminal) Cash Reserves 60 days cash reserves 360 days operating cash reserves Majority-in-Interest Clause $300K threshold for airline approval $800K threshold for airline approval Gate Use *Not relevant under current agreement Charges on gate turns capped at 5 turns; Requires airlines to use CUPPS Preferential Gate *Current agreement does not allow 2nd gate Requires 7 turns for airline to secure second preferential use gate Bag System Charges *Currently not charged Enplaned passenger charge for bags; review at 3 years Insurance Liability New requirements for Environmental Liability Other •New requirement to comply with Sustainability goals where possible •Monthly requirement for true-up due to profit sharing FAA Funds •Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) •Entitlement •Discretionary (Competitive) •Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) •Airport Infrastructure Grant (AIG) •Discretionary (Competitive) •Airport Terminal Program (ATP) •Competitive bid only Airport Improvement Program Carry Forward AIP Entitlement (408,339) AIP Entitlement FFY2023 (4,339,170) FFY22 -Taxiway Rehabilitation 571,158 FFY22 -Hot Spot Study 181,320 FFY22 -Wildlife Hazard Assessment 126,924 FFY23 -Master Plan 2,108,584 Balance (1,759,523) Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Carry Forward BIL Entitlement (10,366,004) BIL Entitlement FFY2023 (5,552,758) FFY23 Arrivals Baggage Claim 32,000,000 Balance 16,081,238 5-Year Capital Review and Progress Report The following are the results of a Capital Improvement Project survey completed by the Commissioners in 2022. Over the next five (5) years, what type of future improvements do you think should be the highest, second highest, and lowest priority for PSP management staff? Highest & Second Highest •Replace or improve aging infrastructure Lowest •Historical Preservation 5-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN IN PROGRESS PROJECTS Proposed Completion FY 1 Public Parking Electrification –Parking Lot D Q4 -2024 2 Sterile Area Shade Structures Q4 -2024 3 Taxiway "W" and "A1" Rehabilitation Q4 -2024 4 Hot Spot Study Q4 -2024 5 Procure Zero Emission Buses Q4 -2024 6 Master Plan Q1 -2025 7 Wildlife Hazard Assessment Q1 -2025 8 Terminal Optimization (Common Use)Q3 -2025 9 Employee/Economy Parking Lots & Commercial Transit Reconfiguration Q4 -2025 10 Restroom Renovations Q3 -2025 11 Baggage Claim Expansion and Renovation Q4 -2025 12 Outbound Baggage Handling System Q3 -2026 5-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN IN EXPECTED PROJECTS Proposed Completion FY 1 Parking Revenue System Q4 -2024 2 Consolidated Rental Car Facility -Design Q4 -2026 Measure J 3 Carpet Replacement -Main Terminal/Lobby/Security Checkpoint Q4 -2024 4 Replace Eight Water Fill Stations Q4 -2024 5 Mid-Century Outdoor Seating Benches/Circular Benches/Interior Benches/Cement Planting Structures Q1 -2025 6 Shade Structure -Uber/Lyft/Taxi Q2 -2025 Airport Staffing Update AIRPORT STAFFING UPDATE Airport Police Fire Total Positions as of 12/31/22 74.5 10 9 No. of Recruitments as of 12/1/23 12 0 3 No. of Vacant Positions as of 12/1/23 21 1 0 Total Filled Positions 65.5 9 12 PSP Challenges •Decentralized Department Functions •Human Resources •Information Technology •Procurement •Permitting •Prolonged Employee Hiring Process •Recruitment of Contractors •Space Constraints Commissioners Feedback CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-20 Chapter 4 Part II – Refined Terminal Area Alternatives INTRODUCTION Part 1 of Chapter 4 analyzed four high-level development concepts. These “initial alternatives” were presented to PSP staff, Palm Springs Airport Commission, Master Plan Working Group members, and the Palm Springs City Council. Additionally, a September 2023 open house provided information to the community on the Master Plan process, work completed to-date, an overview of initial alternatives, and a chance for the public to ask questions and provide feedback. This chapter presents refined versions of Alternatives 1A and 3 with the goal of providing additional analysis to the Working Group, Airport Staff, and the City of Palm Springs that would allow for an informed decision on a preferred alternative. The last section of this chapter provides recommendations for incorporating equity and sustainability in the design of any planned terminal area improvements. Alternatives 1B and 2 were not carried forward for further refinement. The reasons Alternative 1B was not carried forward include: ▪ Alternative 1B’s design is less efficient than Alternative 1A. Specifically, 1B requires substantially more concourse space to meet gate needs compared to 1A. ▪ Alternative 1B requires funneling additional passengers through the narrow circulation space in the Bono Concourse to the new southeast pier. MASTER PLAN Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Alternatives Comparison Approach 1: Maximum Reuse Approach 2: Partial Reuse Approach 3: Southern Development Existing to Remain Terminal (Departures) Terminal (Arrivals) Concourse CONRAC Courtyard Surface Parking Property Line Future Property Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Alternatives Comparison Approach 1: Maximum Reuse Approach 2: Partial Reuse Approach 3: Southern Development Existing to Remain Terminal (Departures) Terminal (Arrivals) Concourse CONRAC Courtyard Surface Parking Property Line Future Property Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Alternatives Comparison Approach 1: Maximum Reuse Approach 2: Partial Reuse Approach 3: Southern Development Existing to Remain Terminal (Departures) Terminal (Arrivals) Concourse CONRAC Courtyard Surface Parking Property Line Future Property Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Airport Master Plan A Vision for Our Airport’s Future Alternatives Comparison Approach 1: Maximum Reuse Approach 2: Partial Reuse Approach 3: Southern Development Existing to Remain Terminal (Departures) Terminal (Arrivals) Concourse CONRAC Courtyard Surface Parking Property Line Future Property Figure 4-7: Initial Alternatives Alt 1BAlt 1A Alt 2 Alt 3 Approach 1: Maximum Reuse APPROXIMATE SCALE 1” = 1,400’ Approach 2: Partial Reuse Approach 3: Southern Development LEGEND Terminal (Arrivals) Existing to Remain Terminal (Departures) Courtyard Concourse CONRAC Property Line Future Property Surface Parking 4-21 CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-22 ▪ Complex renovations of existing facilities that would increase cost and negatively impact passenger experience. ▪ Alternative 1B would reduce post-security outdoor space. The reasons Alternative 2 was not carried forward include: ▪ Alternative 2 would require complicated construction phasing. o Multiple construction phases within the existing terminal footprint would be required. o Significant disruptions to passenger experience and operations would be expected during construction. ▪ Alternative 2 would have high anticipated costs. o Higher initial costs are expected due to complicated phasing and construction of a comparatively larger facility footprint. o Higher ongoing operations and maintenance costs due to its larger facility footprint. REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES Refinements made to Alternative 1A and Alternative 3 are detailed in the following sections. Construction of the entire 20-year development alternative at one time in not feasible. Consequently, a phasing plan has been developed for each alternative focused on minimizing impacts to terminal passengers and tenants during construction and increasing the funding feasibility of the alternative. Both alternatives include four major phases of construction. Additional objectives of alternative phasing include incrementally meeting the four planning activity levels (PALs) detailed in Chapter 3 - Terminal Area Facility Requirements while minimizing costs. Actual construction of alternatives could be broken down into additional phases or consolidated into fewer phases depending on future circumstances and preferences. Alternative 1A Overview Changes to Alternative 1A from the “initial alternative” version include: ▪ The addition of two rotundas to the southern pier; ▪ The relocation of Kirk Douglas Way to the south to accommodate dual ADG-III taxilanes between the concourses and additional space for headhouse expansion and post-security outdoor space; ▪ The addition of a planned Ground Transportation Center (GTC) along with a Central Utility Plant (CUP); and ▪ The addition of roadway and surface parking details. The full build out of refined Alternative 1A is shown on Figure 4-8. Primary access remains at Tahquitz Canyon Way and El Cielo Rd, with secondary access from the Coachella Valley via Ramon Road and a relocated and reconfigured Kirk Douglas Way. Public access to the Consolidated Rent-A-Car facility (CONRAC) is at the west side of the facility via El Cielo. A traffic signal is proposed at the entrance. An access road for deliveries to the southern end of the proposed terminal is proposed. EL C I E L O R D KIRK DOUGLAS WAYTAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R BARISTO ROADE RAMON ROADMHMHMHPPP P P VC VC P P P P PP P 200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-8: Alternative 1A Full Build LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE 4-23 AIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA LOT G LOT D LOT B LOT F LOT A AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 70,000 SF N/A B 80,000 SF N/A C 337,000 SF 1036 D 56,000 SF 172 E 181,000 SF 556 F 123,000 SF 378 G 342,000 SF 1052 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT C LOT E CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-24 The roadway network adjacent to the terminal would be maintained as a single level roadway system, expanding the curbsides and terminal to the south and north. Along the curbside, the ticketing and baggage claim areas are expanded to the south and north, respectively. This accommodates growth in the ticketing, security, and the baggage claim programs. Ticketing would shift south, thereby allowing for the Security Screening Check Point (SSCP) to also expand. The proposed Ground Transportation Center would accommodate public transportation connections, shuttles, and potentially taxis and ride share vehicles. Post security, travelers would enter an expanded courtyard providing central access to three concourses: a new north concourse, the existing Bono Concourse, and a new south concourse. Travelers would also have the option of accessing the southern concourse without entering an outdoor courtyard. The existing Bono Concourse remains in this concept. The new north concourse can accommodate up to eight narrow-body gates. Four gates are Multiple Aircraft Ramp System (MARs) gates for the Federal Inspection Station (FIS), and they could be swapped out for wide-body aircraft at a 2:1 ratio. Given the north concourse’s proximity to baggage claim and the arrivals curb, this concourse would also have a sterile corridor and FIS allowing for arriving international flights operations. The new southern concourse would accommodate 19 narrow-body gates serving domestic or pre-cleared arriving operations. The concourse would be dual level, accommodating the expanded baggage handling system at the apron level and loading by jet bridge at the second level. A dual level concourse could also accommodate ramp loaded aircraft operations. Options for public and employee parking expansion were considered for every phase of development. Surface parking square footage and the assumed parking spaces provided by proposed lots are detailed in phasing exhibits. The rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost for the full build out of Alternative 1A is approximately $2.2 billion. The full build out would accommodate 34 narrowbody aircraft gate positions and eight remain overnight (RON) parking positions. CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-25 Alternative 1A Phasing 1A - Phase 1 The initial project phase includes the build-out of a new north concourse with 5 gates, which can flex to 7 narrow body gates (Figure 4-9). Accommodations for international arrivals with a commercial aviation FIS is included in this phase. The proposed CONRAC connects directly to the terminal, while the Ground Transportation Center (GTC) sits in front of the main entrance. A new Central Utility Plant (CUP) would be constructed on the west side of El Cielo adjacent to a proposed parking lot. Phase 1 in this concept would increase the number of available narrowbody aircraft gate positions from 18 to 25. This number is reduced to 23 if two widebody aircraft are present at the new north concourse. The ROM cost for Phase 1 is approximately $900 million. 1A - Phase 2 The proposed Phase 2 of this concept (Figure 4-10) would increase ticketing and security and add a new southern concourse pier with eight gates. The Regional Jet Concourse would be demolished to allow for the pier construction, while Kirk Douglas Way would be realigned to accommodate dual taxiways on both sides of the pier and provide additional space for headhouse and post-security outdoor space. Vehicle flow and surface parking would be reconfigured to account for the realignment of Kirk Douglas Way and maximizing parking potential. There would be 24 narrowbody aircraft gate positions after completion of this phase. The ROM cost for Phase 2 is approximately $1.1 billion. 1A - Phase 3 Phase 3 of this concept (Figure 4-11) would extend the south pier to the east and accommodate five additional gates. After completion of Phase 3 there would be 29 narrowbody aircraft gate positions. The ROM cost for Phase 3 is approximately $100 million. 1A - Phase 4 The proposed Phase 4 of this concept (Figure 4-12) is the final phase and includes the last expansion to the south pier with five additional gates added to the east end. There would be 34 total narrowbody gate positions after Phase 4 is completed. The ROM cost for Phase 4 is approximately $100 million. A summary of Alternative 1A phasing is provided in Table 4-1 along with planning activity level (PAL) requirements for gate positions and vehicle parking. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R MHEL C I E L O R D KIRK DOUGLAS WAYBARISTO ROADE RAMON ROAD200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-9: Alternative 1A Phase 1 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE 4-26 AIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA LOT D LOT B LOT F LOT A AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 70,000 SF N/A B 80,000 SF N/A C 247,000 SF 760 D 56,000 SF 172 E 116,000 SF 356 F 418,000 SF 1286 G 66,000 SF 204 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT C LOT E CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.Relocate Signature Aviation, USO, CBP and rental car parking to accommodate the new CONRAC. 2.New Central Utility Plant. 3.New north concourse with international arrivals capability. 4.New apron for aircraft parking and updated taxiway striping. 5.Potential parking lot expansions to accommodate displaced parking from the proposed GTC, accommodate project parking demand growth, and provide additional surface parking for rental car vehicles during constructions of the CONRAC. 6.5-level CONRAC facility with customer service lobby located adjacent to bag claim. 7.GTC flanking central garden at entry. 8.Connector road for commercial access to the GTC. 9.Potential remain overnight (RON) aircraft parking. Aircraft Parking 23 (25 Narrow Body) 1 6 3 5 4 7 8 2 LOT G Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 9 TAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R MHEL C I E L O R D KIRK DOUGLAS WAYBARISTO ROADE RAMON ROAD200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-10: Alternative 1A Phase 2 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE 4-27 AIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA LOT G LOT D LOT B LOT F LOT A AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 70,000 SF N/A B 80,000 SF N/A C 337,000 SF 1036 D 56,000 SF 172 E 181,000 SF 556 F 123,000 SF 378 G 342,000 SF 1052 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT C LOT E CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.Temporary bag makeup (final location will be under the new southern pier). 2.Kirk Douglas Way relocation and reconfiguration. 3.Adjustments to vehicle surface parking after roadway reconfiguration. 4.Ticketing and south pier expansion. The existing checked bag inspection system will remain in its current location. 5.Demolition of the Regional Jet Concourse. 6.New dual Group III taxilane to be constructed on both sides of the pier. 7.New aircraft parking apron on both sides of the pier. 8.Up to 8 remain overnight (RON) aircraft parking positions. 9.Potential land acquisition for additional vehicle parking. Aircraft Parking Count: 22 (24 Narrow Body) 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 3 9 Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 TAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R MHEL C I E L O R D KIRK DOUGLAS WAYBARISTO ROADE RAMON ROAD200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-11: Alternative 1A Phase 3 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE 4-28 AIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA LOT G LOT D LOT B LOT F LOT A AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 70,000 SF N/A B 80,000 SF N/A C 337,000 SF 1036 D 56,000 SF 172 E 181,000 SF 556 F 123,000 SF 378 G 342,000 SF 1052 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT C LOT E CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.South pier expands to the east. 2.New aircraft parking apron on both sides of the pier. Aircraft Parking Count: 27 (29 Narrow Body) 1 2 Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 TAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R MHEL C I E L O R D KIRK DOUGLAS WAYBARISTO ROADE RAMON ROAD200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-12: Alternative 1A Phase 4 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE 4-29 AIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA LOT G LOT D LOT B LOT F LOT A AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 70,000 SF N/A B 80,000 SF N/A C 337,000 SF 1036 D 56,000 SF 172 E 181,000 SF 556 F 123,000 SF 378 G 342,000 SF 1052 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT C LOT E CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.South pier expands to the east. 2.New aircraft parking apron surrounding the end of the pier. Aircraft Parking Count: 32 (34 Narrow Body) 1 2 Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-30 Table 4-1: Alternative 1A Summary Alternative 1A Consideration Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase ROM Cost $900M $1.1B $100M $100M ROM Total Cost $900M $2B $2.1B $2.2B Gate Positions (Narrowbody) 25 24 29 34 RON Positions 5 8 8 8 Courtyard s.f. (secure side) 61,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 Surface Parking Spaces 2,778 3,194 3,194 3,194 Planning Activity Level Requirements PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 PAL 4 Gate Positions (Narrowbody) 23 24 27 32 Public & Employee Parking Spaces 2,063 2,450 2,756 3,321 Alternative 3 Overview Changes to Alternative 3 from the “initial alternative” version include: ▪ The easternmost pier is no longer on a north-south alignment; it now runs parallel to the runway and adjacent to the relocated Kirk Douglas Way. ▪ The addition of a Ground Transportation Center along with a Central Utility Plant. ▪ Additional roadway and surface parking details are provided. The full build out of refined Alternative 3 is shown on Figure 4-13. Alternative 3 replaces and relocates the airport terminal and all concourses to the southern side of the terminal area along the relocated and reconfigured Kirk Douglas Way. Given the historic nature of the Wexler terminal building it would be the only structure to remain, and its new function would be decided by the community. The new terminal would span east and west, with two concourse piers extending in a north and south alignment and the third pier running parallel to the runway along Kirk Douglas Way. Between the western and central concourse piers is a dual ADG-III taxilane or single ADG-V taxilane, and the two MARs positions. Access to the terminal from Tahquitz and El Cielo would remain; however, major reworks of the landside roadway system, pedestrian access, and surface parking is anticipated. Secondary access from El Cielo would be available via a proposed road along the southern edge of airport property. Access from the Coachella Valley is provided via Ramon Road and the reconfigured Kirk Douglas Way. Public access to the CONRAC is at the west side of the facility via El Cielo. A traffic signal is proposed at the entrance. The new terminal would have the departures curb and ticketing at the east end, and the arrivals curb and baggage claim at the west end. The proposed Ground Transportation Center would accommodate public transportation connections, shuttles, and potentially taxis and ride share vehicles. The SSCP is located at EL C I E L O R D KIRK DOUGLAS WAYTAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R BARISTO ROADE RAMON ROADMHMHMHPPP P P VC VC P P P P PP P 200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-13: Alternative 3 Full Build 4-31 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE LOT F LOT D LOT C LOT A LOT E LOT G LOT H LOT B SKYBRIDGEAUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 397,000 SF 1221 B 70,000 SF 215 C 80,000 SF 246 D 56,000 SF 172 E 146,000 SF 449 F 342,000 SF 1052 G 59,000 SF N/A H 28,000 SF 86 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) AIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-32 the center of the terminal, between ticketing and baggage. There is an opportunity at this point for passengers to ascend to a second level, allowing for space at the apron level for the baggage handling system. Post security passengers can remain in the terminal building or enter a newly planned central open-air courtyard. Covered portions of the terminal could be opened to the courtyard while providing coverage from sun or rain, or it could be fully enclosed and conditioned. All concourse piers are currently envisioned to be two levels, with the flexibility to have some portions be at ramp level to allow for ramp boarding operations. The two-level concourses would allow for passenger enplaning via a boarding bridge on the second level, with a baggage handling system and offices at the apron level. Given the proximity to baggage and arrivals curb, the FIS and sterile corridor would be located adjacent to western concourse pier. Options for public and employee parking expansion were considered for every phase of development. Surface parking square footage and the assumed parking spaces provided by proposed lots are detailed in phasing exhibits. If Signature Flight Support is relocated to the other side of the airfield, available property could be converted to surface parking. For planning purposes, Alternative 3 phasing will show conversion of a large portion of this property to parking. Passengers utilizing this lot and other remote lots would likely require shuttle transportation to and from the terminal GTC. The rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost for the full build out of Alternative 3 is approximately $2.8 billion. The full build out would accommodate 32 narrowbody aircraft gate positions and eight RON parking positions. Alternative 3 Phasing 3 - Phase 1 Phase 1 of this concept includes an all-new terminal building/headhouse on the south side of the terminal area (Figure 4-14). Phase 1 focuses on the processors, ticketing, security, baggage claim, baggage screening, Customs and Border Protection for international arrivals. Phase 1 increases the number of available narrowbody aircraft gate positions from the 18 available today to 20. The number of gate positions is reduced to 18 if two widebody aircraft are present. A new CUP would be constructed on the west side of El Cielo adjacent to a potential employee parking lot. The new CONRAC would be located to the west of the new terminal adjacent to bag claim. Kirk Douglas Way would be relocated to the south, and a GTC is planned directly across from the main entrance. The ROM cost for Phase 1 is approximately $1.7 billion. KIRK DOUGLAS WAYTAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R BARISTO ROADE RAMON ROADMHEL C I E L O R D 200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-14: Alternative 3 Phase 1 4-33 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE LOT F LOT D LOT C LOT E LOT G LOT H LOT B SKYBRIDGEAUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 397,000 SF 1221 B 70,000 SF 215 C 80,000 SF 246 D 56,000 SF 172 E 146,000 SF 449 F 342,000 SF 1052 G 59,000 SF N/A H 28,000 SF 86 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) AIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.Kirk Douglas Way is relocated and reconfigured. 2.New Central Utility Plant. 3.New headhouse with arrivals and departures on one level. 4.New pavement for aircraft parking and apron taxilanes. 5.Potential parking expansion are if Signature Flight Support is relocated. 6.4-level CONRAC. 7.GTC and vehicle parking. 8.Temporary striping for dual Group III taxilane at west gates. 9.Potential land acquisition for additional surface parking. 10.Demolition of the Bono Concourse and Reginal Jet Concourse. 11.Potential for remain overnight (RON)Parking Aircraft Parking Count: 18 (20 Narrow Body) 2 1 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 10 4 Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 11 LOT A CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-34 3 - Phase 2 Phase 2 of this concept (Figure 4-15) would include the addition of four new gates to the central pier that would be built during Phase 1 of Alternative 3. The addition of the four gates would occur after the existing Bono Concourse and Regional Jet Concourse are demolished, and the adjacent apron has been expanded and rehabilitated. The terminal designed by Donald Wexler would be restored during this phase for future use. After completion of Phase 2 there would be 24 total narrowbody aircraft gate positions. The ROM cost for Phase 2 is approximately $900 million. 3 - Phase 3 During Phase 3 of this concept (Figure 4-16) the central pier would be extended to accommodate four additional gates for a total of 28 narrowbody aircraft gate positions. The ROM cost for Phase 3 is approximately $100 million. 3 - Phase 4 Phase 4 is the final phase proposed phase of this concept (Figure 4-17) and includes the expansion of the west pier to accommodate four additional gates for a total of 32 narrowbody aircraft gate positions. The ROM cost for Phase 4 is approximately $100 million. A summary of Alternative 3 phasing is provided in Table 4-2 along with planning activity level (PAL) requirements for gate positions and vehicle parking. Table 4-2: Alternative 3 Summary Alternative 3 Consideration Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase ROM Cost $1.7B $900M $100M $100M Running ROM Cost Total $1.7B $2.6B $2.7B $2.8B Gate Positions (Narrowbody) 20 24 28 32 RON Positions 3 11 8 8 Outdoor Courtyard (SF) 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 Surface Parking Spaces 3,441 3,441 3,441 3,441 Planning Activity Level Requirements PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 PAL 4 Gate Positions (Narrowbody) 23 24 27 32 Public & Employee Parking Spaces 2,063 2,450 2,756 3,321 KIRK DOUGLAS WAYTAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R BARISTO ROADE RAMON ROADMHEL C I E L O R D 200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-15: Alternative 3 Phase 2 4-35 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE LOT F LOT D LOT C LOT E LOT G LOT H LOT B SKYBRIDGEAIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.Restoration of the original Wexler Terminal Building for future uses. 2.New pavement and striping for triple Group III taxilane. 3.New pavement for aircraft parking. 4.Activate the 4 gate on the west side of the central pier. 5.Potential for remain overnight (RON) aircraft parking. Aircraft Parking Count: 22 (24 Narrow Body) 1 2 3 4 5 Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 5 AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 397,000 SF 1221 B 70,000 SF 215 C 80,000 SF 246 D 56,000 SF 172 E 146,000 SF 449 F 342,000 SF 1052 G 59,000 SF N/A H 28,000 SF 86 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT A 5 KIRK DOUGLAS WAYTAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R BARISTO ROADE RAMON ROADMHEL C I E L O R D 200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-16: Alternative 3 Phase 3 4-36 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE LOT F LOT D LOT C LOT E LOT G LOT H LOT B SKYBRIDGEAIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.Central pier expands to the north. 2.RON parking converts to gate parking. Aircraft Parking Count: 26 (28 Narrow Body) 2 1 Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 397,000 SF 1221 B 70,000 SF 215 C 80,000 SF 246 D 56,000 SF 172 E 146,000 SF 449 F 342,000 SF 1052 G 59,000 SF N/A H 28,000 SF 86 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT A KIRK DOUGLAS WAYTAHQUITZ CANYON WAYN C I V I C D R BARISTO ROADE RAMON ROADMHEL C I E L O R D 200'0 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 4-17: Alternative 3 Phase 4 4-37 LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN HEADHOUSE PARKING COURTYARD / GREENSPACE CONRAC FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER CONCOURSE LOT F LOT D LOT C LOT E LOT G LOT H LOT B SKYBRIDGEAIRCRAFT AT GATE AIRCRAFT RON AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT 1.West pier expands to the north. 2.New apron for aircraft parking Aircraft Parking Count: 30 (32 Narrow Body) 1 2 Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023 AUTO PARKING LOT AREA SPACES* A 397,000 SF 1221 B 70,000 SF 215 C 80,000 SF 246 D 56,000 SF 172 E 146,000 SF 449 F 342,000 SF 1052 G 59,000 SF N/A H 28,000 SF 86 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT A CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-38 Refined Alternatives Summary The two alternative development concepts that are the subject of this chapter were indicated as the preferred concepts by the PSP Master Plan Working Group. A public open house was also held to present the initial concepts to the community and a preference was indicated for Alternatives 1A and 1B in this meeting and in online comment submissions from the community. This chapter presented refined versions of the Working Group’s preferred alternatives with the goal of providing additional analysis to the Working Group, Airport Staff and the City of Palm Springs that would allow for an informed decision on selection of a preferred alternative. The focus of the additional analysis was on phasing of each alternative and planning level cost estimates for each phase in the alternatives. Figure 4-18 provides a comparative summary of both alternatives. Figures 4-19 through 4-23 provide terminal area renderings for Alternative 1A and Alternative 3. Recommendations for incorporating equity and sustainability in the design of the planned terminal area improvements are provided in the final section of this chapter. After a tentative preferred terminal area alternative is selected, the preferred alternative will ultimately be presented and recommended to the Palm Springs City Council in early 2024 along with a preferred airfield alternative. The combined terminal area and airfield alternatives will comprise the conceptual development plan for this Comprehensive Airport Master Plan. MASTER PLAN 4-39 Figure 4-18: Alternatives Summary Alternative 1A Consideration Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase ROM Cost $900M $1.1B $100M $100M Running ROM Cost Total $900M $2B $2.1B $2.2B Gate Positions (Narrowbody)25 24 29 34 RON Positions 5 8 8 8 Courtyard s.f. (secure side)61,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 Surface Parking Spaces 2,778 3,194 3,194 3,194 Alternative 3 Consideration Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase ROM Cost $1.7B $900M $100M $100M Running ROM Cost Total $1.7B $2.6B $2.7B $2.8B Gate Positions (Narrowbody)20 24 28 32 RON Positions 3 11 8 8 Courtyard s.f. (secure side)26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 Surface Parking Spaces 3,441 3,441 3,441 3,441 Planning Activity Level Requirements PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 PAL 4 Gate Positions (Narrowbody)23 24 27 32 Public & Employee Parking Spaces 2,063 2,450 2,756 3,321 Alternative 1A Alternative 3 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 4 Phase 3 Phase 2 Phase 1 Figure 4-19: Alternative 1A Northeast View 4-40 Source: Gensler, 2023 Figure 4-20: Alternative 1A Southwest View 4-41 Source: Gensler, 2023 Figure 4-21: Alternative 1A Tahquitz View 4-42 Source: Gensler, 2023 Figure 4-22: Alternative 3 Northeast View 4-43 Source: Gensler, 2023 Figure 4-23: Alternative 3 Southeast View 4-44 Source: Gensler, 2023 CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-45 EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS In either of the previously described concepts, the goal would be the design of an effective, efficient and sustainable terminal. To create a sustainable airport terminal, a range of factors pertaining to land use, transportation, stakeholder relations, and resilience should be considered in the design process. The objective being to develop the terminal improvements in phases that seamlessly integrate the surrounding environment, supports the well-being of stakeholders, and is resilient to challenges. Building a terminal that incorporates equity and sustainability creates a space that attempts to address the needs of all stakeholders while minimizing environmental impacts. The following sections explain equity and sustainability factors that were taken into consideration when choosing the refined alternatives. Equity Factors: ▪ Accessibility for All: Ensures the terminal is accessible to individuals of all abilities. Incorporates ramps, elevators, tactile indicators, limits walking distance and other features that make navigation easy for people with disabilities. ▪ Inclusive Design: Creates spaces that are inclusive of diverse cultural backgrounds and age groups. Consider cultural sensitivities, multilingual signage, and spaces that accommodate families, children, and elderly travelers. ▪ Economic Accessibility: Ensures there are services and amenities that cater to different income levels. Offers affordable transportation options, varied dining choices, and amenities that can be enjoyed by all passengers. ▪ Community Engagement: Involve local communities and stakeholders in the design process. Seek input from residents, businesses, and community organizations to ensure the terminal's design reflects their needs and concerns. ▪ Employment Opportunities: Consider how the terminal improvements can create job opportunities for the local community, especially in marginalized neighborhoods. Collaborate with community organizations to provide training and employment initiatives. ▪ Environmental Justice: Assess the potential environmental impacts of the terminal on surrounding communities, particularly those that are historically disadvantaged. Mitigates negative impacts and ensure that benefits are distributed equitably. Consider a terminal design that will lessen confusion for passengers during construction and create a streamlined experience. CHAPTER 4 – REFINED TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVES 4-46 Sustainability Factors: ▪ Energy Efficiency: Prioritizes energy-efficient design, utilizing advanced lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation systems. Implements sensors and automation to optimize energy use. ▪ Renewable Energy: Integrates renewable energy sources like solar panels to power the terminal. Utilizes clean energy technologies to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. ▪ Water Management: Implements water-efficient fixtures and systems to minimize water consumption. Incorporates rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling to further conserve water resources. ▪ Materials Selection: Chooses sustainable and eco-friendly materials with a low environmental impact. Prioritizes materials that are recycled, recyclable, or biodegradable. ▪ Waste Management: Designs include waste disposal and recycling facilities that encourage proper waste segregation. Promotes waste reduction through initiatives like composting and recycling programs. ▪ Transportation Alternatives: Improves access to public transportation and consider on-site electric vehicle charging stations. Encourages travelers to use low-carbon transportation options. ▪ Biodiversity: Incorporates green spaces and native vegetation into the terminal design to support local biodiversity. Uses landscaping techniques that require minimal water and maintenance. ▪ Resilience to Climate Change: The terminal is designed to withstand the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. ▪ Lifecycle Assessment: Considers the entire lifecycle of the terminal, from construction to operation and eventual decommissioning. Minimize environmental impacts at every stage. ▪ Certification and Standards: Strives for sustainability certifications such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) to ensure that the terminal meets internationally recognized sustainability criteria. The aspiration for a sustainable airport terminal design is a holistic one. It encompasses social equity, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management, stakeholder engagement, and resilience as well as environmental and financial uncertainties. Through a careful synthesis of these elements, PSP endeavors to create a terminal that not only meets the needs of its users but also serves as a model of sustainable design for the broader aviation industry and the entire Coachella Valley. Lifecycle Assessment: Contemplate a terminal design that creates the most opportunities for the longevity and sustainability of the historic Wexler Terminal. Palm Springs Airport Master Plan Airport Commission Briefing December 6, 2023 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Working Group and Commission Roles Working Group Role Review and comment on working papers. Serve as a sounding board for recommendations Attend up to five (5) master plan meetings Attend public outreach meetings/events if interested Airport Commission Role Attend public outreach meetings/events if interested Make alternatives recommendations to City Council palmspringsairportmasterplan.com Process and Schedule AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Initial Terminal Area Alternatives AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Initial Terminal Area Alternatives AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Initial Terminal Area Alternatives Refined Terminal Area Alternatives AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Refined Alternatives 1A and 3 Alternative 1A – Renovate and Expand Signficant expansion of Wexler building with two new concourse located north and south Alternative 3 – Replace and Repurpose New terminal facilities to the south and eventually repurpose the Wexler building AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A – Full Build AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 – Full Build Tenant Stakeholder Outreach and Feedback AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Tenant Stakeholders Initial Meetings and Surveys of Airlines, Car Rentals, Concessions and TSA in Spring 2023 Most tenants realize the terminal is undersized and needs to expand Most questions about when and how much Follow up Meeting on November 2nd, 2023 Most tenants didn’t indicate a preference for 1A or 3 Alaska 1A Primary concern expressed was relative to the potential for impacts to operations and passengers during construction AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Public Outreach and Feedback AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Open House Attendance More than 160 people attended the September 19 Public Open House. The most common means of learning about the event were Palm Springs Post Word of Mouth Desert Sun Facebook City Email LinkedIn AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Online Participation From September 19 – September 27: 373 views of the Public Involvement webpage Display boards downloaded 402 times 912 total site users; 875 had never visited the site before AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternatives Comment Period From September 19 – September 27: More than 525 people engaged with the alternatives information, either in person or online 42 total survey participants Only 8% of participants felt strongly enough to provide feedback. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A Feedback AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 Feedback Alternative 1A Phasing Plan and Renderings AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A – Phase 1 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $900M AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A – Phase 2 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $1.1B ($2B Total) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A – Phase 3 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $100M ($2.1B Total) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A – Phase 4 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $100M ($2.2B Total) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A “Northeast View” Source: Gensler 2023 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A “Southwest View” Source: Gensler 2023 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 1A “Tahquitz View” Source: Gensler 2023 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 – Phase 1 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $1.7B AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 – Phase 2 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $900M ($2.6B Total) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 – Phase 3 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $100M ($2.7B Total) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 – Phase 4 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $100M ($2.8B Total) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 – Phase 4 Phase ROM Cost ≈ $100M ($2.8B Total) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 “Northeast View” Source: Gensler 2023 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternative 3 “Southeast View” Source: Gensler 2023 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Alternatives Summary AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Equity and Sustainability Design considerations Equity - accessibility, inclusivity, community engagement, employment, environmental justice, etc. Sustainability - energy efficiency, renewable energy water, waste, materials selection, transportation connectivity, biodiversity, resilience, etc. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Next Steps Airfield Planning/Landside Planning January Working Group Meeting Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) and Financial Implementation Analysis March Working Group Meeting March Draft Report and Public Open House California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Questions/Discussion