HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/4/2015 - STAFF REPORTS ♦°�pALM SAq
a
Y N
,s
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 4, 2015 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SUBJECT: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: AIRPORT
SUMMARY
On November 5, 2014, the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan was
discussed by the consulting firm HNTB, who had prepared the document. After
receiving input and guidance from the City Council, the plan's "Recommended
Alternative for Airside, Terminal and Landside Facilities," has been modified in
accordance with that direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Accept the "Recommended Alternative for Airside, Terminal and Landside
Facilities" at the Palm Springs International Airport.
2. Direct Staff to proceed with all Federal (NEPA) and California (CEQA)
environmental processes for subsequent review by the City Council.
3. Direct Staff to submit revisions to the Palm Springs International Airport
Commission, the Historic Site Preservation Board, and the Planning
Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
During discussion of the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Presentation on
November 5, 2014, the City Council provided the following direction on certain elements
of the plan:
ITEM NO, �° a
City Council Staff Report
March 4,2015 — Page 2
Airport Master Plan Update
1. A preference not to modify the terminal ticketing area western facade as it could
affect the appearance, architectural and historical significance of the terminal.
Rather, consider remodeling the inside area, expanding to the back of the
building. Additionally, explore the possibility of greater space utilization through
kiosk check-in efficiencies.
2. Conduct all car rental expansion north of the terminal in order to preserve
customer ease of access and convenience, and reduce the amount of car rental
maintenance traffic on El Cielo Drive. This included eliminating the relocation of
any rental car facilities to Kirk Douglas Way.
3. Maintaining an open Baristo Road entrance to Kirk Douglas Way.
4. Support of the plan to relocate the USO into the terminal when the building is
expanded.
Per direction from the City Council, the consultant has incorporated these changes into
the Master Plan (see attached exhibit "Master Plan Update Draft Revised Alternatives
Analysis').
It is important to note, that the Master Plan does not identify any need for expanded
runways.
Next Steps
Upon authorization of these recommendations by the City Council;
• The Master Plan environmental processes for both the CEQA (State of
California) and NEPA (Federal) will be updated and presented to the Airport
Commission, Historic Site Preservation Board and the Planning Commission
prior to City Council final action before the end of the year.
• Noise Exposure Maps for the years 2015 through 2020, under the federal 14
CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program, are being completed and will be
presented both at a public meeting and to the City Council (over the next 60
days). Following the study presentations, public comments will be collected,
addressed, and submitted to the FAA as the official Noise Exposure Maps for
PSP.
02
City Council Staff Report
March 4,2015 — Page 3
Airport Master Plan Update
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FAA grant eligible projects include the majority of improvements within the terminal
building. This Master Plan Update was funded by the FAA and once successfully
completed with the appropriate environmental processes; these improvements will be
recognized as eligible for grant funding.
PSP Airport has historically been the beneficiary of formulated entitlement FAA funding
at an average year of approximately $3.6 million. The public space portion of these
terminal building projects will be funded using these entitlements. Airline rental space
and the USO offices are not always eligible for entitlement grants and may have to be
funded through other sources.
The Master Plan improvements involving the non-aeronautical car rental projects are
not eligible for FAA Airport Improvement Program grants and therefore will require other
funding sources. In anticipation of this need, a Customer Facility Charge (CFC) has
been in place for eight years and the CFC Fund has a balance of $10,850,000 for use
toward car rental projects. The City may also potentially consider Revenue Bond
financing for additional financing if required.
Thomas Nolan, A.A.E. DAVID H. READY
Executive Director, Airport City Manager
Attachments:
Master Plan Update Draft Revised Alternatives Analysis
Terminal Alternative 1
Terminal Alternative 2
Terminal Alternative 3
Terminal Alternative 4
03
HHTB
To from
Thomas Nolan,A.A.E. Royce Bassarab,HNTB
Executive Director Justin Bychek,HNTB
Palm Springs International Airport
3400 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way CC:
Suite OFC Kim Hughes,HNTB
Palm Springs,CA 92262 Grant Wilson,LSA
sut+jaet
Palm Springs International Airport
Master Plan Update Draft Revised
Alternatives Analysis
Data
February IN ,2015
This memorandum summarizes revised alternatives for consideration of a recommended
terminal and landside alternative reflecting feedback received from the November 5 ,2014 Palm
Springs City Council meeting.This memorandum summarizes the Recommended Alternative for
Airside,Terminal and Landside facilities at PSP.
The key objectives of these revised alternatives are to:
- Address near term terminal and near and long term landside deficiencies
- Maintain the historic western facade of the PSP terminal
Maintain and improve the existing location of Rental Car facilities
Maintain access to and through the Airport via Baristo Road and Kirk Douglas Way
Figure 1 presents the Master Plan Update Recommended Alternative, as described in the
Mowing sections.
Airside Alternatives
The MPU considered improvements to the airside facilities (primarily runways and taxiways),
and concluded that the airfield has adequate capacity to serve forecast operations beyond 2028.
The Master Plan Recommended Alternative does not reflect any changes to existing runways or
taxiways.
1 HNTB
04
Terminal Alternatives
Figure 7 presents the existing terminal. The MPU Facility Requirements chapter documents
notable current and future deficiencies within the existing passenger terminal.In order to address
the near term baggage claim and ticketing area deficiencies, HNTB evaluated two modifications
of the terminal. The Master Plan Recommended Alternative is the Interior Terminal
Reconfiguration Alternative. Table 1 presents a comparison of the Interior Terminal
Reconfiguration Alternative and the East Terminal Expansion Alternative.
Figure 3 presents the Interior Terminal Reconfiguration Alternative. The Interior Terminal
Reconfiguration Alternative reconfigures interior space by pushing back (to the east) the ticket
counters and reducing Airline Ticket Office(ATO)space inside the terminal.It also modifies the
terminal footprint by constructing a separate small building to accommodate displaced ATO
functions behind the terminal and expand the terminal to the north to accommodate an
expansion to baggage claim devises.
Reconfiguration of ATO space provides a preferred option for increasing circulation space
because it does not impact the historic western facade of the terminal and it does not require a
more complicated complete reconfiguration of the "back of house" functions associated with
outbound baggage and screening. ATOs traditionally include space to support the day-to-day
specific administrative and customer service functions. The ATOs are located behind the lobby
enclosure wall and are not accessible to the general public, and currently encompass 12,846
square feet.
In order to provide additional queuing space in the ticketing circulation area,the overall size of
the ATOs inside the terminal would be reduced from 12,846 square feet to approximately 7,620
square feet The ticketing circulation area width would increase from 29 feet to 45 feet. To
maintain ATO leasable space, an approximate 5,250 square foot building would be constructed
outside and to the east of the existing terminal building to house certain ATO functions, such as
storage of supplies,break room,etc. This is the Recommended Alternative.
Figure 4 presents the East Terminal Expansion Alternative.This alternative expands the footprint
of the ticketing wing to the east by approximately 25 feet, resulting in an additional 3,150 square
feet of space.All functional components of the ticketing wing would need to be modified to allow
additional ticketing circulation space and maintain existing ATO leasable space. For the baggage
claim wing,this alternative mirrors the Interior Terminal Reconfiguration Alternative.
There is limited area outside of the terminal in which an expansion could be constructed without
interfering with airside operations. Additionally, previous expansions to the ticketing wing
complicate additional expansion.This alternative evaluates an expansion in between the eastern-
most point of the ticketing wing and the fence that separates the pedestrian walkway between the
terminal and Bono Concourse. This area is currently used to load baggage carts once checked
2 HNTB
05
baggage has passed through the EDS system. Tugs with baggage carts traverse between this area
and aircraft by way of a below-grade ramp that runs below the terminal walkway. The available
space is further limited by restrictions due to fire department and maintenance access.
The most complex element associated with this alternative is the reconfiguration and relocation
of the baggage screening area. The existing outbound baggage and EDS area is inefficiently
organized and undersized. Ideally, PSP would be able to upgrade the existing outbound baggage
screening and EDS system to a full in-line system where no manual baggage loading is required;a
conveyor directly links the ticket counters to the CTX machines. A full in-line system could
include the use of vehicle baggage drop systems. In general, a full in-line baggage system would
require a larger amount of space beyond the current terminal footprint and is unlikely to be
compatible with this alternative. Since the introduction of baggage screening following 9/11,the
outbound baggage make-up area has lost a considerable amount of floor area. However, the
airlines have continued to successfully manage their conveyor-to-tug bag handling operations in a
more confined space.
To implement this alternative, the rear east wall would be relocated. As this back wall is moved,
space becomes more constrained due to the terminal wing that tapers inwards(due to a previous
building expansion). Additionally, this wing contains the emergency generator, a fuel tank,
cooling towers and other mechanical, electrical and plumbing components. The generator and
cooling tower need easy access for heavy maintenance vehicle access in case machinery needs to
be replaced and fueled. Also the generator requires easy fire department access. Currently this
space is constrained to meet the applicable safety requirements. As developed, the expanded
building space would need to be vetted with the Fire Department to ensure adequate access is
provided.
To reconfigure baggage feeds,the expansion would reduce linear frontage resulting in a change in
the orientation of one of the outbound feeds to overlap another feed and extend that overlapped
feed to maintain usable frontage (which results in cutting off two existing manual bypass feeds).
Potential reconfiguration of the baggage conveyance system would require further study to ensure
the resulting system design meets TSA requirements.
Due to the complications associated with this alternative, it is not recommended for
implementation.
3 HNTB
06
Table 1.Comparison of Taming Alternatives
Altanatlw Advantages Dindinint"
interior Tamhw . Allows for additional passenger • The reconfiguration of space would also
Reaonflgoradea circulation(circulation area width would require some modification to the
(Recommended increase from 29 feet to 45 feet) in the existing baggage conveyance system.
AlSomadve) ticketing wing while maintaining the however, it would not require the
existing historic western facade. relocation of the explosive detection
• Allows a reduction of ATO space inside screening (EDS) system further to the
the terminal by constructing a separate east.
building behind the terminal to • The outbound baggage belts in the
accommodate additional ATO functions. ticketing wing would need to be
• Allows the existing baggage claim reconfigured (ix, shortened to remain
devices to be extended to provide an behind the Ticket Counter).
additional 450 linear feet of frontage by • Any structural modifications to the
constructing a 60 foot terminal addition terminal building (either the baggage
to the north, claim wing or the ticketing wing)would
• Allows for the relocation of the USO require additional detailed analysis of
within the terminal, tentatively the existing structure to validate the
identified in an area in the northeast structural feasibility of a potential
corner of the expanded baggage claim ticketing expansion (related to modem
area, seismic requirements and the structure's
history of previous expansions).
Reset Terminal • Allows for additional passenger • Requires a complete reconfiguration of
Rsponsion circulation in the ticketing wing(width the"back of house functions associated
would increase from approximately 29 with outgoing baggage and screening.
feet to approximately 45 feet) while • Further constrains the outbound baggage
maintaining the existing historic western feeds without implementation of a full in-
faSade and the existing square footage of line system.
leasable space for ATOs inside the • Does not adequately resolve the need to
terminal. improve the existing outbound baggage
screening process.Any potential building
expansion should also evaluate improving
the existing inefficiencies of the baggage
screening process by evaluating an in-line
system
• More costly as it requires extensive
reconfiguration of baggage handling and
expansion of the terminal.
• Implementation of this alternative would
require a complex construction phasing
plan that would likely impact the existing
level of service.
• Any structural modifications to the
terminal building (either the baggage
claim wing or the ticketing wing) would
require additional detailed analysis of the
existing structure to validate the
structural feasibility of a potential
ticketing sion.
4 HNTB
07
Landside Alternatives
The functional components of landside facilities include airport roadways, terminal curbside,
parking facilities, rental car facilities, and ground transportation support facilities, as shown on
Figure 4. The MPU identified two components of the landside facilities that are deficient based
on a comprehensive demand-capacity analysis: rental car facilities and the on-Airport roadway
system.
To increase the productivity of the rental car operation at PSP, the MPU recommended
consolidation and expansion of facilities to meet demand and enhance operational efficiency.
Inefficient rental car facilities defines the need for a designated QTA facility / service area that
would be located adjacent to the ready/return facility to provide a connection between the two
areas for more efficient rental car operations,while recognizing that there are existing space and
height constraints in the vicinity of the terminal area.
To address the rental car providers' and City Council's concerns to minimize the movement of
rental cars between maintenance and ready/return locations, and to keep the airport entrance at
Baristo Road open, two alternatives that combined rental car facilities were considered. Two
variations related to the location of rental car facilities are evaluated and are summarized in
Table 2.Common to both is keeping the Airport entrance at Baristo Road open to the public.The
Master Plan Recommended Alternative is the Consolidated Rental Car Ready/Return and QTA
Alternative. Unlike the terminal alternatives, the revised landside alternatives are based on the
long-term facility requirements identified in the MPU.
Quick umm
This alternative evaluates a partial consolidation of rental car ready/return and QTA facilities in
the general area north of Baggage Claim (expanded in the current location). Maintenance
facilities would remain in their current location along North Civic Drive.
The existing rental car ready/return location is a surface lot that could be expanded.The location
is surrounded by the terminal, airside, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility
located attached to the Signature hangar,and a small parking area.The rental car facilities in this
location could be expanded with the demolition of the Signature hangar building,the relocation
of the CBP facility (which much maintain access to the airside), and relocation of parking. The
total two-dimensional area available for rental car facilities is approximately 340,000 square feet,
or 7.8 acres.The available envelope excludes the expanded Baggage Claim wing,but includes an
additional 60 feet of airside space reclaimed once the Signature hangar was vacated.
- By 2028,PSP is anticipated to need 509 ready stalls and 357 return stalls,for a total of 866
stalls,requiring 223,090 square feet or 5.1 acres.
- The MPU identified that QTA operations would require 5.8 acres by 2028, although a
consolidated facility may reduce this amount somewhat.
Total acreage is approximately 11 acres, or approximately 478,289 square feet, which
exceeds the available surface space of 340,000 square feet by approximately 138,289
square feet.
5 HNTB
08
In order to accommodate rental car ready/return and QTA facilities, a multi-level (two to three
story) parking garage would be constructed to accommodate ready/return stalls and ground-
based QTA operations. It is generally more expensive to incorporate washing and fueling
operations within the structured parking garage, although it would be feasible that a second or
third level of a parking garage could overhang the first level of QTA operations. For example,
rental car QTA operations at Nashville International Airport encompass approximately 165,000
square feet (3.8 acres), and include structured parking above. At PSP, the location of QTA
facilities could be placed either towards El Cielo Road (with adequate visual screening) or closer
to the airside (with an adequate buffer to protect airside operations). Rental car operators would
still need to shuttle cars between maintenance and the ready/return area,but at a much reduced
rate,as most vehicles would only need to use the QTA facilities.
This alternative, which consolidates QTA operations on-site and houses rental car ready/return
facilities in a multi-level garage,meets MPU requirements for rental car facilities and reduces the
number of vehicles traveling between the maintenance area and ready/return facilities and
represents the Recommended Alternative.
Consolidated Rants Cyr Read' .M,re QTA Ld sie �
This alternative evaluates a full consolidation of all rental car facilities (ready/return, QTA, and
maintenance and storage facilities) in the general area north of the Baggage Claim wing. This
would serve as a full ConRAC that would consolidate all airport-related rental operations and
facilities into one integrated facility. A ConRAC would incorporate structured parking,
integrated,shared QTA facilities and maintenance bays for each of the rental car providers at PSP.
Based on facility needs identified in the MPU, total requirements for rental car facilities in 2028
include approximately 20 acres, which would exceed the total area available in the potential
development envelope by 12.2 acres. A consolidated QTA and maintenance facility would likely
occupy most or all of the entire surface level of the potential development envelope. For example,
the consolidated QTA and maintenance facility in Spokane encompasses over 380,000 square feet
(over 8.7 acres), and a recently constructed QTA and maintenance facility at Fresno Yosemite
International Airport encompasses approximately 280,000 square feet(6.4 acres).Neither of those
examples include integrate ready/return parking in a structured garage.Further complexities exist
when considering that maintenance facilities require higher-than-normal ceiling heights, under
vehicle access, and vehicle lifts. These complexities would add additional cost to the
implementation of this alternative.
Due to the complications associated with this alternative, it is not recommended for
implementation.
6 HNTB
09
Table 2.Comparison of La mW&Alternative
Reps d AvaW►k
A1laanpa Aasage site Advantages Dkndna"es
(Ins)
Consolidate 15.6 acres 7A acres . Consolidates Ready/Return and QTA in one . The envelope of space available for development of
ReadylRetum and QTA (surface) location. consolidated rental car facilities may not easily
near Terminal:nuwmin (4.52 R/R. • Reduces the number of trips required to shuttle accommodate all the required rental car services.
existing location of 11.07 QTA renal cars between the ready/return lot and . Situ of rental car garage might detract from the
maintenance facilities and maintenance areas, thereby reducing fuel view of the terminal.
Maintenance) consumption, traffic levels for on- and off-airport . Mae costly than existing conditions because it
A ve) roadways,and vehicle exhaust.
would require
A consolidated facility could also house a climate-
controlled rental car customer service area, thus relocation of fueling and washing facilities.
freeing more space within the baggage claim a Does not completely eliminate the need to shuttle
circulation area. rental can;between the maintenance area and
rental car ready/return.
Consolidate all Rental 20.3 acres 7.8 acres . Consolidates all on-Airport rental car facilities in . The envelope of space available for development of
Car functions near (surface) one location. consolidated rental car facilities does not
Terminal(R/R,QTA, . Eliminates off-Airport trips between ready/return accommodate all the required rental car services.
Maintenance)
lot and maintenance areas,thereby reducing fuel . Size of renal car garage might detract from the
consumption,traffic levels for on-and off-airport view of the terminal
roadways,and vehicle exhaust. . More costly than existing conditions because it
• A consolidated facility could also house a climate- would require construction of a puking facility and
controlled renal car customer ser area,thus construction of fueling facilities.
freeing more space within the baggage claim a integrating washing and fueling services into a
circulation area. structured guage would present technical
. Opens additional Airport property for aviation or challenges.For example,typical maintenance bays
non-aviation revenue opportunities(location of for renal car facilities are sized considerably larger
former maintenance facilities). than a typical parting garage,and may include
underground bays to access vehicle mgines.
F-+ 7 HNTB
O
T ---- ----..
b r s t
— _ _ _ _ _ LIM
_
M\J f- f r f- •F� ��
s s s
s
TuyW m Ttgw
e
e� p�
A
\ , ^
Ar
O 8 '
o ( 33 qs; _ � •iCy j
1
1
3S k •�?_ / w
E
W _A,
Source:HNTB Analysis r
- On-Airport Facility Existing Employee Parlarg Former Development
Recommended Alternative
+ ® Existing Terminal Development L__J Potential Employee Parking Existing Curbside
_\( r —, Potential Terminal Development Existing CNG Station — — Airport Property Line
LJ o 0 g Figure 1
PALM SPRINGS �IITFP �11-�T �r,!Ai AIRPORT L__J Potential Rental Car Facility L__� Potential Commercial Vehicle Hold Lot �..�� AirportEntrance/Exn
MASTER PLAN 'DATE o we ExislingViewAxis Palm Springs International Airport
Existing Public Parking Closed Entrance/Exit
r — l Potential Public Parkin r---i Master Plan
9 L__J Potential ATO Area
Legend
p Airline Tiaw Offices
Ticket Couree o
Ticket Cromer Oueueirg
O Ticket Counter Cirwlation Areas
O Pre Sewnty Circulation Areas
O Post Sewnty Circulation Areas
O Restrooms
Concession l Concession Storage
U �� •® •� -� - - — — O Rental Car Reservation Counters
• ® •-, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O Baggage Claim
• s O Baggage Service Off"
p PSP Operations
PSP Administration
SSOP
(� p• ��0 yy�� o a Building Maktmance
�e 0TSAOffices Outbound Baggage Inbound Baggage
g.y Uso I
w o CBP
{� o cBP
• Baggage Conveyor
• Q Gate
•
\ • O o .
•
' �• Vv a ��
z •
3 q9� • • • �
• • 9
e b ,� •
.a
v
Existing Terminal
Figure 2
PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Z Palm Springs International Airport
Master Plan
Legend
Airline Ticket Offices
® Ticket Counters
= Ticket Counter Queueing
O Ticket Counter Circulation Areas
0 Pre Security Circulation Areas
F—� Post Security Circulation Areas
0 Restrooms
�u� ✓�° �J k Q •® — " — Concession/Concession Storage
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O Rental Car Reservation Counters
• 0 • • • • • - ME] Baggage Claim
J O Baggage Service Office
® PSP Operations
O PSP Administration
�o�• O SSCP
• Utilities&Building Maintenance
�o Supplemental ATO Area
o'z O TSA Offices
(5.250 sq.ft.) y1 0 Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
O USO
• 0 EDS
Extended Bag, •
Claim Units • Reconfigured Outbound Baggage Belts O 7 ceP
Baggage Conveyor
• 0 <> Gate
• Reconfigured ATO Area (typ.)
n� ••
60 ft. Building • �-
Extension /' •
.i� � • • • � y ° 0
•
•
•
Widened Ticketing)
Circulation Areau
(b •located Rental
Relocated US
Car Counters J\'
IWPL M
Interior Terminal Reconfiguration Alternative
Figure 3
z � Palm Springs International Airport
PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Master Plan
"zJ
w! T ..
�y G " t. •� [---
s
s s s s S
L---- L----
e -
+ 6 Twy W TwyW
P i
4-4
N 4 f
rn w
p� i • • r5! `^�
q(W
�s
ZI
N
0
/
S
U
$mcr ma MWyais
On-Airport Facility Existing Commercial Vehicle Hold ld
Existing Terminal Development Existing Curbside Existing Landside
Existing Rental Car Facility Airport Property Line Figure
!!lIPALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIHPGRi 0 Existing Public Parking AirportEntrance/Exit
MASTER PLAN UPDATE Existing CNG Station -- 3 Existing View Axis Palm Springs International Airport
Existing Employee Parking Master Plan
Palm Springs International Airport
Master Plan Update
City of Palm Springs
City Council
March 4t"1 2015
;al
Cw
111 r
PALM SPRINGS iraiHr I A�RPOH1
MASTER PLAN PLAN Il'U l I L
z
Overview
$ On November 41"1 2014, presented the Master Plan
Update Recommended Alternative.
$ City Council suggested a number of revisions.
$ Master Plan Update has been revised.
$ New Recommended Alternative based on City Council
feedback.
_i�" PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
pl MASTER PLAN UPDATE
3
City Council Guidance
The key objectives of the revised alternatives are to:
Address near term terminal and near and long term
landside deficiencies;
Maintain the historic western fagade of the PSP
terminal;
Maintain and improve the existing location of Rental
Car facilities; and
Maintain access to and through the Airport via Baristo
Road and Kirk Douglas Way.
PALM SPRINGS ' "iRT
"��7 MASTER PLAN
4
Revised Alternatives
Terminal Alternatives
• Interior Reconfiguration Alternative (Recommended Alternative)
• East Terminal Expansion Alternative
• Would expand the terminal building to the East and require
significant restructuring of interior ticketing area.
Landside Alternatives
• Consolidated Rental Car Ready/Return and Quick Turn Around
Alternative (Recommended Alternative)
• Consolidated Rental Car Ready/Return, QTA and Maintenance
• Insufficient space exists to accommodate all required rental car
facilities in the vicinity of the terminal.
PALM SPRINGS INfERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER
PLAN UPOAiL
5
Revised Recommended Alternative
Terminal Proposed Improvements
• Expand terminal building by 60' to the north; accommodate rental car
counters and USO to allow for baggage claim device expansion.
• Reconfigure interior of ticketing wing; reduce Airline Ticket Office
(ATO) space to allow for circulation area expansion.
• Construct a supplemental 5,000+ sq. foot building behind the terminal
to accommodate displaced ATO functions.
Landside Proposed Improvements
• Reconfigure the existing Ready/Return lot to accommodate a Quick
Turn Around (QTA) facility and structured parking and ready/return.
• Maintain existing maintenance facilities.
• Reconfigure and expand parking areas along Kirk Douglas Way.
• Maintain Airport access via Baristo Road.
PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN UF'UA71
Revised Recommended Alternative - 6
Terminal Improvements
Legend
Supplemental ATO
Space T"C-1.Wn.Yq
r.an
Rn Seruer Caa•em Ar.ee
Mf SevMy C.ubM�A—
•• .r
4nbmnv
/ • •• • • • . . • . . • ! '�� • • • . • Cv'muvi/Corceamon 9vip
Remw CRmvvam Cwvaera
� Hgpge Gbm
� Bgpp S.mu Dlficv�Rsv
_ r.vsv am,m.vs.oe
• ssca
• � uan•ea 3wm�q el.rve��e.
Expansion of i ' � u33a0010•
Baggage Claim :le�e3�A,3 • Racwfture OulwW13ggapeB.n ..P
•
Claim l:Ms \ • J 3eg3 C-"
\)• title
• R.ffqum0 Ai0 Aree pyp l
•.//
Niw
IN 00,
Al
ipu9
• _
•k' J
.• a
y.
JN^EeneU iiCk¢Lnyi
C iCulaliOn Area
;nxmd U30 N.hpr�Re
L�Cw•M•
Extension of
Future Ticketing
U80 Circulation Area .,..M
Interior Terminal Reconfiguration Alternative
Figure 3
YPPAAsPBINOSINTERNAnoNAt ARP z Palm Springs International Airport
Master Plan
Revised Recommended Alternative -
Landside Improvements
Consolidated Rental
Car Ready/Return ' - - _ �R' I' -" -�-- 'AV
and QTA Garage Terminal
-- Improvements T"w
r
µNA
u��P
%
fi4♦
9!/ ti\ •' k}� S f°! Reconfigured Parking ^
411
40
Relocated Customs
and Border
Protection Building (, i� _i `Yr ♦ ,
a
o �
0 ihlnrlE IM O EoxM9lmcLne hN'9 E W+Y9mnn
: ,,_ rc,,�w�.Wade,,, --; Para�•E�,�,�:on�la - n� �„. Recommended Alternative
Y + GIr H n O E.MnI CN Sbm NMaP µI Lrc Figure 1
PALM SPRWSS {','F:'Iai.O`,. 'r'ngi ' rolmw vaaal m�nrory [_] rarMaG�a n,zm o-�rr mnl ml �—� .1DO ;ba
x�cnnnw rc,d ply Palm Springs lnternationalAirport
C__-'
- r:rc,ma wu„ne�,y � wlmlw aro,rc. Master Plan
8
Master Plan Recommendation
With City Council approval, next steps are to:
$ Revise environmental analysis
(Revise CEQA and Complete NEPA Review)
$ Begin Advanced Planning/Programming
$ Design
Construction
PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN UPDATE