final_jbsa_randolph_background_july_2015_smJuly 2015
County of Bexar
Public Works Department
233 N Pecos-La Trinidad Street, Suite 420
San Antonio, Texas 78207
P (210) 335-1243
DEStGN GROUP
Please see the next page.
Committee Executive
The Executive Committee (EC) served an active and important role in providing policy direction
during the development of the Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph Joint Land Use Study
(JLUS). The Executive Committee comprised the following individuals:
Tommy Adkisson, Commissioner
(Former)
County of Bexar
Tommy Calvert, Jr. Commissioner
County of Bexar
Judy Cope, Commissioner
County of Guadalupe
Jeannette Crabb, Councilwoman
City of Seguin
Phil Crane, Representative
Real Estate Council of San Antonio
Tom Daly, Mayor
City of Selma
Lloyd Doggett, Representative, District 35
U.S. House of Representatives
Joe Farias, Representative, District 118
Texas House of Representatives
Jim Fowler, Councilman
City of Schertz
Gilbert Gonzalez, VP of Risk Management
San Antonio Board of Realtors
Col Gerald Goodfellow, Commander
(Former)
12th FfW, JBSA- Randolph
Roland Gutierrez, Representative,
District 119
Texas House of Representatives
Col Matt Isier, Commander
12th FTW, JBSA- Randolph
Lisa Jackson, Mayor
City of Cibolo
Nadine Knaus, Mayor Pro -Tem
City of Garden Ridge
BG Bob Labrutta, Commander
502 ABW, ]BSA
Ron Lozano, Support Specialist
FAA, Air Traffic Control Division
Ruth Jones McClendon, Representative,
District 120
Texas House of Representatives
Robert Murdock, Office of Military Affairs
City of San Antonio
Tim O'Krongley, Assistant Aviation Director
City of San Antonio
Tim Pruski, Representative
Greater San Antonio Builders Association
BGen Karen S. Rankin, Commissioner
USAF (Ret)
Texas Military Preparedness Commission
Darcie Schipull, Transportation Planner
Texas Department of Transportation
Greg Seidenberger, Commissioner
County of Guadalupe
Al Suarez, Mayor
City of Converse
Rebecca Viagran, Councilwoman District 3
City of San Antonio
Scott Wayman, Assistant City Manager
City of Live Oak
John Williams, Mayor
City of Universal City
Jim Wolverton, Commissioner
County of Guadalupe
EC Alternates
Nancy Cain, Administrator
City of Garden Ridge
Pamela Centano, Planning Assistant
City of Seguin
Timothy Ginn, Program Manager, Office of the Governor
Texas Military Preparedness Commission
Lisa Marie Gomez, Director, District 35
U.S. House of Representatives
Julianna Gonzaba, Chief of Staff, District 118
Texas House of Representatives
Deborah Houey, Senior Executive Secretary
City of San Antonio
Felipe Jimenez, Technical Director
502 ABW, ]BSA
Amy Putney, Chief of Staff
County of Bexar
Cavett McCrary, Executive Assistant
County of Bexar
Francess Randall, Representative
County of Guadalupe
Marge Reyna, Office Manager, District 120
Texas House of Representatives
Ken Roberts, City Administrator
City of Selma
Ryan Rocha, Airport Operations Manager
City of San Antonio
Angela Shields, CEO/ President
San Antonio Board of Realtors
Terry Trevino, Director of Economic Development
City of Seguin
Margaret Wallace, Chief of Staff, District 119
Texas House of Representatives
Advisory
The Advisory (AC) served a key role in the development of the ]BSA- Randolph ]LUS, providing the overall technical support,
review, and guidance of the study. The Advisory Committee comprised the following individuals:
Michael Barrow, District 35
U.S. House of Representatives
Robert Brach, Development Services Engineer
County of Bexar
Bob Cantu, Chief of Staff
City of Schertz
Billy Classen, Representative
Greater San Antonio Builders Association
Rick Cortes, Assistant City Manager
City of Seguin
Arthur Emerson, Commissioner
Texas Military Preparedness Commission
Jesus Garza, AICP, Office of Military Affairs
City of San Antonio
Maureen Goodrich, Asset Management, Community Planner
(Former)
]BSA
Lt. Col. Courtney Hamilton, 12th Operations Support Squadron
12TH FTW, ]BSA- Randolph
Robert Herrera, City Manager
City of Cibolo
Richard Hetzel, Representative
County of Guadalupe
Linda Jackson, District 120
Texas House of Representatives
Christopher Looney, Policy Administrator,
Development Services
City of San Antonio
Ron Lozano, Support Specialist
FAA, Air Traffic Control Division
Jordan Matney, Economic and Community
Development Manager
City of Live Oak
John McCaw, Councilman
City of Garden Ridge
Michael Moore, President
Real Estate Council of San Antonio
John Quintanilla, Assistant City Manager
City of Converse
Ryan Rocha, Airport Operations Manager
City of San Antonio
Michele Ross, Representative
San Antonio Board of Realtors
Darcie Schipull, Transportation Planner
Texas Department of Transportation
Kim Turner, Development Services Director
City of Universal City
Larry Verner, Engineer
City of Selma
Dawn Ann Larios, District o9
Wait Williams, Representative
Texas House ofRepresentatives
County ofGuadalupe
Jamamvvimnber|eV, 502 CssICcmpL
]BSA
AC Alternates
�
Lt. Col. Robin ma|dnvnn omauororSts/r
m�^���ue^mmmamn'oo�cmrofpub��wm��
'
12�h FTVV,]BSA-Rando|ph
City of City
Allen Dwmm Representative
mimami�on-�am�a���7��'��nnmgpmnage,
'
County ofGuadalupe
City of San Antonio
Timothy Ginn, Program Office Governor
m�te�i:vam' Executive Director,
TexasMi|itaryPrepanednessCommisaion
City of Converse Economic Development
Corporation
Gabriel Gonzales, Community Planner
Wiley Smith, AzCP, Community Planner
JoSA
]nSx
J. Landon Kama Representative '
Lesa Wood, Senior Planner
Real Estate Council of San Antonio
City nfSchertz
C ounty of Bemcar
Robert Brach, p.E., Development
Services Engineer
County of8oxar Public Works
JILUS Consultant
�
Celeste Werner, mICP
Rick Rust,mmCp
Project Manager
Technical Manager
Matrix i
DESMN GROUP_i,� xuikeHrapUa
Michele Zehrxumro
Deputy Project Manager
Planning Lead
�
Please see the next page.
Acronyms®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ......................aaaaaaaaaa ................ ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®®
Introduction....................................................................... ............................1 -1
What Is a Joint Land Use Study? ........................................... ............................1 -1
Why Prepare a Joint Land Use Study? .................................... ............................1 -2
PublicOutreach ........ ___ ............ ...... ................................................ ...........1 -2
JLUSStudy Area ................................................................. ............................1 -5
JLUS Implementation .......................................................... ............................1 -6
JLUSOrganization ............................................................... ............................1 -6
CommunityProfile ............................... ............................... 2-1
Introduction....................................................................... ............................2 -1
RegionalOverview .............................................................. ............................2-1
MilitaryProfile ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ............. ...Qe.......................... -
Introduction....................................................................... ............................3 -1
Regional Economic Impact ................................................... ............................3 -1
JBSA - Randolph ................................................................... ............................3 -2
]BSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield .......................................... ............................... 3 -24
Stinson Municipal Airport ................................................ ............................... 3 -33
Existing a i ili y Tools w®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ® ........................ ® ® ® ® ®® -
Introduction....................................................................... ............................4 -1
Federal and Military Programs and Initiatives .......................... ............................4 -1
]BSA- Randolph Plans and Programs ...................................... ............................4 -5
State of Texas Legislation, Agencies / Programs, and Initiatives / Other
Information..................................................................... ............................4 -6
Regional Planning Information and Tools ............................... ...........................4 -11
County and Local Jurisdiction Planning Tools ......................... ...........................4 -11
OtherResources ................................................................ ...........................4 -29
CompatibilityAssessment .®®®®®®®RRRRRRRR RR ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® .............aaaaa _ -
5.0
Introduction .............................................................. ............................5 -1
5.1
Alternative Energy Development ............................ ...............................
5.1 -1
5.2
Anti - Terrorism / Force Protection ........................... ...............................
5.2 -1
5.3
Communication / Coordination .............................. ...............................
5.3 -1
5.4
Dust, Smoke, and Steam ...................................... ...............................
5.4 -1
5.5
Local Housing Availability.......... ...........................................................
5.5-1
5.6
Infrastructure Extensions ........................................... ..........................5.6
-1
5.7
Land / Air Space Competition ................................ ...............................
5.7 -1
5.8
Land Use ............................................................ ...............................
5.8 -1
5.9
Legislative Initiatives ........................................... ...............................
5.9 -1
5.10
Light and Glare .................................................. ...............................
5.10 -1
5.11
Noise and Vibration ............................................ ...............................
5.11 -1
5.12
Roadway Capacity ............................................. ...............................
5.12 -1
5.13
Safety .............................................................. ...............................
5.13 -1
5.14
Vertical Obstructions ................. ............................... .........................5.14
-1
5.15
Water Quality and Quantity ................................. ...............................
5.15 -1
Appendix®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®ee.e.e.e. B............ ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®® —
1 -1age c
Tables and Figures
Table
1 -1
JLUS Responsibilities and Participants ......................................................... ............................... 1 -4
Table
2 -1
Population Change 2000 -2010 JBSA- Randolph JLUS Area .............................. ...............................
2 -5
Table
2 -2
Population Projections 2010 -2040 JBSA- Randolph JLUS Area ......................... ...............................
2 -6
Table
2 -3
Median Income 2000 -2011 ........................................................................... ...........................2
-10
Table
2 -4
Median House Value 2000 -2011 .................................................................... ...........................2
-10
Table
2 -5
Median Monthly Rental Rates 2000 - 2011 ........................................................ ...........................2
-10
Table
2 -6
JBSA- Randolph BAN for Military Personnel 2013 .............................................. ...........................2
-12
Table
2 -7
Employment Communities ............................................................................ ...........................2
-23
Table
3 -1
JBSA Economic Impacts, FY 2012 ............................................................... ...............................
3 -2
Table
3 -2
JBSA -R Flight Operations ........................................................................... ...............................
3 -4
Table
3 -3
JBSA -R Military Training Routes and Slow Speed Low Altitude Training Routes .... ...........................3
-22
Table
3 -4
Runway Dimensional Standards / Stinson Municipal Airport Runway Deficiencies . ...........................3
-36
Table
4 -1
Local Political Subdivision Planning Tools ........................................................ ...........................4
-13
Table
5 -1.1
Ordinances Regulating Alternative Energy ................ ...... ..........................................................
5.1 -1
Table
5 -3.1
Subdivision and Zoning Review Periods for Cities with Property Affected by AICUZ Safety Zones .....
5.3 -6
Table
5 -8.1
Plans and Ordinances Referencing AICUZ ..... ....................................................................... .....5.8
-1
Table
5 -8.2
FARs for Land Use Compatibility in APZs ......................................................... ..........................5.8
-4
Table
5 -10.1
Comparison of Lighting Regulations ............................... ............................... .........................5.10
-6
Table
5 -11.1
AICUZ Noise Compatibility for Zoning Districts in Communities Under JBSA -R Contours ...............5.11
-4
Table
5 -11.2
AICUZ Noise Compatibility for Zoning Districts Under JBSA- Seguin Noise Contours ......................5.11
-8
Table
5 -11.3
FAA Noise Compatibility for Zoning Districts Under Stinson Municipal Airport Noise Contours ......
5.11 -12
Table
5 -12 -1
San Antonio -Bexar Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan Projects Relevant to the
JBSA -R Area ............................................................... ............................... .........................
5.12 -5
Table
5 -13.1
2011 DODI 4165.57 Guidelines for Compatible Land Uses within the Aircraft Accident
PotentialZones ........................................................... ............................... .........................
5.13 -8
Table
5 -13.2
Evaluation of Zoning against AICUZ Guidelines in Accident Potential Zones ...............................
5.13 -13
Table
5 -13.3
UDC Zoning Density and AICUZ Evaluation for Property in JBSA- Seguin Safety Zones ................
5.13 -16
Table
5 -14.1
Evaluation of Community Zoning Specified Building Heights ............................. .........................5.14
-1
Table
5 -14.2
Telecommunication Antennas (Towers) Summary and Review Evaluation .......... .........................5.14
-6
Figure1-1
JLUS Study Area ....................................................................................... ............................... 1 -6
Figure
2 -1
2008 Population by County TAZ ................................................................. ...............................
2 -7
Figure
2 -2
2035 Population by County TAZ ................................................................. ...............................
2 -8
Figure
2 -3
Population Change by County TAZ .............................................................. ...............................
2 -9
Figure
2 -4
Major Employment Sectors in the San Antonio MSA 2007 - 2011 ......................... ...........................2
-11
Figure
2 -5
Single - Family Housing Building Permits 2000 - 2012 .......................................... ...........................2
-13
Figure
2 -6
Multi - Family Housing Building Permits 2000 -2012 ........................................... ...........................2
-13
Figure
2-7
Automotive Sector ...................................................................................... ___ ...................
Z'15
Figure
2-8
Retail 1/ Office Sector .................................................................. ____ ......... ___ ...............
2-1h
Figure
2-9
Retail Z/ Industrial Sector .......................................................................................................
2-17
Figure
2-10
Hospitality Sector ............. ..................................................................... .................
2'18
Figure
2-11
Retail Secton3/HealthCane/Medica|Office8uildiogs---------------------2-19
Figure
2-12
Retail 4 / Entertainment Sector .................................................................
Figure
2-13
Recreational / Proposed Future ETJ
2-21
...........................................................................................
Figure
2-14
Study Area Major Transportation -------------------------------.2'25
Figure
3-1
]BSA'R Economic Impacts ................... ___ ............................................................................
3-2
Figure
3-2
Flight Tracks - Open J8SA-Rando|ph .........................................................................................
3-8
Figure
3-3
Flight Tracks - Closed ]BSA-Randuph ..... -----................................................................
3'9
Figure
3-4
Noise Contours ]BS4-Rando|ph ................................................................................................
J-1U
Figure
3-5
Safety Zones ]nSx-nando|ph ...................................................................................................
]'zZ
Figure
3-6
Example Cross-section nf Imaginary Surfaces ............................................................................
-14
Figure
3-7
Airfield Imaginary Surfaces ]sSx-nandolph ...............................................................................
'z5
Figure
3-8
FAA Part 77]GSA-Rando|ph ............................................................................................ ........
3'10
Figure
3-9
BASH Relevancy Area ]B5A-Randolph .......................................................................................
3-18
Figure
3-10
Special Use Airspace ]BSA-Randoph ... ---------............................................... — ......
3'20
Figure
3-11
Alert Area A-03S]B5A-Randolph ..............................................................................................
'Z3
Figure
3-12
Flight Tracks - Open JeBx-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ....................................................................
3'35
Figure
3-13
Noise Contours ]BSA-Segu|n Auxiliary Airfield ............................................................................
-27
Figure
3-14
Safety Zones JGSA-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ..............................................................................
J'28
Figure
3-15
Imaginary Surfaces JBSA-5egu|n Auxiliary Airfield ................ ___ ........ ___ ...............................
3-29
Figure
3-16
FAA Part 77JBSA-5eguin Auxiliary Airfield ................................................................................
]-J0
Figure
3-17
BASH Relevancy Area JBSA-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ..................................................................
3'31
Figure
3-18
Alert Area A+63D]G5A-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield .........................................................................
3-32
Figure
3-19
Noise Contours Stinson Municipal Airport ...................................................................................
3']5
Figure
3-20
Safety Zones Stinson Municipal Airport .----------------------------3-37
Figure
3-21
FAA Part 77 Stinson Municipal Airport .......................................................................................
J~4U
Figure
3-22
BASH Relevancy Area Stinson Municipal Airport ........... -----.............................................
3-41
Figure
5-3.1
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Under Airshow Aerobatic Box JBSA-Randolph Airfield ....................
5.3-3
Figure
5-3.2
Evaluation nf Zoning Under xirshmwxembaUc Box ]oSx'nandu|ph Airfield ...................................
5.]-1
Figure
5-3.3
Perpetual Clear Zone Easement ]B5A'Rando|ph Airfield ..............................................................
G3'7
Figure
5-7.1
Airspace Competition JBSA-Randolph Airfield, JBSA-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield, Stinson
MunicipalAirport ...................................................................................................................
5J'2
Figure
5'9.1
Controlled Compatible Land Use Area ]BSx'nendolph Airfield ......................................................
5.9'Z
Figure
5-9.2
Controlled Compatible Land Use Area ]RSA-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield .............. -------.......
5.9-3
Figure
5-9.3
Controlled Compatible Land Use Area Stinson Municipal Airport ...................................................
S.9'5
Figure
5.10-1
Horizontal Plane for Floodlights .................. ---------.................................. ----5.1O-1
Figure
5.11-1
Sound Levels Comparison ind8 .............................................................................................
5.11-1
Figure
5.11-2
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Within Airfield Noise Contours ]BSx'nandolph Airfield .................
5.11-3
Figure
5-11.3
Evaluation nf Future LandUseVVithinAirOeldNniseContnursJGSA-Randolph----------S-11.O
Page iii
Figure 5 -11.4
Evaluation of Zoning Within Airfield Noise Contours J BSA - Randolph .................. .........................5.11 -7
Figure 5 -11.5
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Within Airfield Noise Contours JBSA- Seguin Auxililary Airfield ......5.11
-9
Figure 5 -11.6
Evaluation of Future Land Use Within Airfield Noise Contours JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield .......
5.11 -10
Figure 5 -11.7
Evaluation of Zoning Within Airfield Noise Contours JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ....................
5.11 -11
Figure 5 -11.8
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Within Airfield Noise Contours Stinson Municipal Airport ............
5.11 -13
Figure 5 -11.9
Evaluation of Zoning Within Airfield Noise Contours Stinson Municipal Airport ...........................
5.11 -14
Figure 5 -13.1A
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Within Northern Airfield Safety Zones JBSA- Randolph Airfield .......
5.13 -2
Figure 5 -13.1B
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Within Southern Airfield Safety Zones JBSA- Randolph Airfield ......5.13
-3
Figure 5 -13.2A
Evaluation of Future Land Use Within Northern Airfield Safety Zones JBSA- Randolph Airfield .........
5.13 -4
Figure 5 -13.2B
Evaluation of Future Land Use Within Southern Airfield Safety Zones JBSA - Randolph Airfield ........5.13
-5
Figure 5 -13.3A
Evaluation of Zoning Within Northern Airfield Safety Zones JBSA- Randolph Airfield ......................5.13
-6
Figure 5 -13.3B
Evaluation of Zoning Within Southern Airfield Safety Zones JBSA- Randolph Airfield ...... .... .... ... ....
5.13 -7
Figure 5 -13.4
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Within Airfield Safety Zones ]BSA-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ........
5.13 -17
Figure 5 -13.5
Evaluation of Future Land Use Within Airfield Safety Zones JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ..........
5.13 -18
Figure 5 -13.6
Evaluation of Zoning Within Airfield Safety Zones JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ........................
5.13 -20
Figure 5 -13.7
Evaluation of Existing Land Use Within Runway Protection Zones Stinson Municipal Airport.........
5.13 -21
Figure 5 -13.8
Evaluation of Future Land Use Within Runway Protection Zones Stinson Municipal Airport...........
5.13 -22
Figure 5 -13.9
Evaluation of Zoning Within Runway Protection Zones Stinson Municipal Airport ........................
5.13 -23
Figure 5 -13.10
Bird Strike Summary for FY 2012 and FY 2013______ ....................................................
5.13 -24
Figure 5 -13.11
BASH Concerns JBSA- Randolph Airfield ................................................. ...............................
5.13 -25
Figure 5 -13.12
BASH Concerns JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ........................................ ...............................
5.13 -26
Figure 5- 13.13A
Instrument Landing Signal Area Concern for Runway 14L JBSA- Randolph Airfield ......................
5 -13.30
Figure 5.13.13B
Detailed Instrument Landing Signal Area Concern for Runway 14L JBSA- Randolph Airfield..........
5 -13.31
Figure 5 -14.1
Vertical Obstruction Potential Adjacent to Airfield - Future Land Use ]BSA-Randolph Airfield ..... ....5.14
-4
Figure 5 -14.2
Vertical Obstruction Potential Adjacent to Airfield - Zoning JBSA- Randolph Airfield ......................5.14
-5
Figure 5 -14.3
Vertical Obstructions Affecting Navigable Airspace JBSA- Randolph Airfield . ...............................
5.14 -12
Figure 5 -14.4
Vertical Obstructions Affecting Navigable Airspace JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield ......................
5.14 -13
Figure 5 -14.5
Vertical Obstructions Affecting Navigable Airspace Stinson Municipal Airport .............................
5.14 -14
A-
AACOG
ABW
AC
AC
Acq
ACP
AAFES
ADS -B
AE
AETC
AFB
AFCEC
AFD
AFH
AGL
AICUZ
AIM
AHOD
APZ
ASR
AT
ATC
ATCT
AT /FP
ATM
B -1
B -1
B -2
B -2
B -3
BAH
BASH
BO
BRAC
C4 / C5
C -1 / C -2
C- 1 /C -3/
C -4
C -5
C -3
CC
CCLUA
CCMA
CFR
CIP
COM
Comm
COSA
CP
CPS
CWA
CY
CZ
Alert Area
Alamo Area Council of Governments
Air Base Wing
Advisory Committee
Advisory Circular
Acquisition
Access Control Point
Army and Air Force Exchange Service
Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast
Alternative Energy Development
Air Education Training Command
Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Engineering and Construction
Air Force Directive
Air Force Handbook
above ground level
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
Air Information Manual
Airport Hazard Overlay District
Accident Potential Zone
Airport Surveillance Radar
Anti- Terrorism / Force Protection
air traffic control
Air Traffic Control Tower
Anti - Terrorism / Force Protection
Air Traffic Management
Neighborhood Service (Garden Ridge)
Office and Professional (Live Oak)
Office and Professional (Garden Ridge)
Neighborhood Service (Live Oak)
General Business (Live Oak)
basic allowance for housing
Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard
Biological Opinion
Base Realignment and Closure
Commercial (Universal City)
Commercial (Selma)
Commercial Services (Universal City)
Highway Commercial (Universal City)
Commercial (San Antonio)
Country Club / Adjoining Residential (Garden Ridge)
Controlled Compatible Land Use Area
Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority
Code of Federal Regulations
Capital Improvement Program
Communication / Coordination
Communication and Coordination
City of San Antonio
Comprehensive Plan
CPS Energy
Clean Water Act
Calendar Year
Clear Zone
DAR
Defense Access Roads Program
I -1
Light Industrial (Live Oak)
dB
decibel
I -2
Medium Industrial (Live Oak)
DBS
Direct - Broadcast System
I
Interstate
Disc
Real Estate Disclosures
ICRMP
Integrated Cultural Resources
DOD /DoD
Department of Defense
Management Plan
DNL
Day -night level
IE
Infrastructure Extensions
DR
developed residential (Live Oak)
IFR
instrument flight rule
DSS
Dust, Smoke and Steam
IGA
Intergovernmental Agreements
ICRMP
Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan
IR
instrument route (general aviation)
ITS
Intelligent Transportation Systems
EA
Environmental Assessment
EAE
established airfield elevation
IN 11
EC
Executive Committee
ECF
entry control facility
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
JAZB
Joint Airport Zoning Board
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
]BSA
Joint Base San Antonio
ESA
Endangered Species Act
JBSA -R
Joint Base San Antonio - Randolph
ERZD
Edwards Recharge Overlay District
JBSA -S
Joint Base San Antonio - Seguin Auxiliary
(San Antonio)
Airfield
ETJ
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
JLUS
Joint Land Use Study
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
L
Light Industrial (San Antonio)
FAR
Floor to Area Ratio
LAS
Land, Air and Sea Space Competition
FM
Farm to Market
LEG
Legislative Initiatives
FONSI
Finding of No Significant Impact
Leg
Legislative Tools
FPCON
force protection condition
LG
Light and Glare
FR
Farm and Ranch (San Antonio)
LI
Light Industrial (Garden Ridge, Selma)
ft
feet (unit of measurement)
LOA
Letter of Agreement
FTW
Flying Training Wing
LOS
Level of Service
FY
fiscal year
LU
Land Use
LUE
living unit equivalents
GB / GB -2
General Business (Schertz)
GIS
Geographic / Geospatial Information
m
meter (unit of measurement)
System
M -1 / M -2
Manufacturing (Schertz)
GLUP
General Land Use Plan
MF -2 /
Multi- Family Residential (Selma)
M F -3
MF -33
Multi - Family Residential (San Antonio)
MI -1
Mixed Light Industrial (San Antonio)
MACA
Mid -Air Collision Avoidance
MAOZ
Military Airport Overlay Zone
HA
Housing Availability
MARSA
Military Assumes Responsibility for
Hab
Habitat Conservation Tools
Separation
HQ
Headquarters
MIA
Military Influence Area
HUD
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
MIAOD
Military Influence Area Overlay District
Development
MLOD
Military Lighting Overlay District
MOA
Military operating area
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
mph
miles per hour
MPO
Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTTF
Military Transformation Task Force
M54s
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
n
Single-family Dwelling (Garden Ridge)
M6«
Metropolitan Statistical Area
R5
Multi-Family Residential (Universal City)
MSG
Mission Support Group
n'1
Single-Family Residential ([onverse'
MSL
mean sea level
Selma)
MTR
Military Training Route
n'4, n,5
Single-Family Residential (San Antonin)
MU
Municipal Use (Garden Ridge)
R-5
Apartment / Multi-Family Residential (Live
Oak)
R-S
Mobile Home/ Manufactured Home
(Converse)
R-O
Single-Family Residential Small Lot
mAAQ5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(Converse)
NACn
National Association of Counties
R-OT
0|d Town Residential (Universal City)
mAS
national airspace system
RA (R-)
Restricted Airspace
NEP
Northeast Partnership for Economic
RAFG
Randolph Air Force Base
Development
RAMS
random antiterrorism measures
NextGen
Next Generation Air Transportation System
RC
Roadway Capacity
NGO
Nongovernmental Organization
ne[S4
Real estate Council of San Antonio
NHpA
National Historic Preservation Act
REpI
Readiness Environmental Protection
NLR
Noise Level Reduction
Initiative
NM
Nautical Mile
RNAV
Area Navigation
mOA«
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
nNo
Randolph Tower
Administration
RpZ
Runway Protection Zone
mOT4m
Notice tnAirmen
RSA
Runway Safety Area
NOV
Notice of Value
mp'zU
Neighborhood Preservation (San Antonio)
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NTTG
New Technology Implementation Grants
S4aUR
San Antonio Board of Realtors
Program
SAF
Safety Zones
NV
Noise and Vibration
SAT
Sun Antonio International Airport
NZ
Noise Zone
SAWS
San Antonio Water System
SowA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SIP
Strategic Impact Plan
Sn
State Highway
SLUCM
Standard Land Use Code Manual
OE
Obstruction Evaluation
SR
Slow speed low altitude training mute
IDEA
Office of Economic Adjustment
STARS
Standard Terminal Automation
0p4
Object Free Area
Replacement System
Orz
Obstacle Free Zone
ST[
Sound Transmission Class
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
SUA
Special Use Airspace
Op
Office Professional (Selma)
SvvES
Small Wind Energy Systems
SWIFT
State Water Implementation Fund for
Texas
211000000=
SVVIFRT
State Water Implementation Revenue Fund
for Texas
5VVIM
System Wide Information Management
pO[
point-of-contact
PRE
Pre-Development (Schertz)
Private Real Property Rights Preservation
Jill
PRPRPA
Act
pUo
Planned Unit Development (Sdma)
PV
photovoltaic
TAZ
traffic analysis zones
PVC
polyvinyl chloride pipe
TAR
Texas Association ofRealtors
T8D
Tobedetermined
TCE0
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TIA
Takings Impact Assessment
TnEC
Texas Real Estate Commission
TSDC
Texas State Data Center
Tx
Texas
TXDOT
Texas Department nfTransportation
���
UAS
Unmanned Aerial System (Vehicle)
UDC
Unified Development Code
UPRR
Union Pacific Railroad
U.S.
United States
USAF
United States Air Force
USAHAS
United States Avian Hazard Advisory System
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VA
Veterans Administration
VMC
Visual Meteorological Conditions
VO
Vertical Obstructions
VFR
visual flight rule
VR
visual route (general aviation)
Z -1 Industrial (Garden Ridge)
Zon Zoning Ordinance / Subdivision Regulations
Introduction
Military installations are critical to local economies, generating thousands of jobs and
millions of dollars in economic activity and tax revenue annually. In the past,
incompatible development has been a factor in the loss of training operations and
restructuring of mission - critical components to various military installations. To protect
the missions of military installations and the health of the economies and industries that
rely on them, encroachment must be addressed through collaboration and joint planning
between installations and local communities. This Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) attempts
to strengthen coordination between the local communities and Joint Base
San Antonio - Randolph (JBSA - Randolph) and mitigate future potential issues.
]BSA-Randolph is located in south - central Texas, approximately ten miles northeast of
downtown San Antonio. The installation encompasses 2,894 acres of land which includes
two runways, as well as facilities and 961 acres at the JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airport in
Seguin, Texas twenty miles to the east. JBSA- Randolph occasionally utilizes facilities at
the Stinson Municipal Airport, which is owned and operated by the City of San Antonio,
located five miles south of downtown San Antonio and situated on 360 acres.
Several communities around JBSA- Randolph are participating partners in the JLUS
including Bexar and Guadalupe Counties and the Cities of Cibolo, Converse, Garden
Ridge, Live Oak, San Antonio, Schertz, Seguin, Selma, and Universal City. An organized
communication effort between these jurisdictions, ]BSA-Randolph, and other stakeholder
jurisdictions and entities that own or manage land or resources in the region is needed
to ensure that future growth around JBSA- Randolph is coordinated and is compatible
with military training activities.
The ]BSA-Randolph JLUS advocates a proactive approach to increasing communication
about decisions relating to land use regulation, conservation, and natural resource
management affecting communities and the military. This study seeks to avoid conflicts
previously experienced between the United States (U.S.) military and local communities
in other areas of the U.S. and throughout the world by engaging the military and local
decision- makers in a collaborative process.
What Is A Joint Land Use Study?
A JLUS is a planning process accomplished through the collaborative efforts of a
comprehensive list of stakeholders in a defined study area. It is a process designed to
identify and determine ways to enhance compatible land uses and growth management
practices within, and adjacent to, active military installations. Stakeholders can include
local community, state, and federal officials; residents; business owners; local tribal
governments; nongovernmental organizations; and the military. The JLUS process
seeks to establish and encourage a working relationship among military installations and
their proximate communities to think and act as a team to address compatibility issues
and prevent and / or reduce encroachment associated with future mission expansion and
local growth. Although primarily federally funded by a grant from the Department of
Defense (DOD), Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), the sponsoring community entity
must provide a funding match of 10% of the approved project budget. In lieu of actual
monies, the local match is typically provided through staff allotment and effort. The
requirement for the local match ensures that the local communities have a stake in the
process and that the JLUS is produced by and for local communities. The sponsoring
entity for the JBSA- Randolph is the County of Bexar.
It is important to preserve long -term land use compatibility between ]BSA-Randolph and
the surrounding jurisdictions to enable better protection of the health, safety, and
welfare of the surrounding communities and the civilian and military community at
JBSA- Randolph. The JLUS represents collaboration between JBSA- Randolph and the
local county and city governments for the purpose of planning for compatible land use,
while ensuring the continued presence of the military.
Page 1-1
JLUS Goal
The goal of the JBSA- Randolph JLUS is to protect the
viability of current and future military training operations,
while simultaneously guiding community growth,
sustaining the environmental and economic health of the
region, and protecting public health, safety, and welfare.
JLUS Objectives
To help meet this goal, three primary JLUS objectives
were identified.
Understanding. Convene community and
military representatives to identify, confirm, and
understand the issues in an open forum, taking
into consideration both community and
JBSA- Randolph perspectives and needs. This
includes public awareness, education, and input
organized into a cohesive outreach program.
Collaboration. Encourage cooperative land use
and resource planning among JBSA- Randolph and
the surrounding communities so that future
community growth and development are
compatible with the training and operational
missions at ]BSA-Randolph. Concurrently, seek
ways to reduce operational impacts on adjacent
lands proximate to the installation.
Actions. Provide a set of mutually supported
tools, activities, and procedures from which local
jurisdictions, agencies, and the JBSA- Randolph can
select, prepare, and approve / adopt and then use
to implement the recommendations developed
during the JLUS process. The actions proposed
include both operational measures to mitigate
installation impacts on surrounding communities
and local government and agency approaches to
reduce community impacts on military operations.
These collective tools will help decision makers
resolve compatibility issues and prioritize projects
within the annual budgeting process of their
respective entity / jurisdiction.
Joint Why Prepare A
Use Study?
Although military installations and nearby communities
may be separated by a fence line, they often share
natural and manmade resources such as land, airspace,
water, and infrastructure. Despite the many positive
interactions among local jurisdictions, agencies, and the
military, the activities or actions of one entity can pose
unintended negative impacts on another, resulting in
conflicts. As communities develop and expand in
response to growth and market demands, land use
approvals have the ability to locate potentially
incompatible development closer to military installations
and operational / training areas. The result can initiate
new or exacerbate existing land use and other
compatibility issues - often referred to as encroachment.
These issues can have negative impacts on community
safety, economic development, and sustainment of
military activities and readiness. This threat to military
readiness activities is currently one of the military's
greatest concerns.
Collaboration and joint planning among military
installations, local communities, and agencies should
occur to protect the long -term viability of existing and
future military missions. This cooperation also enhances
the health of economies and industries within the local
communities. Recognizing the close relationship that
exists between installations and adjacent communities,
the OEA implemented the JLUS program in an effort to
help mitigate existing and future conflicts and enhance
communication and coordination among all affected
stakeholders. The aim of the program is to help preserve
the sustainability of local communities proximate to the
installation, while helping to protect current and future
operational and training missions of the neighboring
military service.
Public Outreach
As previously stated and highlighted in the JLUS
objectives, the JLUS process is designed to create a
locally relevant plan that builds consensus and obtains
support from the various stakeholders involved. To
achieve the JLUS goals and objectives, the
JBSA- Randolph JLUS process included a public outreach
program with a variety of opportunities for stakeholders
and interested parties to contribute to its development.
An early step in any planning process is the identification
of stakeholders. Informing or involving stakeholders
early in the project is instrumental in the identification of
critically important compatibility issues. Of equal
importance, is their involvement to address and resolve
the issues through the development of integrated
strategies and measures. Stakeholders include
individuals, groups, organizations, and governmental
entities interested in, affected by, or affecting the
outcome of the JLUS project. Stakeholders identified for
the JBSA- Randolph JLUS include, but were not limited to,
the following:
Local jurisdictions (cities and counties);
DOD officials (including OEA representatives) and
military installation personnel;
Local, regional, and state planning, regulatory, and
land management agencies;
Landholding and regulatory federal agencies;
The public (including residents and landowners);
Advocacy organizations;
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and,
Other special interest groups (including local
educational institutions and school districts).
JLUS Executive Committee (EC) — The EC typically
consists of officials from participating jurisdictions,
military installation leadership, and representatives from
other interested and affected agencies. The EC is
responsible for the overall direction of the JLUS,
preparation and approval of the study design, approval of
policy recommendations, and approval of the draft and
final JLUS documents.
JLUS Advisory Committee (AC) — The AC is
responsible for identifying and studying technical issues.
Members typically include municipal and military
planners, community business and development
representatives, natural resource protection
organizations, and, as needed, other subject matter
experts. The AC assists in reviewing the analysis and
developing and evaluating the implementation strategies
and tools. Items discussed by the AC were brought
before the EC for consideration and decision.
The EC and AC members serve as liaisons to their
respective stakeholder groups. EC and AC members
were responsible for conveying committee activities and
information to their organizations and constituencies.
They were also responsible for relaying their
organization's comments and suggestions to their
respective committees for consideration. To facilitate
additional input from their organizations and
constituents, EC members were encouraged to set up
meetings with their organizations and / or constituencies
to facilitate this input. The responsibilities and list of
participants for the sponsoring entities, the EC, and the
AC are identified in Table 1 -1.
Meetings with the EC and AC members were held
throughout the process to ensure the JLUS identified and
appropriately addressed local issues. The meetings
conducted are highlighted below:
Meeting #1 (July g, 2013). One meeting was
held for the EC and AC each. These meetings
served as the initial kick -off for the committees.
An overview of the JLUS project and information
on the JLUS program and process were provided at
the meetings. At the end of the meetings,
attendees were asked to identify any current or
potential future compatibility issues.
Meeting #2 (October and 17, 2013). One
meeting was held for the EC and AC each. These
meetings served to provide a review of the data
collected from the participating entities as well as
provide an update on the communities' future
growth and military mission footprint. At the end
of the meetings, attendees were asked to assist in
successfully closing out any outstanding data
requirements and be prepared to discuss current
or potential future compatibility issues at
Meeting #3.
AC Meeting #3 (February 13, 2014).. This was
an all -day AC workshop covering discussions and
prioritization of the compatibility issues for the
JLUS during the morning half, and providing their
ideas about workable strategies around table -size
posters for the JLUS issues in the afternoon.
AC Meeting # (May 8, 2014). This AC meeting
presented a JLUS status update on the initial
strategies and maps, and discussed the small area
studies task and related memoranda.
EC Meeting #3 (May g, 2014). This EC meeting
presented a JLUS status update on the public
workshop held the night before, initial strategies
and maps, and discussed the small area studies
task and related memoranda.
AC Meeting #S (September 11, 2014). This
meeting presented a JLUS progress update and
discussed the new strategies and maps that were
recommended from one -on -one meetings held
with several jurisdictions.
EC Meeting # (September 12, 2014). This
meeting presented a JLUS progress update from
the last EC meeting and discussed the new
strategies and maps with the AC feedback
provided in their meeting the day before.
• AC Meeting # (April 7, 2015). This meeting
presented a revised Draft JLUS and discussed
refinements based on comment received from the
AC, one -on -one meetings held with several
jurisdictions, telecon meetings with stakeholders,
and email correspondence. Revisions to the
strategies were also discussed.
• EC Meeting #S (April 13, 2015). This meeting
presented a JLUS progress update from the
previous EC meeting, proposed Texas legislative
changes, and discussion of revisions per the AC
feedback received the previous week.
Joint EC / PC Meeting (July 2, 2015). This
meeting presented the Final JLUS incorporating
comments from the public review. The JLUS
received acceptance by committee vote. Public
hearings for the County Commissions and City
Councils to consider adoption of the JLUS would be
subsequently scheduled.
Table 1-1. J0US Responsibilities and Participants
~
Coordination
~ Office vf Economic Adjustment
~ Accountability
~ County maexar Public Works
~ Grant Management
~ Financial Contribution
~ Policy Direction
~ c|tv of Converse, Mayor
~ Study Oversight
~ city of Garden Ridge, City Administrator
� Monitoring
° City of Live Oak, City Manager's Office
~ Report Adoption
~ c|/v of San Antonio, cvuncnmemuer, District
~ City of San Antonio, zn,cmauvnu| Airport Aviation Director
° City of San Antonio, Office of Military Affairs, Director
~ City vfschertz,Cnuncnmemue,
~ City of Seguin, cnunci|member
� City ofSelma, City Administrator
~ c|/v of Universal cuv, Mayor
~ county oreexa,Commissioner, pnsmct s
~ County of Guadalupe, Commissioner, Precinct z
~ County m Guadalupe, Commissioner, Precinct *
~ Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic cuntm| Division
~ Greater San Antonio Builders Association
~ JesA' Commander, 502oAmw
~ ]BSA-Randolph, Commander, znmpTw
~ xeo| Estate Council of San Antonio
° San Antonio Board ofRealtors
~ State m Texas House or Representatives, Representative, District zz8
~ State vr Texas House vf Representatives, Representative, District 119
= State nfTexas House o[Representatives, Representative, District zzo
~ Texas Military Preparedness Commission, Commissioner
~ U.S. House or Representatives for the State or Texas, District ss
~ Identify Issues
~ City orConverse
~ pmv|ue Expertise to Address Technical
~ City ofGarden Ridge
Issues
° City or Live Oak
~ Evaluate and Recommend Implementation
~ c|tv of San Antonio International m,pun
Options to the EC
~ c|tv of San Antonio Office of Military Affairs
= Provide Draft and Final Report
~ City of San Antonio Planning and Community Development !
Recommendations m the *c
~ City ofschertz
~ City ofSeguin
" City vrUniversal City
" County ofeexar Development Services `
~ County nfeexar, Commissioner, Precinct
~ County of Guadalupe, Commissioner, Precinct z `
� County vfGuadalupe, Commissioner, Precinct 4 �
~ Federal Aviation Administration
~ Greater San Antonio Builders Association
� JesA'zot^pTw Operations Support Squadron
~ Joint Base San Antonio
~ Real estate County ofSan Antonio
� San Antonio Board ofRealtors
~ State nf Texas House or Representatives, Representative, District zz8
~ State ur Texas House nrRepresentatives, Representative, District 119
~ State vrTexas House vfRepresentatives, Representative, District zzn
~ Texas Military Preparedness Commission
~ U.S. House vr Representatives for the State ur Texas, District ss
����
Public Forums
0 Public Forum #5 (July 1,20t5)—Sobertz
In addition to the EC and A[ meetings, a series ofpublic
Civic Center Sohertz Texas- The forum
forums were held throughout the development ofthe
presented the Final ]LUSto the public with
JLUS. These forums provided an opportunity for the
incorporated comments and feedback received
exchange n[ information with the greater community.
during the public review period. The Final ]uUS
The public assisted in identifying the issues to be
was made available on the project website prior to
addressed in tha]LUS and provided input on the
the public forum.
strategies proposed. Each forum included a traditional
presentation and a facilitated exercise that provided a
Public Outreach Materials
"hands on" interactive opportunity for the public to
JLUS Overview / Compatibility Factors Brochure.
participate m the development nf the plan. The public
4t the beginning nf the ]uUS,a brochure was developed
forums conducted are highlighted below:
to describe the JLUS program and objectives, provide an
• Public Forum #1 (October 16, 2013) _ Jay F.
overview of the 24 compatibility factors that would be
Feibe;mman Garden Ridge Community Center,
analyzed throughout the project, and detail methods for
��r��n�/��������s. The forum provided
stakeholders and interested parties to pmvidainput in
public en overview nf the ]uJS project and
the ]LUSprocess. The brochure also included a figure of
information nn the ]LUS program and process.
the ]8SA'Rando|phJLUS proposed study area. This
During the course of the meeting, attendees were
brochure was made available at all meetings for review
asked about and engaged in exercises to identify
by stakeholders and interested parties aswell as
any current or potential future compatibility
*eboite created for the JB5A-Randolph ]LU5 and made
available for download.
'
• Public Forum #2(February 12, 2014)_
The aforementioned Z4 compatibility factors include a
Schertz Civic Center, Schertz, Texas. The first
wide variety ofman-made and natural resource
half nfthis public meeting provided a formal
elements; the complete list of factors is detailed within
presentation of ]LUS overview and update, the
Section 1.6. While every factor listed may not apply to
military profile with illustrative maps, and the
the ]eS«'nando|ph]LUS, the totality nf the factors
compatibility issues.
provides an effective tool to ensure acomprehensive
evaluation of all factors within the J8SA- Randolph ]LU5
The interactive portion of this workshop consisted
study area.
of the public identifying priorities for the issues by
placing sticky dots on wall-size posters to indicate
Strategy Tools �����m��. ]�US strategies include a
priority for each issue�
variety o(acbonsthat local governments, military
installations, agendas, and other stakeholders can take
• Public Forum #3 (May 8^ 2014} —Olymnpia
to promote compatible land use planning. This brochure
Hills Golf and Event Center, Universal City,
provides an overview of the strategy types that could be
Texas. The forum presented a]LUS overview and
applied to address compatibility issues around
update and an overview nf the military mission
]BSA-Randolph. �
impacts on the communities and community
`
impacts unthe military mission. Potential
Website^ zn addition to the two brochures, a project
strategies were generally discussed during the
websiLe was developed and maintained to provide
presentation of the mission impacts.
stakeholders, interested parties, the public, and media
representatives access to project information. This `
In addition, this public meeting comprised e large
websito was maintained for the entire duration of the
number of new attendees. Due to the number nf
project tn ensure information was easily accessible.
new attendees, Matrix provided a brief overview of
Information contained on the webs|te included program
what ]LUS is, its purpose, and the introductory
points of contact, schedules, documents, maps, public
items from the first public forum.
meeting information, and down|nadab|e comment forms. �
• Public Forum #4 (May 12, 2015) _ Sche'tz
The pnojectwebsite is located at www.jbsa'
Ciwic Center, Sche/tz'Texae. This public
randu|ph1|uo.com.
meeting presented the Public Draft JLUBtothe
communities and citizens to provide anoverview
JLUS Stud Area
o[ the documents. The meeting allowed the public
an opportunity to provide feedback and input to be
considered and incorporated in the Final ]LUS.The
The ]eSA'nando|ph]LUS study area is designed Ln
Public Draft ]LUS was made available onthe
evaluate and address all areas near J86A'Kandu|phand
prNoctwebsite prior to the public forum.
]BSA-Seguin Auxiliary Airfield and the City of
San Antonio-owned /operated Stinson Municipal Airport.
The evaluation includes a review of development and
activities that may impact current or future military
Page 1-5
operations or be impacted by these operations. The
]BSA-Randolph JLUS study area covers portions of Bexar,
Guadalupe, and Comal Counties and several of the cities
and jurisdictions within these counties.
The delineation of the study area boundaries was
determined based on the evaluation of the proximity of
adjacent areas to JBSA- Randolph, JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary
Airfield, and Stinson Municipal Airport and the anticipated
magnitude of impacts associated with various military
mission operations. Figure 1 -1 illustrates the overall
JBSA- Randolph JLUS study area.
Implementation JLUS
It is important to note that once the JLUS process is
completed, the final document is not an adopted plan. It
is a set of strategies to be reviewed and potentially
implemented by local jurisdictions, agencies, and
organizations in the JBSA- Randolph JLUS study area to
guide future compatibility efforts. To that end,
acceptance of the study by stakeholders, i.e.,
committees, the public, landowners, local agencies, and
industries, will be sought to confirm collective
community -based support for identified implementation
efforts. For instance, local jurisdictions, counties, and
regional governments may use the strategies in this JLUS
to guide future subdivision regulation, growth policy, and
zoning updates as well as to assist in the review of
development proposals. ]BSA-Randolph may use the
JLUS to guide its interaction with local jurisdictions on
future projects as well as manage internal planning
processes with a compatibility -based approach. It is
through this process that the stakeholders can make the
strategies in the JLUS a reality.
The key to the implementation of the strategies
presented in this JLUS is the establishment of the JLUS
Coordinating Committee that will oversee the execution
of the JLUS. Through this Committee, local jurisdictions,
JBSA- Randolph, and other interested parties will be able
to continue their initial work together to establish
procedures, recommend or refine specific actions for
member agencies, and make adjustments to strategies
over time to ensure the JLUS continues to resolve key
compatibility issues through realistic strategies and
implementation.
JLUS Organization
The following is a brief overview of the organization of
the ]BSA-Randolph JLUS, including the contents of main
JLUS Report and each of the sections of the Background
Report.
JLUS Report
The JLUS Report is a high - resolution graphic -based
portfolio of the key issues and strategies identified in the
JBSA- Randolph JLUS. The report provides a user - friendly
reference of the JLUS that is accessible and easy -to -use
for all stakeholders. The report provides a brief
discussion on the purpose and objectives of a JLUS,
describes the overall benefit of a JLUS, and provides an
overview of the various JLUS partners that assisted in
developing the JBSA- Randolph JLUS. This report also
outlines the identified compatibility issues accompanied
by relevant strategies.
The JLUS Background Report is a detailed document that
includes information about the communities within the
study area, the military, the tools available to both the
communities and military, and a compatibility
assessment for all identified issues. This report is fairly
voluminous and provides supporting and supplementary
information to the JLUS report. It is intended to serve as
a reference tool or secondary sources to the JLUS Report.
Chapter 1s Introduction. Chapter 1 provides an
introduction and overview of the JBSA- Randolph JLUS.
This chapter describes the strategic and local importance
of JBSA- Randolph, the working relationships among the
entities, the background and intent of the JLUS, the
study area, the objectives used to guide development of
the JLUS, the stakeholders involved in developing the
JLUS, public outreach methods, implementation premise,
and the organization of the document.
Chapter m Community Profiles This chapter provides
information about the communities that are within the
JLUS study area and gives an overview of their history
and current statistics, including population, housing
characteristics, economic outlook, and past, present, and
future trends of growth and development. This chapter
also includes an overview of the regional transportation
system within the JLUS study area.
Chapter o Military Profile. The military profile chapter
presents information regarding the military training
activities and operations that take place within the JLUS
study area. A brief history and the economic impact of
the installation on the surrounding communities is also
presented along with an overview of the current mission
and potential future missions, and commands, tenants,
and units located on the base.
This chapter also illustrates the footprint of each of the
military operating areas, i.e., airspace, noise contours,
accident potential zones that occur in the study area.
The inclusion of these graphical illustrations is intended
to foster an understanding of how the military operations
overlay the adjacent communities and the resulting
impacts experienced by either the community or the
military.
Chapter 4: Existing Compatibility Tools. This chapter
provides an overview of relevant plans and programs -
tools - that are currently available to the communities
and the military installation within the JLUS study area to
address compatibility issues.
Chapter ® Compatibility Assessment. This chapter
presents the 24 compatibility factors identified for the
]BSA- Randolph 3LUS study area and the associated
issues identified within each of the applicable factors. An
analysis of the issues is provided along with realized or
potential conflicts. The analysis is conducted based on a
comparison of the information in Chapters 2 and 3 and
recommendations to ameliorate and / or resolve the
conflicts are provided in the ]LUS Report.
Compatibility, in relationship to military readiness, can be
defined as the balance or compromise between
community needs and interests and military needs and
interests. The factors listed below are the primary
elements used to identify issues in tangible and
intangible areas shared by communities and military
installations alike to carry out their individual activities.
Air Quality
Alternative Energy Development
Anti - Terrorism / Force Protection
Biological Resources
Coordination / Communication
Cultural Resources
Dust / Smoke / Steam
Frequency Spectrum Capacity
in Frequency Spectrum Interference / Impedance
• Housing Availability
• Infrastructure Extensions
• Land / Air Space Competition
• Land Use
• Legislative Initiatives
• Light and Glare
• Marine Environments
• Noise and Vibration
Public Trespassing
• Roadway Capacity
• Safety
• Scarce Natural Resources
• Vertical Obstructions
• Water Quality and Quantity
Introduction
This section provides information about the communities surrounding Joint Base
San Antonio - Randolph (JBSA- Randolph) and JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield
(JBSA- Seguin) and the relationship between these civilian and military areas within the
Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) study area. Capturing and describing certain
characteristics of the participating JLUS communities helps provide a baseline context
from which informed decisions can be made when assessing compatibility strategies.
The goal is to provide information that enables stakeholders to gain an understanding of
population and development trends that have the potential to affect the future of
]BSA- Randolph. It is intended that this information, taken along with other factors
presented herein, help decision - makers develop a coherent, informed sense of place for
the communities within the JLUS study area and a comprehension of the communities'
future development and economic growth plans and goals before compatibility issues
arise.
Information presented includes general land use, population growth, economic
development, housing, and transportation within the region in order to better
understand the relationship between the communities within the study area and
]BSA- Randolph, ]BSA-Seguin, and Stinson Municipal Airport.
Further, this section is designed to foster an understanding by the Air Force about the
types of activities occurring `outside the fence" when considering future missions and
operations.
Regional Overview
This section provides a brief description of each of the communities within the
JBSA- Randolph JLUS study area. The study area includes the main base proper at
]BSA-Randolph, JBSA- Seguin, and Stinson Municipal Airport; the counties of Bexar and
Guadalupe; and the cities of Cibolo, Converse, Garden Ridge, Live Oak, San Antonio,
Schertz, Seguin, Selma, and Universal City.
The JLUS study area includes three distinct and separate locations all within
south - central Texas. Main Base ]BSA-Randolph is northeast of the City of San Antonio
and is located between Interstates 10 and 35. JBSA- Seguin is also northeast of the City
of San Antonio and located about 30 miles east of JBSA- Randolph, just south of
Interstate -10 (I -10). Stinson Municipal Airport, which is owned and operated by the City
of San Antonio, is located in the southeast sector of San Antonio, just west of I -37.
The landscape within the study area is comprised of continuous flat plains and gently
rolling hills; these plains areas were long the host to a strong cattle industry and
agriculture. Beginning in the late 19th century, rail service was provided to
San Antonio, which helped local citizenry transport their cattle and agricultural goods
from farm to market, which, in turn, brought additional development both economically
and physically. The introduction of the modern interstate system in the 1950's spurred
additional population growth and economic development. During the last 30 years,
many rural and agricultural areas were transformed into suburban oases with clusters of
subdivision homes, retail centers, and industrial parks. This tremendous growth, along
with land expansion through annexation, helped the City of San Antonio to increase its
municipal boundaries and helped neighboring jurisdictions to grow and increase in size
as well.
The present setting and character of the three areas
within the overall study area are varied. The area
surrounding JBSA - Randolph includes both developed and
undeveloped lands. The northern and western areas
adjacent to the installation are primarily developed and
include residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The
areas to the east and south of JBSA- Randolph are less
developed and include agricultural, open / undeveloped,
and low- density or rural residential uses.
JBSA- Seguin is located east of the urbanized area
associated with the City of Seguin and is surrounded by
agricultural, open / undeveloped, and low density or rural
residential uses. Limited industrial uses - sand and gravel
surface mining - also occur adjacent to and west of
]BSA-Seguin.
Stinson Municipal Airport is located within the City of
San Antonio's municipal boundary and is surrounded by a
wide variety of uses. To the north, open / institutional
uses predominate in the form of cemeteries and burial
parks; to the east, open / recreational and institutional
uses including Espada Park, the San Antonio River, and
Brooks City Base; to the south, low- density residential
and some limited industrial uses and undeveloped areas;
and to the west, single family residential uses.
Profiles and detailed information about the specific
communities within these three areas are included in the
following sections.
Sources: Randolph Air Force Base General Plan, 2008;
Google Maps website, accessed Oct 2013; Stinson
Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, 2013
Bexar County
Located in south - central Texas, Bexar County is bounded
by Kendall and Comal counties to the north, Guadalupe
and Wilson counties to the east, Atascosa County to the
south, and Medina and Bandera counties to the west.
Bexar County was founded in 1836 and named after
San Antonio de Bexar, one of the original Mexican
municipalities of Texas at the time of its independence.
The county originally encompassed a large geographical
area which, after statehood, was divided up into roughly
128 counties. Bexar County now occupies 1,247 square
miles of land and is home to a 2010 population of
1,714,773, of whom 77 percent lives within the City of
San Antonio. The county seat is San Antonio. The
county's location at the crossroads of several major
interstates greatly contributes to the local manufacturing
and transportation industries. Despite this being a large,
urbanized area, the majority of land in Bexar County is
undeveloped with residential uses and commercial uses
as the second and third highest developed land uses,
respectively, as determined by total acreage.
]BSA- Randolph is located entirely within the county while
JBSA- Seguin is located in neighboring Guadalupe County.
Sources: Bexar County Historical Commission website,
accessed Sept 2013; San Antonio - Bexar County MPO
Mobility 2035, 2009
#, '. `; f.
The City of Converse is located adjacent to
JBSA- Randolph's west / southwest border. The city lies
along the west side of Loop 1604, which encircles the
San Antonio metropolitan area. The city was founded in
1877 as a result of railroad construction through the
area, which brought a steady growth in population and
increased cotton production to the area. The city grew in
the post -World War II years to the north and south of the
original town site and was incorporated in 1961. The
predominant land use within the city is single family
residential, which allows the city to serve as a bedroom
community within the San Antonio metropolitan area with
a 2010 population of 18,198. Other land uses included
commercial and retail business activities.
Sources: City of Converse, 2011; City of Converse zoning
map, 2010; US Census Bureau, 2010
City of Garden Ridge
The City of Garden Ridge is located 4 miles north of
]BSA-Randolph across I -35 in southern Coma] County.
The city began as a subdivision built on a series of ridges
on the north side of San Antonio and was incorporated in
1972. It is a bedroom community of San Antonio, with a
2010 population of 3,259. A limestone quarry operation,
owned and operated by Hanson Aggregates, has been
operating since 1937 and predates the city's
incorporation. The quarry is located on the eastern half
of the city's municipal area and remains a significant
operation in the area with an estimated 15 -20 years of
materials in reserve. Garden Ridge's Quarry Commission
works with local leaders, residents, and quarry operators
to mitigate impacts between the quarry and local
community.
Source: City of Garden Ridge website, accessed
Sept 2013; Garden Ridge Community Circular, June 2011
City of Live Oak
The City of Live Oak is located at the intersection of I -35
and Loop 1604, approximately one mile northwest of
]BSA-Randolph. The city was incorporated in 1960 and
quickly grew from rolling farm countryside into a
community of 13,131 people in 2010. The city is zoned
to be primarily residential, but also allows retail,
commercial, and industrial uses. The city has utilized its
location at the crossroads of major thoroughfares to
develop four major shopping centers as well as the
Northeast Methodist Hospital, the Northeast Lakeview
College, Alamo College District's Alamo University Center,
and the corporate headquarters for the Randolph- Brooks
Federal Credit Union.
Sources: City of Live Oak website, accessed Sept 2013;
City of Live Oak zoning map and schedule of uses, 2008;
Northeast Partnership for Economic Development, 2010
City of San Antonio
The area that encompasses the present -day City of
San Antonio was explored by Spanish expeditions in 1691
and 1709, who named the San Antonio River and
San Pedro Creek. The town grew from the settlement of
San Antonio de Bexar Presidio, which was founded in
1718. The city was the site of several military battles
during the Texas Revolution, including the Siege of Bexar
in 1835 and the Battle of the Alamo in 1836. The city
received a charter from the Texas government in 1837
and was to serve as the seat for Bexar County. After
Texas joined the United States in 1845, the city became
an important distribution point for materials supplying
the westward expansion. After the Civil War,
San Antonio prospered as a cattle, distribution,
mercantile, and military center, serving the border region
and greater Southwest.
The city did not expand beyond its original Spanish
charter lands until 1940. For a time, these large borders
allowed for the development of numerous
neighborhoods; although, the years following
World War II brought rapid expansion beyond these
borders as suburban expansion accelerated. This growth
led to the gradual northward shift of the city center.
Several major transportation roadways transect the city,
including I -10 and I -35. The city's total land area is
nearly 470 square miles, which represents 69 percent of
the land area in Bexar County. The San Antonio
metropolis is mostly urbanized and includes a host of
land uses with residential and commercial being the two
chief land uses. The areas outside of the current city
limits, but within the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction are
largely undeveloped and experiencing tremendous
growth pressure. The city is among the fastest growing
major cities in the United States and had a 2010
population of 1,327,407. The area boasts a diverse
economy with manufacturing, education, medical
research, insurance and financial services, military
installations, and tourism forming important facets in the
local communities.
Sources: History of the Riverwalk
(www. thesanantonioriverwalk. com), accessed Sept 2013;
Texas State Historical Association website, accessed
Sept 2013; San Antonio - Bexar County MPO Mobility
2035, 2009
City of Schertz
The City of Schertz surrounds the southern, eastern, and
north / northeastern boundaries of ]BSA - Randolph and
stretches nearly 15 miles from its southwest corner, at
the intersection of I -10 and Loop 1604, to its northeast
corner, on I -35. The city was originally founded around a
train depot when the Galveston, Harrisburg, and
San Antonio Railroad built in the area. The area was
largely agricultural for many years, growing crops such
as cotton, corn, and wheat. The Randolph Air Force Base
opened in 1931 on donated land in Schertz and has had a
lasting effect on the city ever since in terms of population
and economic development. The construction of I -35 and
outward growth from San Antonio led to the city's
incorporation in 1958 with a population of 2,281. Today,
the City of Schertz is the third largest in the San Antonio
metropolitan area with a 2010 population of
31,465 - one of the fastest growing cities in the region.
The city continues to expand its municipal borders to the
north, extending past and including areas along the I -35
corridor, and to the south, bounded by I -10 and Loop
1604. Within its boundaries, the city's primary land use
is residential, but includes areas of light and heavy
industrial uses and pockets of semi - public, public, and
commercial uses.
Sources: City of Schertz website, accessed Sept 2013;
City of Schertz Comprehensive Land Plan, undated;
US Census Bureau, 2010
City of Selma
The City of Selma is located one mile north of
]BSA- Randolph on five square miles of land that rests on
the border of Bexar, Guadalupe, and Comal counties.
The city began as an agricultural town settled by German
immigrants in the mid- 1800s. In 1856, a post office was
built to complement the route of the Harrison and
McCulloch Stagecoach service through Selma, which had
been staging through Selma for several years and
brought about additional trade. The city was
incorporated in 1964 and has experienced substantial
growth in recent years as development from San Antonio
has spread along the I -35 corridor - Selma's northern
border abuts the San Antonio city limits. The population
in 2010 was 5,540 - a 603 percent increase from the
2000 population of 788. Residential - primarily single
family housing - is the second largest land use within the
city; the largest single land use is industrial discounting
acreage that is utilized for roadway and drainage
infrastructure. The Verizon Wireless Amphitheater and
Retama Park, a horse - racing track, are two of largest
industrial land users. The city expects to continue to
grow and serve as a bedroom community to the
expanding San Antonio area.
Sources: City of Selma website, accessed Sept 2013; City
of Selma 2005 -2020 Comprehensive Development Plan,
2007; US Census Bureau, 2000 -2010
City of Universal City
The City of Universal City is located adjacent to and north
of 7BSA- Randolph. The city covers about 5.6 square
miles southeast of the I -35 and Loop 1604 intersection.
The city was incorporated in 1960 and is a suburb of
San Antonio and neighboring community to
]BSA- Randolph, dubbed "the gateway to Randolph AFB ".
The city's population in 2010 was 18,530, which
represents a growth of 25 percent over the population in
2000. The primary land use within Universal City is
residential but, closely followed by commercial / retail
land uses. Open space associated with Cibolo Creek and
other open areas combine to represent the third largest
land use. A large component of the commercial / retail
land uses are aligned along State Highway (SH) 218,
Pat Booker Road, which transects Universal City and is a
direct connection to the ]BSA- Randolph Main Gate. This
retail corridor provides many of the services needed by
the installation and is a major thoroughfare to the base.
Sources: Texas State Historical Association website,
accessed Sept 2013, City of Universal City website,
accessed Sept 2013; Universal City zoning map,
undated; US Census Bureau, 2010
Guadalupe County
Guadalupe County borders Bexar County to the northeast
and is located east of San Antonio and JBSA- Randolph.
It covers approximately 713 square miles of rolling hills
in south- central Texas. The county was founded in 1846
shortly after the Texas Revolution, but had long been
previously inhabited by the Comanche, Tonkawas, and
Apache tribes. Following the county's founding, land was
given to veterans and a company of Texas Rangers who
both helped establish what would later become the City
of Seguin and county seat of Guadalupe County. The
area remained rural in character and agriculture was the
primary economic activity through the 1800's. This trend
continued through the 20th century and, in the 1980's,
as much as 80 percent of the county's land was still in
agriculture. Areas that experienced a transition from
agricultural to suburban did so during the post -war
growth following World War II. The western edge of
Guadalupe County experienced growth as a result of
expansion in Bexar County and San Antonio and the City
of Seguin also saw modest residential development.
Currently, the area within Guadalupe County continues to
experience growth and, in recent years, a diversified
economy and population boom. Manufacturing supported
over 6,000 jobs in Guadalupe County in 2009, generating
$1.62 billion. Caterpillar built a $170 million
manufacturing plant in the City of Seguin, which supports
1,400 jobs in the area. The county's population has
experienced a dramatic increase in recent years and had
a 2010 population of 131,533. This population is largely
clustered in or around Schertz, Cibolo, Seguin, and, to a
small extent, the peripheries of New Braunfels and
San Marcos. The balance of Guadalupe County remains
unchanged from earlier times and is primarily rural and
agricultural.
Sources: Seguin Gazette, 8 August 2012; Texas State
Historical Association website, accessed Sept 2013;
Guadalupe County Major Thoroughfare Plan, 2012;
US Census Bureau, 2010
City Of Cibolo
The City of Cibolo is located in the southwest corner of
Guadalupe County about one mile northeast of
]BSA- Randolph and was incorporated in 1965. The area
was originally inhabited by members of the Comanche
tribe until settlement by German immigrants in the
mid- 1800s. The Southern Pacific Railroad was built
through Cibolo in 1876, connecting the area to Houston
and San Antonio, and provided a way for farmers to
transport their goods into a larger marketplace. Cotton,
corn, wheat, and oats formed the backbone of this
agricultural economy, which was the dominant industry
for many years. With the creation of ]BSA- Randolph and
the post -World War II boom, the once thriving
agricultural industry gave way to rapid development.
The population almost doubled from 1,757 in 1990 to
3,035 in 2000 and the estimated 2013 population is now
25,000. This growth represents a 723 percent increase
from the 2000 population. The area continues to develop
beyond the original settlement eastward into annexed
areas within the ETJ.
North of Farm to Market (FM) Road 78, Cibolo is primarily
zoned for single family residential uses and some
multi - family and planned unit development uses. Closer
to FM 78, several areas are designated for retail and
commercial uses. South of FM 78 and extending to 1 -10,
there is some carryover of these retail and commercial
uses; although, the majority of the area is zoned for
single - family residential and agricultural uses.
Sources: City of Cibolo Community Profile, undated; City
of Cibolo website, accessed Oct 2013; City of Cibolo
zoning map, 2013; US Census Bureau, 2000 -2010
City of Seguin
The City of Seguin was founded in 1838 by Joseph Martin
and members of the Gonzales Rangers and later
incorporated in 1853. The city is approximately 22 miles
east of JBSA- Randolph and almost 37 miles east of
San Antonio; I -10 runs through the incorporated area of
Seguin, but essentially forms the northern boundary for
Seguin's downtown area. The city developed as an
agricultural and ranching town with cotton, corn, and
peanuts comprising the farmed products and cattle and
hogs comprising the ranching products. Oil was
discovered east of Seguin in the early part of the
20th Century and provided a major boost to the local
economy. More recently, manufacturing and commercial
industries have helped to broaden the economic base for
the city. Caterpillar, an engine manufacturer, built a
$170 million, million- square -foot engine manufacturing
plant in early 2013, which supports 1,400 jobs in the
area. It is anticipated that the recent completion of
SH 130, between Seguin and Austin, will help spur
additional economic growth in Seguin.
Seguin experienced moderate, steady growth in the
years following World War II and had a 2010 population
of 25,175. This represented an increase of 14 percent.
The city continues to expand outward, especially into
Population
areas that adjoin or are near New Braunfels and within
The population data used below is based on information
easy highway access for commuting to San Antonio and
obtained from the Texas State Data Center and the
Austin. Seguin's Comprehensive Plan noted that
US Census Bureau. Population projections show overall
"residential development toward the east and southeast"
population trends in specific areas. This trend
is limited by JBSA- Seguin. The airfield is located east of
information assists policymakers in their efforts to make
the Seguin incorporated limits, but within the city's
informed decisions about future planning and
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
infrastructure development activities. Table 2 -1 shows
It was constructed to support the training missions at
the population in 2000 and 2010 and notes the percent
JBSA - Randolph during World War II.
increase between the two years.
The majority of the area within the city limits is zoned for
single - family residential and agricultural ranch uses;
although, some land is zoned pre - development, which
also allows single - family residences. Most of the
commercial zoning, which appears to be the third largest
zoned area - behind residential and agricultural ranch, is
aligned along major thoroughfares, e.g., I -10,
U.S. Route 90, U.S. Route 90 Alternate, SH 46, and
SH 123.
Sources: City of Seguin website, accessed Oct 2013;
Seguin Gazette, 8 Aug 2012; San Francisco Chronicle,
19 Dec 2012; Seguin Comprehensive Master Plan, 2008;
Texas State Historical Association website, accessed
Oct 2013; City of Seguin zoning map, 2012; US Census
Bureau, 2010Study Area Growth Trends
The following section provides a profile of the study
area's trends concerning population change, economic
development, housing stock, and transportation
infrastructure. This useful information establishes a
regional context for growth and development and allows
for a clearer understanding of possible impacts and
growth potential for the JLUS study area and the greater
potential achieved through compatibility analysis -based
planning.
Recent population growth has brought significant
development to the study area. Every jurisdiction, with
the exception of the Cities of San Antonio and Seguin,
experienced growth rates higher than those of the State
of Texas and Bexar County, with the City of Selma
growing by over 600 percent in the last decade.
Additionally, the cities of Cibolo, Garden Ridge, Schertz,
and Converse all experienced substantial growth as well
due to the outward expansion from the central core of
San Antonio and general expansion within these cities.
Bexar County
1,392,931
1,714,773
23%
City of Converse
11,508
18,198 i
58%
City of Garden Ridge
1,882
3,259
73%
City of Live Oak
9,156
13,131:
43%
City of San Antonio
1,144,646
1,327,407
16%
City of Schertz
18,694
31,465
68%
City of Selma
788
5,540
603%
City of Universal City
14,849
18,530
25%
Guadalupe County
89,023
131,533
48%
City of C'ibolo
3;035
15,349
406%
City of Seguin
22,011
25,175
14%
Source: Texas State Data Center website, accessed Sep 2013;
US Census Bureau, 2000 -2010
The Texas State Data Center (TSDC) prepared three
projection scenarios for forty year population growth
estimates for the State of Texas and all counties within
its jurisdiction. The estimates included Bexar and
Guadalupe counties, which are included in the study
area. The TSDC included a background of the
methodology used to prepare the three projection
scenarios and provided recommendations regarding the
use of each scenario's data set. The three data sets
focused on a "Zero Migration Scenario ", a "One -Half
2000 -2010 Migration (0.5) Scenario ", or a "2000 -2010
Migration (1.0) Scenario ". Matrix employed the
recommendation for use of the "One -Half 2000 -2010
Migration (0.5) Scenario" by the TSDC in so far as the
TSDC noted that the "0.5 scenario continues to be the
most appropriate scenario for most counties for use in
long -term planning." These 0.5 migration projections are
given in Table 2 -2.
These projections demonstrate a continued rate of
growth in the State of Texas, Bexar County, and
Guadalupe County. Although this information is not
specific to the JLUS study area, it is helpful as it
substantiates other growth projections and helpful in
understanding regional growth trends.
To better understand growth that is occurring within the
smaller, more localized areas surrounding
]BSA-Randolph, JBSA- Seguin, and Stinson Municipal
Airport, data from the San Antonio - Bexar County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was reviewed.
The MPO produced maps that are based on traffic
analysis zones (TAZ); these TAZ are a composite of both
land use and demographic data. The MPO utilized 2008
as the base year and generated data out to year 2035.
The resulting mapping products, available from the MPO,
include 2008 population by county TAZ, 2035 population
by county TAZ, and population change by county TAZ,
which subtracted the 2008 data from the 2035 data to
produce the change. These maps are shown as
Figures 2 -1, 2 -2, and 2 -3, respectively.
The shading in the map at Figure 2 -3: Population Change
by County TAZ demonstrates that moderate growth
around ]BSA- Randolph may occur in all areas adjacent to
the airfield with the exception of three TAZ where it
appears that population growth will not occur. These
three TAZ are shown as the lightest shade of red and are
located northwest, southwest, and southeast of
JBSA- Randolph. With regard to JBSA- Seguin in Seguin,
all areas surrounding the airfield appear to experience
population growth and the entire area within Guadalupe
County shows the same moderate population growth.
Demonstrable population increases appear to occur north
of the airfield; this growth is shown as dark purple. The
area around Stinson Municipal Airport also shows
moderate population increases with larger increases
occurring in two areas near the airport: a large area
southwest of the airport and an area directly east of the
airfield.
Bexar County 1,714,773 1,974,041 2,231,550 2,468,254 2,695,668
Source: Texas State Data Center, Projections of the Population of Texas and Counties in Texas by Age, Sex and
Race /Ethnicity for 2010 -2050, Nov 2012
2008 Population by County
exar
tt�s
comak
�a
ns"
4
Guadalupe
Gs�t� CC'S"
';Ak
* y`�+; ,yam
Zf
+1
Kendall
qb
Wilson
NON'
Page 2-8
Figure 2-3. Population Change by County TAZ
Population
(2035
eagar
Change by County
minus 2008)
�rbxtal
�rt rr�
Guadalupe
Kendai!
is
n" ll" 41
Wilson
Economic Development
indicate future types of residential and commercial
The San Antonio metropolitan area is host to a diverse
development to follow. Table 2 -4 shows the median
local economy and is a regional center for retail,
house values and price change from 2000 to 2010.
business, and manufacturing. Several significant
Table 2 -4° Median House !Value 2000 -2011
economic drivers exist throughout the ILLS Study Area,
including the Caterpillar engine assembly plant in Seguin;
MMMEMEM
the Hanson Quarry in Garden Ridge; and the San Antonio
Military Medical Center in San Antonio.
Bexar County $74,100 $121,200 64%
City of Converse $78,800 $117,900 50%
Figure 2 -4 delineates the major industries by number of
City of Garden
employees in the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical
Ridge $214,800 $386,900 8001
Area (MSA) between 2007 and 2011.
City of Live Oak $72,600 $113,800 57%
The diverse economy within the San Antonio
City of San
metropolitan area is comprised of several industries
Antonio $73,000 $111,900 53010
including healthcare, retail, accommodation,
City of Schertz $126,700 $161,000 27%
administration, finance and insurance, construction, and
City of Selma $140;000 $163,300 17%
manufacturing. These industries reflect the major
City of Universal
economic development sectors found throughout the
City $93,200 $134,000 44%
region. The wide diversity in industries throughout the
Guadalupe
San Antonio MSA supports a broad range of median
County $94,100 $150,700 60010
income levels throughout the area. The median income
values between 2000 and 2011 are given in Table 2 -3.
City of Cibolo $127,400 $191,000 50%
City of Seguin $83,500 $90,700 9%
Sources: Northeast Partnership for Economic
Source: American Community Survey, 2007 -2011;
Development, 2013; US Census County Business
U.S. Census 2000
Patterns, 2002 -2011
The
The housing values show strong growth in the last
Table 2¢3° Madsen Income 2000-2011
throughout the study area. The range of housing
IMMMM
costs reflects various options available to military
personnel relocating to JBSA- Randolph. Affordability for
Bexar County $38,328 $57,046 49%
military personnel temporarily assigned to ]BSA-
City of
Randolph can also be explored in terms of median rental
Converse $47,947 $57, 088 19%
rates, given in Table 2 -5 below.
City of
Garden Ridge $90,184 $134,125 49 °la
Table 2 ®5® Median P�sarttfsly Rental Rate
2000 -2011
City of Live $48,184 $53,479 11%
Oak
EMMI MM -e
City San 010
Antonio $ 37 937 43 961 16 $
0
Bexar County $556 $791 42 /°
City of
City of Converse $722 $991 37%
Schertz $37,188 $71,842 93%
City of Garden
City of Selma $51,927 $74,483 43%
Ridge $1,094 $2000 8301
City of
City of Live Oak $631 $775 23%
Universal City $50,501 $55,113 09%
City of San Antonio $556 $775 39%
Guadalupe $43,949 $61,608 40%
City of Schertz $563 $862 53%
County
City of Selma $433 $1235 185%
City of Cibolo $53,780 $89,785 67%
City of Universal
City of Seguin $30,197 $40,616 35%
City $625 $858 37%
Source: American Community Survey, 2007 -2011; U.S.
Guadalupe County $508 $799' 57%
Census 2000 Housing Value and Trends
City of Cibolo $567 $1293 28%
Housing trends are an important indicator of economic
City of Seguin $443 $723 63%
vitality because they show population changes relative to
Source: American Community Survey, 2007 -2011;
new residential construction within an area and can
U.S. Census 2000
Figure 2-4. Major Employment Sectors in the San Antonio MSA
2007-2011
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Ln c as as rsrs c as Ln U1 U1 as c U1 -F Ln
o c q9 0 0
S 0 .2 G, C
CL '- C Ln U
Ln
> E >
V 2
0 E = -2 �D w -W w . - as
Ln
css Ln w Ln Ln Ln U Ln
U, Ln
Ln
0 C w S -0 .0 0 0
CO E CO
-E -0 Ln
Ln U 0 css
U Ln U1
E LU
C w Ln
C
E Ln
LL as cv as
2 CL Ln
Ln E U
tr
V� OU Ln
aces
< <
Ln 7A E Ln
Ln 0 CL
as U as
0
V� 0
as
0 E
L.L
0 San Antonio MSA 2007 E San Antonio MSA 2011
The median monthly rental rates compared to the
7BSA- Randolph basic allowance for housing (BAH) rates
show that BAN generally provide military personnel with
adequate affordable housing options based on local
median rental rates. The BAH is a stipend provided to
military personnel who choose to live off base or cannot
be accommodated in on -base housing. It is designed to
augment the costs of living associated with private sector
arrangements, including home or apartment rent,
utilities, and renter's insurance. Table 2 -6 gives the
2013 BAH rates for military personnel.
Table 2 -6. JB A- Randolph BAH for Military
Personnel 2013
E -2 $972 $1,296
E -4 $972 $1,296
E -6 $1,209 $1,428
E -8 $1,407 $1,527
W -1 $1,260 $1,431
W -3 $1,416 $1,560
W -5 $1,485 $1,728
0-2E $1,410 $1,551
0-1 $1,197 $1,401
0-3 $1,419 $1,557
0-5 $1,509 $1,911
0-7 $1,590 $1,950
Source: RandolphHousing.com, 2013
In addition to housing prices, the number of building
permits received by local jurisdictions is a strong
indicator of local growth. The following graphs, depicted
as Figures 2 -5 and 2 -6, indicate the number of building
permits in each of the local jurisdictions in the study area
between the years 2000 through 2012. Two notable
trends are evident in the numbers shown. First, these
numbers strongly correlate to state and national housing
trends which experienced substantial growth in the early
2000's followed by significant downturn in 2007 due to
the recession, which is only recently beginning to recover
throughout the country. These trends are evident in the
region as permitting levels of both single - family and
multi - family units plummeted after 2007 when
developers finished their preapproved work and
constricted financing to homebuyers and developers
further limited development opportunities. Second, while
there has been a severe lack of new development, a
slowing of development also occurred prior to most other
national trends in 2007 -2008.
A specific potential challenge for these jurisdictions and
their relationship with ]BSA - Randolph is the potential
shortage of multi - family housing that can support greater
numbers of young military personnel without dependents.
Recent trends have shown a strong development pattern
toward single - family housing, which may not meet the
needs of this significant demographic. This is particularly
true in the cities of Converse, Garden Ridge, Schertz,
Selma, Cibolo, and Seguin, which have not had
consistent growth in multi - family housing over this time
period.
SQUtl---
__:.. -
--- - - - --- --- - - - --- -------- ...... -- --
4UUU --
- - - - - - --
-`
=000
oao
Q— ,w.w .�.;���,.
N,
,...
,na�n �ma:.y m�.�men� ..
2000
zUU1:... 2UUZ .... z _�
ZUUU4 2 U
LUUF LULiy.:. 1008
ZU09 2010 ZU11 ZU11.
Bexar County
C qty C orverse
-City of Garden Ridge
City Live flak
-City of Sari Antonio -
--CSty of Schertz
.-----City of Seima.
---- Universal City
Guadafupp C oursty
-City ity cf C {hnlr
0' 4eguari
Current Overview
A few of the communities within the overall
]BSA- Randolph ]LUS Study Area are located directly
adjacent to JBSA- Randolph. These communities include
the cities of Converse, Schertz, and Universal City.
Development pressures extending from these adjacent
jurisdictions can influence activities and operations
associated with JBSA- Randolph as well as activities and
operations associated with the communities outside or
adjacent to those jurisdictions. The cities of Cibolo,
Garden Ridge, Live Oak, San Antonio, and Selma,
comprise the other communities included in the Study
Area, which are around or adjacent to Converse, Schertz
and Universal City and can, likewise, absorb development
pressures from and have development pressures on the
installations' adjacent communities.
Otherwise, the City of Seguin is located proximate to
JBSA- Seguin and the City of San Antonio is located
proximate to the Stinson Municipal Airport.
Communities Adjacent to JBSA- Randolph
City of Converse
The City of Converse is pursuing development along its
eastern / southeastern boundary in conjunction with the
alignment of Loop 1604 within incorporated land and
proposed future extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). This
corridor development is outlined in the 1604 Commercial
Corridor Study and is focused on commercial
development along Loop 1604. The commercial
development includes six zones and all include frontage
along Loop 1604 unless otherwise indicated:
Zone 1: Commercial Sector - located on the west
side of Loop 1604 as shown in Figure 2 -7. Though
indicated as Automotive Sector in the Corridor
Study, this Sector has been changed to a
commercially designated sector.
Zone 2: Retail Sector 1 and Office - located on the
west side of Loop 1604 as shown in Figure 2 -8.
Zone 3: Retail Sector 2 / Industrial Sector -
located on the east side of Loop 1604 and bounded
on the east by the JBSA- Randolph perimeter; also,
the industrial sector is located behind / east of the
retail fronting Loop 1604 as shown in Figure 2 -9.
Zone 4: Hospitality Sector - located on the east
side of Loop 1604; also, single - family residential
development is proposed behind / east of the
hospitality elements and bounded on the east by
the JBSA- Randolph perimeter as shown in
Figure 2 -10.
Zone 5: Health Care / Retail Sector 3 / Medical
Office Buildings - located on the west side of Loop
1604 as shown in Figure 2 -11.
Zone 6: Retail Sector 4 / Entertainment - located
on the east side of Loop 1604; also, single - family
residential development is proposed behind / east
of the retail and entertainment elements and
bounded on the east by the JBSA- Randolph
perimeter as shown in Figure 2 -12.
Zone 7: Recreational / Proposed Future
Exterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) - this area is
proposed for south of Graytown and Converse and
extends to the Loop 1604 and I -10 interchange.
Recreational needs, golf course, soccer fields, and
hike and bike trails are proposed for this area as
shown in Figure 2 -13.
Source: 1604 Commercial Corridor Study, Aug 2013
City of Schertz
As noted within the City of Schertz's Comprehensive Land
Plan, the city witnessed a large amount of residential and
industrial growth from 2000 to 2010 and expects
continued growth in both sectors. The plan noted that
the residential growth is occurring more so in northern
areas of Schertz when compared to the southern areas,
since the southern areas face development challenges,
and that industrial growth is only occurring in the
northern areas. Future constraints to continued
residential and industrial growth include available land,
flood plain areas, and the recommended development
guidelines to develop property located within the
]BSA-Randolph Air Installation Compatible Use Zone.
Despite these constraints, Schertz noted that the area
south of ]BSA-Randolph, "the southern section of Schertz
below Cibolo Creek ", presents the "best scenario for
future growth" with future placement of wastewater
improvements from the Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority
and San Antonio River Authority, who are the area's
service providers. Schertz has some concerns about
sprawl and looks to the implementation of Smart Growth
techniques, i.e., traditional neighborhood development,
transit oriented development, conservation subdivision
techniques / cluster zoning, and planned unit, to grow
efficiently.
Source: City of Schertz Comprehensive Land Plan,
undated
7k
�`
a F';:.
8.�-.
ZONE 2:
Retail Sector I / Office
rr
.... �T
----------
lei
ZONE 3-0
Page 2-17
\ §�
? m§
-
a
�
Page 2 -e"?
as,
� h,
ZONE 7--
Recreational/Proposed Future E.T.J.
City of Universal City
The main retail corridor through the City of Universal City
is SH 218, Pat Booker Road, which provides the greatest
development opportunity within the city. In the Universal
City Comprehensive Plan (2008), the city identified
redevelopment and infill as the major means to obtain to
housing growth. The city zoned the areas along
Pat Booker Road for retail and commercial services and
has increased the density of its neighborhoods to
medium - density zoning in many of the areas along the
highway. Furthermore, the city's zoning ordinance
includes three overlay districts: redevelopment, aviation
district, and campus, in addition to the Randolph
compatible use zone overlay, which will provide more
flexible requirements to assist in developing these areas.
Sources: Universal City Comprehensive Plan 2008 -2013;
Universal City Zoning Ordinance
City of Cibolo
The City of Cibolo includes a large amount of ETJ area
south of the incorporated city area. This ETJ extends
south past I -10, abutting the City of San Antonio's ETJ,
and east along I -10, abutting the City of Seguin's ETJ.
The recent rapid population growth is likely to spur
development and increase the rate of annexation of the
city's ETJ into the incorporated area. The ETJ area along
I -10 is expected to provide an important development
thoroughfare and contribute to the overall growth within
the area.
The city has currently zoned much of the annexed area
between SH 539 and I -10 as rural residential, while the
areas closer to I -10, along Bolton Road and Main Street
Extension, are zoned for commercial, commercial /
industrial, single - family residential and mixed use land
uses. These areas of concentration support the city's
goals of supporting the development of business and
industrial parks as well as expanding retail development
to diversify the city's economy.
Sources: City of Cibolo - Update to the Master Plan,
2005; City of Cibolo Economic Development website
homepage, accessed Oct 2013; City of Cibolo Future
Land Use and Thoroughfare Map, 2013; City of Cibolo
Overall Annex Map, July 9, 2013; Seguin City Limits /
ETJ map, undated;
City of Garden Ridge
The City of Garden Ridge is developmentally landlocked;
it is bounded to the north and west by the City of
San Antonio's ETJ, to the east by New Braunfels' and
Schertz's ETJ, and to the south by Schertz's incorporated
area. Current development is limited by the location of
the active quarry, which in the middle of the city. The
city expects that the quarry will complete operations in
approximately 25 years. At that time, Garden Ridge
expects to convert the property to 1,490 residential lots.
Until such time the quarry operations cease, land cannot
be developed. The zoning within the city is currently split
into an even mix of single - family residential /
residence - agriculture and industrial land uses.
Sources: City of Garden Ridge, Ordinance 13- 102008
(zoning), Dec 3, 2008; City of Garden Ridge, Existing
Zoning map, undated; City of Garden Ridge, 2009 Water
Master Plan & Impact Fee Analysis
City of Live Oak
The City of Live Oak is developmentally landlocked; it is
bounded to the north and west by the City of
San Antonio's incorporated area, to the south by the
San Antonio ETJ and the City of Converse, and to the
east by the cities of Universal City and Selma. This
physical constraint has helped the city of focus on three
future factors in relation to recommended land uses, as
extracted from the Future Land Use Plan:
Recognizing existing land uses by ensuring
compatibility.
Maximizing non - residential land uses.
Creating an overall balanced land use pattern.
Realizing these factors, the city supports goals for infill
development and increased density development. The
city seeks to incorporate varied density mixed uses with
retail elements in neighborhood -type residential
developments. This mixed use redevelopment is one of
the city's future land use recommendations; others
include encouraging unique mixed -use non - residential
development and protecting prime retail property for the
highest use development. The city also seeks to
capitalize on its location at the intersection of I -35 and
Loop 1604 by furthering development of the business
district in the area through redevelopment and infill.
Sources: City of Live Oak Comprehensive Plan 2022,
undated; City of Live Oak, Texas, Zoning Map, Jul 2008
City of San Antonio
To further the city's long -term viability and growth, the
City of San Antonio has identified supporting military
installations as one of their Comprehensive Master Plan
major goals and supporting military missions and
operations as one of their Annexation Policy statements.
The City's ETJ and incorporated areas are located north,
west, and south of JBSA- Randolph, but both are
physically separated from JBSA- Randolph by the cities of
Selma, Live Oak, Converse, and Schertz. The city's
incorporated areas have been largely zoned for
single - family residential uses with adjoining / nearby
park and open space uses. Given the significant
single - family residential development occurring in the
cities between San Antonio and JBSA- Randolph, similar
growth is likely to be seen in the area controlled by the
City of San Antonio.
Sources: City of San Antonio Comprehensive Master Plan,
2011; City of San Antonio Future Land Use Plan, 2008
City of Selma
The City of Selma is developmentally landlocked; it is
bounded to the north by the City of San Antonio's ETJ, to
the east by the City of Schertz, to the south by the City
of Universal City, and to the west by the City of Live Oak.
In 2005, perhaps one - quarter to one -third of Selma was
undeveloped, vacant land. Since then, several
single - family residential developments have been
constructed as well as multi - family residential; office;
hotel, i.e., a Holiday Inn Express; and both large, i.e., a
Costco, and small retail development.
With a nod to future development, the city has set forth
several goals within their comprehensive plan. As
extracted from the plan, some of the goals are:
Implementing the proposed thoroughfare
recommendations.
Encouraging commercial development in the I -35
and FM 1518 area.
Encouraging redevelopment of the area on the
east side of I -35 between Cibolo Creek and the
city park as a specialty commercial shopping
destination.
Encouraging commercial redevelopment of the
area on the west side of I -35 between
Retama Parkway and Old Austin Road.
Developing the area within the 100 -year floodplain
for public use.
Developing pocket parks for public use.
Source: City of Selma, 2005 -2020 Comprehensive
Development Plan Vol I, Jun 2007
Communities Adjacent to JBSA- Seguin
City of Seguin
The City of Seguin is located at the center of Guadalupe
County, which remains a largely rural, agricultural area.
Development pressures from nearby Bexar County and
the City of San Antonio have brought a steady increase in
population to the city. The Seguin Comprehensive
Master Plan seeks to address the continued growth that is
expected in the area by using 17 planning districts to
coordinate planning and development goals throughout
the city.
JBSA- Seguin is located adjacent to and east of
District 15: The Randolph District. The area assessment
of The Randolph District noted that the airfield creates an
eastern barrier to residential growth - a barrier in terms
of compatibility, i.e. "noise generated [as a result of the
airfield] ... would be a great deterrent to future residential
development ", as well as a physical barrier. The future
land use plan places a riverside area, associated with the
Geronimo Creek, west of and adjacent to ]BSA-Seguin
and an employment community area north, east, and
south of JBSA- Seguin. The plan notes that the riverside
Industrial As of Right
Office Professional As of Right
Public Use As of Right
Retail As of Right
Planned Unit Development As of Right
Source: The Seguin Comprehensive Master Plan, Future
Land Use Plan, Oct 2008
Source: The Seguin Comprehensive Master Plan,
Oct 2008
Communities Adjacent to Stinson
Municipal Airport
City of San Antonio
The City of San Antonio's municipal limits encompass the
land around Stinson Municipal Airport. The current
San Antonio future land use map identifies land
surrounding the airport for uses, including mixed use,
low density residential, public institutional, business park,
resource protection, parks and open space, and
agricultural uses. The Stinson Airport Vicinity Land Use
Plan noted future planned development occurring south
of I -410. These development activities, as extracted
from the plan, include:
• Texas A &M University - a new campus.
• Verano at City South - a transit village along the
existing Union Pacific rail line.
• Espada - a planned, mixed use development.
Baptist Health System - a new hospital, the
Mission Trail Baptist Hospital, and a medical office
building located at Brooks City -Base.
Brooks City -Base - a new master planned
community with a bioscience, biomedical,
academic, environmental, research, and
technology center.
Sources: City of San Antonio Comprehensive Master Plan,
2011; City of San Antonio Future Land Use Plan map,
Oct 29, 2008; Stinson Airport Vicinity Land Use Plan,
Apr 2009
Infrastructure
Transportation
As a result of its central location in southern Texas,
San Antonio enjoys good access to a variety of
transportation methods to move both people and goods
into, out of, and within the region. These transportation
methods are further described below and shown on
Figure 2 -14.
Road
The study area encompasses a major transportation
corridor between San Antonio and Houston to the east
along I -10, as well as towards Austin to the northeast
along I -35. These two freeways run parallel through the
study area between Randolph AFB and Randolph Auxiliary
Airfield. The San Antonio metropolis is a major meeting
point for these two interstates, in addition to multiple
other state highways. The area is serviced by the I -410
and Loop 1604, which encircle the metropolitan area.
These interstates and throughways are major
transportation routes for freight moving through the area
as well as commuter traffic transiting between the
expansive metropolitan areas.
Railroad
The large population center of San Antonio makes the
city a destination for goods and people from around the
state. The area is currently serviced by Amtrak
passenger rail services on the Texas Eagle route. The
route includes daily travel between Chicago, Illinois and
San Antonio. Between Austin and San Antonio, the
Amtrak rail line parallels I -35. In the future, the addition
of the Lone Star Rail District, which is leading the
San Antonio - Austin passenger rail initiative, may provide
additional passenger rail options between the two cities.
The Union Pacific Railroad has five major rail lines with
over 420 miles of single track and four major rail yards /
intermodal terminals in the San Antonio area. BNSF
Railroad also operates within the San Antonio area, but
utilizes rail owned by Union Pacific for transport within
the area. The rail availability contributes significantly to
the region's manufacturing base as a means to move
large amounts of durable goods and other freight into
and out of the region to the remainder of the country.
Source: Lone Star Rail District Homepage, 2013;
San Antonio Region Freight Study, 2008
Airports
In addition to the airfields associated with
]BSA- Randolph, including JBSA- Seguin, other military,
public, and private civilian airports exist within the study
area. These military airfields and civilian airports are
outlined below with information regarding facility sizes,
services, and flight operations.
Kittyhawk Airport
This private airport is located three miles north of
JBSA- Randolph. The 700 foot runway accommodates
ultra -light aircraft operations; there are no permanently
based aircraft at the facility or regular flight operations.
JBSA- Lackland (Kelly Field Annex)
This installation was established in 1942 and has served
as a major training center through various American
conflicts. The base is now part of the Joint Base
San Antonio and is operated by the 502nd Air Base Wing.
The installation's single runway is jointly used by the
US Air Force and the Port of San Antonio. It measures
11,550 feet long by 300 feet wide and is able to
accommodate a diverse array of fighter, bomber, and
transport aircraft.
New Braunfels Regional Airport
The airport is located in the City of New Braunfels about
10 miles northwest of Seguin and JBSA- Seguin. The
airport is a public use facility with two runways that
supported about 26,000 flight operations in 2011. Most
aircraft based at and utilizing the airport are private,
single engine aircraft.
Old Kingsbury Aerodrome
This privately -owned facility is located in Kingsbury,
about 40 miles northeast of JBSA- Randolph. The turf
runway measures 2,600 feet by 100 feet. The airport is
home to the Pioneer Flight Museum and is a popular
location for radio controlled aircraft activity. The airport
consists of an air traffic tower and several hangers along
FM 1104. There are 12 single- engine aircraft based at
the airfield.
San Antonio International Airport
The San Antonio International Airport is located
approximately 8 miles west of JBSA- Randolph, along the
northern stretch of I -410 between SH 281 and I -35. It is
a public airport with two main runways, which are
8,500 feet and 7,500 feet in length, and one general
aviation runway, which is 5,500 feet in length. The
airport averaged 486 aircraft operations a day in 2012.
As of September 2012, 54 percent of these operations
were commercial, 31 percent were general aviation,
12 percent were air taxi, and 3 percent were
military- based.
Zuehl Airport
This is a private facility operated by the Zuehl Airport
Flying Community Owners Associated located in the City
of San Antonio's ETJ near the city limits of Cibolo and
New Berlin in western Guadalupe County. The 3,000 -foot
runway does not have a control tower and offers minimal
services to small, private aircraft. There are no
commercial air services offered at the airport. There
were 4,500 flight operations in 2012. The airport's
location west of JBSA- Seguin presents air space
compatibility issues.
Source: Air Force Technology, 2013; Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association, 2013; Airport IQ 5010, 2013; Pioneer
Flight Museum, 2013
Water Resources
Groundwater Resources
Edwards Aquifer
The primary drinking water source in the JLUS study area
is the Edwards Aquifer, which covers an eleven county
area and includes the counties of Bexar and Guadalupe.
The aquifer covers an area of 4,350 square miles and
provides a drinking water supply to over 1.7 million
residents within the San Antonio metropolitan area and
outlying counties. The sustained pressure, though, from
the expanding population associated with the
San Antonio metropolitan area continues to stress the
Edwards Aquifer.
The Edwards Underground Water District was created in
1959 to manage pollution issues and aquifer usage.
Today, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, a political
subdivision of the State of Texas, regulates the use of the
Edwards Aquifer for eight of the eleven counties,
including Bexar and Guadalupe counties. Water use from
within the Edwards Aquifer is regulated by the Edwards
Aquifer Authority Groundwater Management Plan, which
projects future water supply and demand within the
aquifer, and makes recommendations for conservation
and water use. The Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), which is the lead environmental agency
for the State of Texas, is the regulatory body responsible
for groundwater planning, quality assessment, and
conservation statewide.
The Texas Water Quality Board began issuing regulations
for recharge protection through buffers in 1970 and
introduced pollution abatement plans in 1974. Beginning
in 1984, all regulated development, including residential,
commercial, and industrial projects, require water
pollution abatement plans. TCEQ now regulates
development on "recharge, contributing, and transition
zones" to protect recharge levels of the Edwards Aquifer.
Development applications are reviewed for their effect on
recharge rates through TCEQ's San Antonio and Austin
offices. Impacting projects must complete an Edwards
Aquifer Protection Plan to mitigate the potential recharge
impacts of the project.
The San Antonio metropolitan area is part of the South
Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group, a regional
entity of the Texas Water Development Board. The
Texas Water Development Board is responsible for
carrying out regional water planning, as directed by the
Texas state legislature in 1997. The South Central Texas
Regional Water Planning Group is responsible for
providing 50 -year water supply plans, which are updated
every five years. The current plan, updated in 2011,
outlines available water sources for the region. Current
projections approximate that nearly 939,680 acre -feet /
year will be available to the region in 2030. The Edwards
Aquifer Authority, along with several local municipalities,
has also produced the Edwards Aquifer Habitat
Conservation Plan, as part of the Edwards Aquifer
Recovery Implementation Program, in an effort to restore
the aquifer's biodiversity and habitat for the protection of
federally - listed threatened and endangered species that
rely directly upon the Edwards Aquifer.
Carrizo - Wilcox Aquifer
A secondary significant water source in the region is the
Carrizo - Wilcox Aquifer, which extends from Louisiana to
the Mexican border. This aquifer also faces significant
pressure, as water levels have been reduced in recent
years from excessive out - pumping. Over half of the
water taken from the Carrizo - Wilcox Aquifer is used for
irrigation, while another 40 percent is directed for
municipal uses. The recent formation of the Regional
Carrizo Water Supply Program has enabled the cities of
San Antonio, Schertz, and Seguin to manage the
Carrizo - Wilcox water supply at a regional level ensuring
cost savings and a reliable supply.
Surface Water Resources
The San Antonio River
While the San Antonio River served as a major source of
drinking water in the early days of the city's
development, the river is no longer used for drinking
water uses. Instead, the river now fosters the
San Antonio River Walk in downtown San Antonio, which
serves as a major tourist draw and commercial /
economic driver. The San Antonio River Authority, which
covers four counties and includes Bexar County, was
created in 1937 to manage the stewardship of the
San Antonio River. Stewardship activities include
maintenance of buffer areas and river banks along the
river and its tributaries to help manage land use around
the river and ensure adequate water quality. Water
quality and resource depletion are current major
concerns due to the installation of wells, which has
sapped the river's headwaters in the heart of
San Antonio.
Sources: The Carrizo - Wilcox Aquifer in Texas, 2008;
San Antonio River Authority Homepage, accessed
October 2013; San Antonio Water System Management
Plan 2012; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
Regulatory History of the Edwards Aquifer, 2013; Texas
Region L Homepage, accessed October 2013.
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the military operational profile including an
overview of the history and current operations at Joint Base San Antonio - Randolph
(]BSA -R), ]BSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield (JBSA -S), and Stinson Municipal Airport within
the JBSA -R Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) study area.
Identifying and describing the various activities performed on the military installation
and associated areas of use provides valuable insight into the importance of JBSA -R,
JBSA -S, and Stinson Municipal Airport. This information enables stakeholders to make
informed decisions about the future development and economic growth of communities
proximate to JBSA -R and JBSA -S, which could potentially impact the existence and
future role of the installation.
Regional Economic Impact
According to the San Antonio Military Economic Impact Study (undated) jointly
commissioned by the City of San Antonio's Office of Military Affairs and Economic
Development Department, the Department of Defense (DoD) had an economic impact of
$27.7 billion within the greater San Antonio metropolitan area in 2011. The study also
noted that the DOD supported 189,148 employees within the greater San Antonio area
and that jobs associated with Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) accounted for almost half of
these employees - 92,000.
Joint Base San Antonio is comprised of JBSA -R, JBSA -Sam Houston, JBSA- Lackland, and
eight additional facilities located within and just outside San Antonio, Texas. The Joint
Base is a significant economic engine for the surrounding region and one of the largest
single employers in Texas.
According to economic impact data prepared by the 502d Comptroller Squadron for
fiscal year (FY) 2012, JBSA circulated almost $14 billion throughout the greater
San Antonio metropolitan area, as shown in Table 3 -1: JBSA Economic Impacts. This
contribution includes total payroll, contract expenditures, and job creation value. Payroll
distributions include military, civilian, retiree, and veteran compensations. Construction,
service contracts, commissary and Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), health
care benefits, military and civilian travel disbursements, educational aid, Veterans
Administration expenditures, and other spending all comprise contract expenditures.
Lastly, it is estimated that JBSA has created approximately 55,307 jobs with an annual
average salary of $40,760.
The job creation mentioned within the table is derived through what is known as the
multiplier effect. All wages and contract monies disbursed by JBSA have a larger impact
than just the net effect of the wage or contract dollar value. Each wage or contract
dollar spent within the local economy creates an additional monetary benefit within the
local area. This multiplier effect occurs when wages from direct employment and / or
earned wages from contract expenditures are spent on goods or services within the local
economy. The sales of these goods and services create additional employment, tax
revenues, and additional spending, which all benefit the local communities and the
region as a whole.
Source: San Antonio Military Economic Impact Study (undated), S. Nivin, PhD; JBSA
Total Military Economic Impact Statement Fiscal Year 2012 (undated), 502nd
Comptroller Squadron
Table 3 -1. JBSA Economic Impacts, FY 2012
Contract Expenditures $3,480,757,566
Total Economic Disbursement $13,849,141,166
Source: ]BSA Total Military Economic Impact Statement
Fiscal Year 2012 (undated), 502nd Comptroller Squadron
With respect to JBSA -R, the installation's expenditures
represent a portion of the overall JBSA expenditures and
contribute significantly to the economy of the local area.
The expenditures, as of September 2010 and as shown in
Figure 3 -1: JBSA -R Economic Impacts, total almost
$1.4 billion and are characterized the same as those for
the JBSA.
Figure 3 -1. J1BSA-R Economic Impacts
The high job creation value of JBSA -R relative to payroll
expenditures, compared to that of the entire JBSA, is
likely the result of several factors. One possible factor is
that 2,539 personnel or 89 percent of total military
personnel associated with JBSA -R do not live on JBSA -R;
these personnel live within the local communities
adjacent to JBSA -R resulting in rental and other
expenditures within the local communities. Another
factor could be the ratio of military personnel to DoD
civilians associated with JBSA -R. At JBSA -R, the
population of DoD civilians is almost double that of active
duty and reserve / guard military personnel. This is in
stark contrast to that of the JBSA where active duty and
reserve / guard military personnel outnumber DoD
civilians at a rate of almost 2 to 1. This could be a key
factor, since civilians likely do not have access to such
military amenities as AAFES, the commissary, or other
military- specific benefits and obtain goods, groceries, and
services within the local economy.
Source: Economic Impact Analysis (AFD- 120412 -062)
(undated), 502 ABW
The United States Army Air Corps Act began the search
for a new training area in 1926. At that time,
San Antonio was host to a large military contingent and
military planners felt that San Antonio and its environs
was a logical place for a new training area. Between
1927 and 1928, land for the new training center was
inspected, selected, and cleared. By 1931, construction
of the airfield and associated facilities was complete and
pilot training and education commenced in November of
the same year.
Since 1931, flight training has been an integral part of
JBSA -R. The specific type of training - pilot training,
primary training, instructor pilot training, and combat
crew training - has varied over the years, but the
primary focus of flight training has remained unchanged.
JBSA -R is named after Captain William Millican Randolph,
a native of Austin, Texas. Captain Randolph was serving
on the base naming committee when he died in an
airplane crash.
Due to the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style
employed throughout the facilities during construction in
the 1930s and the large number of original buildings still
in use, JBSA -R is known as "the Showplace of the Air
Force ". The symbol of the base is Building 100, which
includes a large water tower and houses the
headquarters for Randolph's major flying unit, the
12' Flying Training Wing. With its distinctive
architecture, Building 100 has come to be known
throughout the Air Force as "The Taj Mahal," or simply
"The Tai".
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated)
Photo taken by Thomas O. Pierce and provided courtesy
of Bob Chadwell.
Y #t F
Administrative Organization
The installation is one of three primary military
installations comprising the JBSA; the other two
installations are JBSA -Sam Houston, and JBSA - Lackland
Prior to the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment
activities, the three installations were separate and
distinct entities within the Air Force and Army. Both
Randolph and Lackland fell under the jurisdiction of the
United States Air Force (USAF) and Sam Houston fell
under the jurisdiction of the United States Army.
Following the implementation of the Base Closure and
Realignment Commission recommendations, the three
installations were administratively merged and now
comprise the JBSA, which is under the direction of the
USAF.
Location and Area
JBSA -R is located in Bexar County, Texas about 15 miles
northeast of downtown San Antonio. The installation
enjoys easy access to major transportation corridors
including Interstate 35 (I -35), I -10, and Loop 1604 and
rail operated by Union Pacific. Neighboring, developed
communities include the City of Converse to the west,
the City of Universal City to the north, and the City of
Schertz, which wraps around JBSA -R extending from the
installation's northeast corner to the installation's
southwest corner.
The installation includes 2,894 acres with an urbanized
setting and the majority of open areas are comprised of
maintained lawns and planted trees and shrubbery.
Developed areas include facilities and uses associated
with airfield operations; industrial / maintenance;
administrative; community commercial, e.g., AAFES, and
community service, e.g., chapel; medical; housing;
outdoor recreation; and open space / water. Very few
areas on JBSA -R are undeveloped.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated)
Demographics and Housing
Based on information in the Economic Impact Analysis
that was current as of September 2010, JBSA -R has a
permanent population of 2,867 military personnel; this
total includes 286 Air Force Reserve and Air National
Guard personnel. Associated with the permanent military
personnel are 4,409 dependent family members.
The available housing on JBSA -R was privatized in 2007
under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. The
goal of the program is to leverage private sector
financing to provide quality housing for military
personnel. On JBSA -R, the selected privatization entity,
Pinnacle -Hunt Communities, manages a housing stock
consisting of 173 single - family units and 144 duplex
units. The Randolph General Plan (2008) noted that the
overall housing requirement is greater than the existing
housing stock and that continued operation of the
existing high school on JBSA -R is dependent on a
minimum number of housing units. Other, temporary
housing available for unaccompanied military personnel
and visiting guests includes dormitories and lodging
facilities.
Source: Economic Impact Analysis (AFD- 120412 -062)
(undated), 502ABW; General Plan Randolph AFB, TX
(undated)
Mission Organizations
The host mission organizations at JBSA -R include the
902d Mission Support Group (MSG), the 902d
Comptroller Squadron, and other staff agencies
associated with the 502d Air Base Wing (ABW). Other
major mission organizations at JBSA -R include the
1211 Flying Training Wing (FTW) and the 3591h Medical
Group.
The 902d MSG at JBSA -R is one of three units assigned
to the 502d Air Base Wing (ABW). The 502d ABW is
headquartered at JBSA -Sam Houston and also includes
the 502d MSG at JBSA -Sam Houston and the
502d Installation Support Group (ISG) at JBSA - Lackland.
The three MSG are the primary support groups charged
with installation support. At JBSA -R, the 902d MSG
includes six squadron units: Civil Engineering,
Communications, Contracting, Force Support, Logistics
Readiness, and Security Forces; the Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate; and the Trainer Development Division.
The 12th FTW is comprised of the 12th Operations Group
and the 12th Maintenance Directorate. The
12th Operations Group is further comprised of the
12th Operations Support Squadron, the 435th Fighter
Training Squadron, and the 99th, 558 th, 559th, and
56011 Flying Training Squadrons. The 1211 FTW is
responsible for carrying out the flight training and
instruction mission at ]BSA -R.
The 359th Medical Group includes the Aero Medical,
Dental, Medical Operations, and Medical Support
Squadrons. It is charged with the provision of
comprehensive health services for military personnel and
their dependents and military retirees within the local
San Antonio community.
Source: JBSA website (accessed Sept and Oct 2013);
Economic Impact Analysis (AFD- 120412 -062) (undated),
502 ABW
Mission Partner Organizations
JBSA -R is host to several commands headquartered at
the installation and numerous partner organizations.
The Air Education and Training Command (AETC), the
Air Force Recruiting Service, and the Air Force Personnel
Center are all headquartered at JBSA -R. The AETC
oversees the 12th FTW among other FTWs, Air Reserve
Component Units, the 2d Air Force, Air University, and
the Air Force Recruiting Service. The AETC is responsible
for recruiting, training, and educating Air Force service
members. The Air Force Recruiting Service is responsible
for populating the enlisted and officer segments of the
USAF through recruitment activities and programs. The
Air Force Personnel Center provides support services and
manages support programs for all military personnel -
active or retired - and their dependents and civilian
personnel employed with the USAF.
Other mission partner organizations located at JBSA -R
include: the Air Force Manpower Agency, and Air Force
Judiciary Central Circuit, the Air Force Audit Agency, the
Air Force Office of Special Investigations, the Naval
Civilian Personnel Data System Center, the Defense
Civilian Personnel Management Service, the Air Force
Reserve Officers' Training Corps Southwest Region, the
Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron, and the
T -38 Queen Bee Maintenance Operations as performed
by Lear Siegler - a defense contractor.
Source: JBSA website (accessed Sept and Oct 2013);
Economic Impact Analysis (AFD - 120412 -062) (undated),
502 ABW
Current Mission Operations and Facilities
Operations
Flight operations in support of the flight training mission
are conducted 260 days per year (Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Study, 2008). These operations
are conducted during the day and generally limited to the
hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Typically,
because the flight operations are training activities, they
are conducted during daylight hours only (Hamilton,
2013). Night operations, i.e., from 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m., are rare exceptions and require coordination
with and approval from the 12th FTW Operations Group in
accordance with the JBSA -R Noise Management Plan.
Page 34
The 1211 FTW operates parallel runways on the east and
west sides of the installation; the runway designations
are 14L/32R and 14R/32L. The 14L/32R runway is
located on the eastern perimeter of JBSA -R and the
14R/32L runway is located on the western perimeter.
Runway 14L/32R has consistently been utilized for more
flight operations than its western counterpart. This, and
flight operations data for recent years, is shown in
Table 3 -2: Flight Operations. It should be noted that
each operation is either one takeoff or one landing so
that a complete flight activity or sortie would include both
a takeoff and a landing and be counted as two
operations.
08 111,097 102,654 231,751
10 110,672 103,375 214,047
12 119,119 102,625 221,745
Source: email communication from JBSA -R in response to
Matrix RFI (undated)
Regardless of runway selection, the majority of flight
operations occur in a north to south direction. This
operational direction occurs throughout most months
during the year, but shifts to a south to north direction
during several months in the winter based on weather
and prevailing winds. Additionally, the flight training
operations vary and include both open and closed pattern
traffic. Closed pattern traffic differs from open pattern
traffic in that a closed loop is generally flown for the
purpose of maximizing touch and go /takeoff and landing
sequences, while an open pattern is generally flown for
the purpose of obtaining flight time in the cockpit.
Aside from flight operations conducted by aircraft based
at ]BSA -R, other military aircraft occasionally utilize the
airfield at the installation. These operations are
considered transient operations and included
1,124 operations in calendar year (CY) 2010,
1,216 operations in CY11, 835 operations in CY12, and
314 operations as of July 2013 for CY13. Transient
operations are accepted up to 312 days per year - in
contrast to the 260 days provided to the 12th FTW for
training. Additionally, it is unclear what types of aircraft
are associated with these transient operations.
The JBSA -R mission is unique within the Air Force based
on the volume of aircraft operations, making the
installation towers the busiest in the Air Force. Due to
weather factors and pre- existing high- density
development north of JBSA- Randolph, approximately
70 -80 percent of these operations are conducted to the
south. The 12th Flying Training Wing conducts over
26,000 sorties annually, including more than
212,000 local takeoffs and landing traffic pattern
operations in 2014. In particular, the 12' Flying Training
Wing conducted over 115,000 takeoffs and landings on
the west runway in 2014 alone with the
high - performance T -6 Texan trainer as the primary
aircraft accounting for these operations. On every
takeoff, there is only a 30- second window in which a
pilot's only safe option in an emergency is to eject. In
this phase of flight and in the event of an emergency, the
probability that the aircraft will land in the Accident
Potential Zones (APZs) is high. Due to the requirement
to deconflict operations, particularly from the east
parallel runway, departing aircraft must fly a course
heading of 160 degrees to the west of the APZs. The
T -38 Talon is a dual- engine fighter- trainer aircraft that
operates from the east runway. There is a significantly
more acute risk of an accident occurring with this aircraft
during traffic pattern operations due the higher speeds
and weight of the T -38 compared to the T -6.
Other mission operations conducted by the 12th FTW
include repair or replacement of external parts on aircraft
engines from aircraft at JBSA -R and aircraft from other
Air Force installations. The engines are removed from
the aircraft and placed into test cells contained within
facilities on JBSA -R. The engines are installed within the
test cell, operated at capacity to determine the necessary
repair or replacement of external parts, fixed, and then
operated again within the test cell to ensure that the
engine is safe for operational use. Once deemed
operational, the engine is immediately available for use
and can replace an engine in need of repair in another
aircraft. Approximately 35 to 40 engines are evaluated
for repairs every month. Engine operation can produce
up to 30,000 pounds of thrust and generate 'deafening
noise' (Wingspread, 2010).
Currently, the aircraft used at JBSA -R are light jets and
turbojet aircraft and include the T -38 Talon, T -6A
Texan II, and T -1 Jayhawk.
T -38C Talon
Photo courtesy of General Plan, Randolph AFB, TX (2008)
T -6A Texan H
Photo courtesy of General Plan, Randolph AFB, TX (2008)
T -1A Jayhawk
Photo courtesy of General Plan, Randolph AFB, TX (2008)
Facilities
The two runways at JBSA -R both measure 200 feet (ft.)
wide, but differ in length by two ft.; Runway 14L/32R
measures 8,351 ft. long, while Runway 14R/32L
measures 8,353 ft. long. Both are constructed of
concrete and include overruns at each runway end
measuring 1,000 ft. long. The runway lengths - greater
than 8,000 ft. - and the aircraft types that use the
runways - high - performance aircraft - allow both
runways to be classified as Class B. Class B runways,
aside from high - performance aircraft, are also classified
for use by large, heavy aircraft.
The airfield containing both runways rests at a general
elevation of 762 ft. above mean sea level (MSL). This
elevation or height above MSL is based on vertical
distance measured from the average surface level of the
ocean. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
location identifier for the airfield at JBSA -R is'RND'.
The airspace surrounding the JBSA -R airfield is controlled
and classified as Class D. According to the FAA, Class D
airspace is typically measured based on a set of
calculations that includes longest runway length, airport
elevation, flight departure length to assume a certain
elevation, and other measurements. The calculation of
these measurements in a certain equation establishes a
radius length. This radius length extends from the
airport's established reference point, which is the center
of the longest runway, the geographic center of the
airport, or something other fixed point, and fully encircles
an area around the airport to form the controlled airspace
area. Class D airspace typically extends from the surface
to an elevation up to and including 2,500 ft. above
ground level (AGL). The airspace at JBSA -R follows the
typical calculation:
762 ft. (airfield elev.at MSL) + 2,500 ft. (AGL) _
3,262 ft.
The Class D airspace associated with JBSA -R extends
from the airfield surface to an elevation up to and
including 3,300 ft. MSL.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated);
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (2008); in
person interview with LTC Hamilton (Jul 2013); email
communication from JBSA -R in response to Matrix RFI
(undated); telephone interview with S. Rodriguez
(Sept 2013); email communication from JBSA -R in
response to Matrix RFI (undated); Wingspread,
"Mechanics solve T -38 engine problems in test
cell "(Jul 16, 2010), R Goetz; 12 FTWI 13 -204 (undated);
Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters (Feb 9, 2012),
FAA; San Antonio Sectional (eff. May 2, 2013), FAA
Future Mission Operations and Facilities
To enable the AF to train in a new two -seat jet trainer,
the USAF T -X program will begin in 2017 and is expected
to be fully operational by 2023. The T -X aircraft will
replace the T -38 Talon as the T -38 Talon fleet is over
43 years old. The new T -X aircraft is a faster two -seat
jet that will enable sustained high -G operations, aerial
refueling, night vision imaging systems operations,
air -to -air intercepts, and data -link operations. This
aircraft will be more advanced regarding the information
systems capability of the aircraft as opposed to the T -38
aircraft. With this advanced technology, the T -X aircraft
is more likely to have a larger noise footprint than its
counterpart the T -38. This could have increased impacts
including noise and safety on the communities in the
vicinity of the JBSA -R airfield.
The primary mission of JBSA -R is to provide basic flight
training and specialized fighter pilot training for student
pilots and train experienced pilots to become flight
instructors. Several elements are associated with this
flight training. These elements are either tangible
meaning that they are either physically seen and / or
heard or intangible meaning that they exist within space
without being seen or heard. One example of a tangible
element is noise associated with aircraft activity; one
example of an intangible element is the flight path taken
by an aircraft. A person can see a plane in the sky and
see it moving, but cannot necessarily see the path it has
taken or see where it will continue. These tangible and
intangible elements comprise the mission footprint.
Oftentimes, the footprint is not contained within the
confines of the military installation; noise, for example,
does not stop at the fence line. The mission footprint can
potentially affect areas adjacent to or near the
installation. Conversely, some development activities
occurring in communities such as residential or
commercial development within or adjacent to a military
installation (depending on location) have a potential to
adversely impact aircraft operations.
Elements associated with the JBSA -R mission are both
localized and regional in nature. Localized elements
include:
• Approach and Departure Flight Tracks
• Airfield Noise Contours
• Airfield Safety Zones
• Other Imaginary Surfaces
in Vertical Obstructions
Bird and Wildlife Airstrike Hazards
Regional elements include:
• Military Training Routes
• Military Operating Areas
• Restricted Airspace
Maintaining and sustaining these local and regional
elements plays a significant role in the long -term viability
of JBSA -R and continued mission readiness of the USAF.
Local Footprint Elements Relevant to
JBSA- Randolph Airfield Operations
The maximum potential for aircraft accidents, structure
height, and noise levels are three factors that are
controlled to the extent practicable through the following
local footprint elements.
Approach and Departure Flight Tracks
At JBSA -R, flight tracks are essentially prescribed flying
routes. The flying routes are designed to deconflict
airspace use with other aircraft not affiliated with JBSA -R,
including aircraft associated with other military airfields
and civilian airports within the San Antonio region, and
minimize flight activity impacts on land areas outside of
JBSA -R. Prescribed flight tracks or routes are typically
implemented by all airfields / airports within a set area to
ensure predictable flight operations. These routes act
similarly to surface highways and set a continuous
pattern for all active aircraft.
As excerpted from the Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) Study prepared for the former
Randolph Air Force Base (AFB) in 2008:
"Aircraft operating at Randolph AFB use the
following flight patterns:
• Straight -out departure;
• Takeoff patterns routed to avoid
overflying populated areas as much as
possible;
• Turn out after takeoff;
• Straight -in arrival;
Overhead closed patterns both east and
west of the airfield;
Radar closed patterns to the east of the
airfield;
Re -entry patterns;
Alteration of flight tracks to avoid Bracken
Cave, located about 10 miles north of the
airfield, and other caves along the
Balcones Escarpment during periods of
bat activity;
Alteration of flight tracks to avoid
overflight of Village Oaks Regional
Hospital on Toepperwein Road; and
Coordination with the FAA to minimize
conflict with civilian aircraft operations."
The JBSA -R open flight tracks involve arrivals to and
departures from the airfield. These flight tracks occur
over a large geographic area, since aircraft are transiting
throughout the region. Within the study area, the tracks
overlay multiple areas within the cities of Converse, Live
Oak, Schertz, Selma, and Universal City; the northern
boundary of Garden Ridge; the southern and western
extremes of Cibolo, and the extreme eastern edges of
San Antonio. These flight tracks are shown in Figure 3 -2
Flight Tracks - Open.
The JBSA -R closed flight tracks involve flight training for
touch- and -go practice. Touch- and -go practice focuses on
achieving the maximum amount of landing and takeoff
operations possible within a limited period of time. Since
the goal is to optimize the total number of touch - and -go
operations and not flight time per se, the aircraft limit
their distance from the airfield and fly circular or closed
loops around and in concert with one of the two runways.
These flight tracks do not extend out of the study area
and overlay all of the cities within the study area with the
exception of the City of Seguin. These flight tracks are
shown in Figure 3 -3: Flight Tracks - Closed.
Regardless of open or closed flight track, once an aircraft
departs the airfield at JBSA -R, they conform to the
aforementioned flight pattern and ascend to a height
between 500 feet and 2,500 feet AGL as soon as
possible. While this conformity and rapid ascension
reduces noise impacts, these altitudes are still close to
the ground and create a significant noise presence.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated);
AICUZ Study Randolph AFB, TX (2008); GIS data
provided by JBSA -R
Airfield Noise Contours
Aircraft noise is one of the most common intrusive
factors associated with airfield operations. Generally,
aircraft approaching and departing an airfield generate
the greatest noise due to greater engine thrust and
proximity. Whether or not the noise from the aircraft is
considered to be a nuisance depends on the land use
receiving the noise. Noise associated with aircraft is
usually considered annoying where land uses are
incompatible with the aircraft activity. Residential uses
under aircraft approach and departure corridors are most
likely to determine the noise associated with aircraft
operations to be an annoyance.
To obtain a more accurate picture regarding the actual
levels of noise inside and outside the JBSA -R fence line,
data regarding flight frequency, aircraft type, flight
altitude, and flight tracks was collected and entered into
the NOISEMAP modeling program to generate noise
contours. The modeling program develops a sound
profile and a corresponding noise contour based on the
data input. The contour information produced for this
effort was captured in the AICUZ Study (2008) and is
shown on Figure 3 -4: Noise Contours. Because the
sound profile is attributed to transportation / military
operation, an A- weighted day -night level (DNL) is
applied. The A- weighting serves to minimize higher and
lower frequencies to more truly match the sound that the
human ear would hear.
Given the factors that went into modeling the noise
contours at JBSA -R, the NOISEMAP modeling program
produced four DNL -based noise contours associated with
the aircraft activities occurring at JBSA -R. These are the
DNL 65 decibel (dB) contour, DNL 70 dB contour,
DNL 75 dB contour, and the DNL 80 dB contour. The dB
rating means that that measured sound does not exceed
the edge of the contour; e.g., noise occurring at 66 dB is
on the inside of the 65 dB contour, whereas noise
occurring at 63 dB is on the outside of the 65 dB contour.
With respect to the west runway, 14R/32L, only the
DNL 70 and 65 dB noise contours extend off of JBSA -R.
The DNL 70 dB contour marginally extends off of the
southwest corner of the runway and into the City of
Converse. The DNL 65 dB contour extends off of JBSA -R
to the north and the south, into the cities of Universal
City and Converse, respectively. The DNL 65 dB contour
flares to the west from runway 32L and continues west
past Loop 1604.
With respect to the east runway, 14L/32R - where the
majority of operations occur, all of the noise contours
extend off the JBSA -R. The noise contours for DNL 80
and 75 dB, though, only extend off of JBSA -R at the
installation's southern perimeter. The noise contour for
DNL 80 dB exceeds the installation's perimeter by a
maximum of 200 to 300 ft. The noise contour for
DNL 75 dB extends to an area located about a half -mile
north of Ware Seguin Road. The DNL 70 dB noise
contour extends to the north into the cities of Schertz
and Universal City and to the south into the City of
Schertz. The DNL 65 dB contour also extends into the
cities of Universal City and Schertz, but extends into a
larger area within both locals. Additionally, the
DNL 65 dB contour extends past I -10.
The JBSA -R AICUZ Study included a review of
incompatible land uses associated with each of the four
noise zones. Incompatibility is based on DoD and
Air Force guidance recommending against certain land
uses within specific noise zones; noise - sensitive land
uses, such as residential, are generally recommended for
placement outside of all four noise zones. The study
noted 208 acres of incompatible residential land use
within the 65 dB - 69 dB noise zone and 24 acres of
incompatible land use within the 70 dB - 79 dB noise
zone. These affected areas align with open and closed
flight track data, but, in certain areas within the cities of
Converse and Schertz, fall outside of the safety zones
aligned with the two runways. Safety zones are
discussed in the next few paragraphs.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated);
AICUZ Study Randolph AFB, TX (2008); GIS data
provided by JBSA -R
Airfield Safety Zones
Based on historical data and incidents associated with
airfields and aircraft collision, the DOD has defined
several areas where aircraft accidents are more likely to
occur. These collective areas are known as airfield safety
zones. Safety zones are typically rectangular areas
approximately 3,000 ft. wide and 15,000 ft. long and are
located at the ends of all military airfield runways.
Civilian safety zones / runway protection zones share the
same purpose, but have different dimensions. The
higher accident incident rates are due to several
variables: the altitude and speed of the aircraft, weather
conditions, and the potential for natural- and man -made
obstructions near an airfield. Natural obstructions to
navigable airspace include overgrown trees and
mountains, while man -made obstructions include
telephone poles and tall objects. To limit some of the
controllable variables - like man -made obstructions, the
DOD has recommended restrictions on allowable
development within the airfield safety zones based on the
location of the zone in relation to the runway.
The three individual areas that comprise the safety zone
for military airfields are:
• Clear Zones (CZ)
• Accident Potential Zones I (APZ I)
• Accident Potential Zones II (APZ II)
Clear Zone (CZ) is the area that begins at the end of
each runway and measures 3,000 ft. wide and 3,000 ft.
long by standard DoD instructions. However, JBSA -R's
CZs are 2,000 feet by 3,000 feet. The center point of the
zone corresponds to the center line of the runway. This
is the area where an aircraft accident is most likely to
occur due to aircraft flying at slower speeds and lower
altitudes. Development of any type is recommended to
be completely restricted in this area. The CZs
encompass land within Universal City and the City of
Schertz to the north and encompass land within the cities
of Converse and Schertz to the south.
Accident Potential Zone I (APZ I) is the area that
begins at the end of the CZ. It is 3,000 ft. wide and
extends for a length of 5,000 ft. The potential for an
accident in the APZ I is less than that of the CZ so some
development is permitted, but it is limited to specific
types of development with low occupancy levels. The
APZ I areas are within the cities of Universal City and
Schertz to the north and the cities of Converse, Schertz,
and San Antonio to the south.
Accident Potential Zone II (APZ 11) is the area that
starts at the end of the APZ I. It is 3,000 ft. wide and
extends for a length of 7,000 ft. The potential for an
accident in the APZ II is less than that of the CZ and the
APZ I. Development is still somewhat restricted and
based on occupancy levels, but is less restrictive than the
CZ and the APZ I. The APZ II areas extend into the cities
of Universal City, Selma, and Schertz to the north and
the City of Schertz to the south.
Figure 3 -5: Safety Zones illustrate the locations of the CZ
and the APZ and the affected cities.
Statistically, 68 percent of USAF accidents occur along
the runway or within the CZ, APZ I. or APZ II. While the
potential for accidents is statistically relevant, the
potential is decreased within APZ I and II does not
warrant property acquisition by the USAF. Accordingly,
land use planning and control recommendations are
strongly encouraged in these areas for the protection of
the public. Occupancy and building densities - the
number of buildings per acre of land, are two ways in
which land uses are limited within the CZ, APZ I, and
APZ II.
Permitted and non - permitted land uses based on human
occupancy and building densities are incorporated within
the AICUZ study.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated);
AICUZ Study Randolph AFB, TX (2008); Unified Facilities
Criteria 3- 260 -1: Airfield and Heliport Planning and
Design (Nov 17, 2008) DoD; GIS data provided by
JBSA -R
Airfield Imaginary Surfaces
To further reduce the potential for accidents surrounding
an airfield, a series of imaginary surfaces are employed
around the perimeter of the entire airfield to characterize
acceptable height limits. Height limits are acceptable
when they allow for the safe transit of aircraft in the
areas around an airfield. When structures like
communication towers or objects like trees exceed this
acceptable height limit, they are characterized as vertical
obstructions.
The imaginary surfaces that help to define acceptable
height limits are established by the DoD according to
military department and runway type, i.e., Class A versus
Class B. The surfaces utilized by the USAF for a Class B
runway are described below and illustrated in Figure 3 -6:
Primary Surface is the area in the immediate
vicinity of the landing or takeoff area and
essentially forms a large rectangle around the
entire active runway area. It extends 200 ft. in
length past the end of the runway surface and has
a varied width depending on the runway
requirements, but is typically 1,000 to 2,000 ft.
wide. The primary surface associated with the
JBSA -R runways is 2,000 ft. wide, which means
that the surface measures 1,000 ft. wide on either
side of the runway centerline.
Approach-Departure Clearance Surface is the
area that starts 200 ft. past the end of the primary
surface, measures 50,000 ft. long, and is
associated with an aircraft's takeoff and landing
area. Because it is associated with an aircraft's
takeoff and landing, it is both fan- and
wedge- shaped. Fan shaped because it is only
measures 2,000 ft. wide at its start near the end
of the runway, but fans out and extends to a width
of 16,000 ft. at the farthest edge of the clearance
surface. it is wedge- shaped because it starts at a
height of 500 ft. above the runway surface, but
ascends in height at a 50 to 1 ratio (50 ft. high for
every foot across) for the entire 50,000 -foot
length.
Inner Horizontal Surface is the oval - shaped
area that surrounds the runway at a height of
150 ft. above the established airfield elevation
(EAE). It measures a total of 15,000 ft. wide and
includes the area above the runway. It is
measured 7,500 ft. out from the centerline of the
runway and forms a half - circle at the runway ends.
Conical Surface is the oval - shaped area that
measures 7,000 ft. in width and connects the
outside edge of the Inner Horizontal Surface to the
inside edge of the Outer Horizontal Surface. It
slopes from the Inner Horizontal Surface to the
Outer Horizontal Surface at a ratio of 20 to 1
meaning that it extends 20 ft. in height for every
foot across.
Outer Horizontal Surface is the oval- shaped
area that measures 30,000 ft. in width out from
the farthest edge of the conical surface. The
height of the Outer Horizontal Surface is at 500 ft.
above the EAE.
Transitional Surface is comprised of several
vertical and vertically - sloped areas that connect all
of the previously mentioned surfaces together.
One set of transitional surfaces connects the
outside edge of the primary surface to the inside
edge of the inner horizontal surface. This
connection is sloped at a ratio of 7 to 1 meaning
that it extends seven ft. in height for every foot
across. The second set of transitional surfaces
connects the approach- departure clearance
surfaces with the inner horizontal, conical, and
outer horizontal surfaces. This connection is also
sloped at a 7 to 1 ratio.
The airfield imaginary surface covers an extensive area;
the JLUS study area for JBSA -R was specifically sized to
fit this footprint element. All of the cities within the
study area are included within the area overlain by the
imaginary surface element as shown in Figure 3 -7:
Airfield Imaginary Surfaces.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated);
AICUZ Study Randolph AFB, TX (2008); Unified Facilities
Criteria 3- 260 -1: Airfield and Heliport Planning and
Design (Nov 17, 2008) DoD; GIS data provided by
JBSA -R
Vertical Obstructions
Separately from and in addition to the DoD- established
imaginary surfaces, the FAA also established guidance to
reduce the potential for accidents surrounding an airfield.
This guidance is codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations at Title 14, Part 77.17 and utilized by the
FAA during obstruction evaluations. The guidance and
process for obstruction evaluation is more fully detailed
in Section 4: Existing Tools as it is not a military- specific
element and is not a direct result of JBSA -R operations.
It is included here, within the military profile,
nonetheless, because it is associated with the JBSA -R
airfield location. Figure 3 -8 illustrates the FAA Part 77
footprint in relation to the JLUS study area communities.
Source: 14 CFR § 77.17; GIS data provided by JBSA -R
Pape 3 -13
as
NOT TO SCALE
30, 00 ft
00
500'
1 501
EAE
(Primary Surface)
fAE
Mok
11000 ft.
Primary Surface
2,OSO to
Transitional
7:1 Surface woD-B)
7,500 ft.
4i
is 111V MOVIZontal Surface (M OD-C)
sj
14,500 tL
20-.1
Conical Surface (MOD-D)
44,SOO ft.
0§011"
ki
Outer Horizontal
Surface (MOD-F)
Summary of Noise Contours, Safety Zones,
and Imaginary Surfaces
The interrelationship of noise contours, safety zones,
imaginary surfaces collectively shape the potential land
uses surrounding the airfield. The AICUZ study is a
document that captures this collective data and sets forth
recommendations to help communities plan compatible
land uses and undertake physical development around
airfields used for military training. Communities can and
should incorporate these recommended land uses into
their planning and regulatory documents including, but
not limited to: comprehensive and / or master plans and
zoning codes. By incorporating these recommended land
uses, local governments can proactively plan and develop
areas within their communities that are adjacent to
military airfields. This planning helps to maintain current
and future operations associated with the military and,
more importantly, ensures the safety of the public.
Bird and Wildlife Air Strike Hazards
Birds and wildlife pose a threat to military training and
flight operations. Due to changes in regional migratory
patterns and the availability of dense foliage for roosting
on the installation, JBSA Randolph has become an ideal
habitat for a flock of migratory White Winged Dove. At
an estimated flock size of 12,000 - 15,000 birds, and
growing, the White Winged Doves present a particularly
acute risk to high -speed jet operations on Randolph's
east runway. These birds accounted for only
12.5 percent of damaging bird - strikes in FY 12, but this
rate steadily increased to 55.6% of damaging bird - strikes
in FY 14. Aggressive efforts are underway to contain the
expanding BASH threat. Risk mitigation techniques, such
as adjusting flight operations, successfully reduced
overall bird strikes from 75 in FY13 to 70 in FY 14.
Previous short -term methods are planned for expanded
use in FY 15 but are considered unsustainable due to
long term effects on lost training and reduced pilot
production. Habitat reduction by eliminating retaining
ponds and flora favorable to these species greatly
reduces the risk associated with bird activities. While
small in number, large bird species that inhabit
installation water sources are especially damaging in an
aircraft strike incident. These large birds, such as Cranes
and Egrets, are most effectively controlled by eliminating
nonessential water sources both on the installation and in
the communities surrounding the installation.
Air strikes with deer, birds, and coyote can be very
dangerous and have caused not only damage to aircraft,
but also the loss of human lives.
Airports, due to the nature of their operations, typically
have large, open, grassy areas where various wildlife
congregate. Additionally, some land uses, like golf
courses, are often situated near airports because they
can easily meet the height and density restrictions
imposed by aircraft activity. Unfortunately, golf courses
also have large, open, grassy areas and oftentimes also
feature water - another wildlife attractant. Given the
Photo courtesy ofIBSA -R
fatal ramifications that can occur as a result of a bird
and / or wildlife strike, the FAA set forth
recommendations for managing these types and other
types of bird and wildlife attractants near airports.
The primary recommendation made by the FAA is
creating and managing a minimum separation distance
between an airfield and wildlife attractants. The
minimum separation distance extends five miles out from
the entire perimeter of the air operations area, i.e.,
paved and unpaved areas associated with aircraft
movement including runways, taxiway, and aprons. This
area was determined "to protect approach, departure and
circling airspace." This area is one that cannot be
physically seen similar to the previously mentioned
imaginary surfaces. In contrast to the imaginary
surfaces, the area measuring five miles out from the
airfield perimeter does not include a height aspect since it
deals with the management of terrestrial features like
land use and water features. The five -mile minimum
separation distance for JBSA -R is illustrated in
Figure 3 -9: BASH Relevancy Area. All of the JBSA -R
JLUS participating communities are located within the
separation distance with the exception of the City of
Garden Ridge; the City of Seguin is within the separation
distance for JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield as shown in the
upcoming information regarding JBSA -S.
The FAA set forth various planning and operational
recommendations to be implemented within the minimum
separation distance. These recommendations include the
management of: waste disposal operations, water
management facilities, wetlands, dredge spoil
containment areas, agricultural activities, and golf
courses, landscaping, and other land -use considerations.
Specific to JBSA -R, the installation recorded 88 bird
strikes in FY12. These strikes resulted in repair costs of
approximately $709,000. The repair costs associated
with these strikes is not yet known. Interesting to note is
that the strike rate significantly increases during the
months of July, August, and September. Significant
because the strikes occurring in these months, when
compared to the months with the least strikes (0) and
Pale 3-17
the highest strikes (10) outside of this summer period
represent an increase of two to 18 times more strikes.
JBSA -R utilizes a BASH Plan to manage air and airfield
operations with respect to potential bird and wildlife
airstrikes. The management tools contained within the
installation's BASH Plan are further detailed in Section 4:
Existing Tools as the plan represents a management tool
in use by JBSA -R. In relation to the military footprint
detailed in this section, the BASH Plan notes several
issues that are related to areas off ]BSA -R. The plan
notes raptors and white - winged doves associated with
Cibolo Creek present a conflict to operations on Runway
14L. The plan also notes that a greater number of BASH
incidents - bird strikes - are associated with operations
occurring on the east runway, 14L/32R, in comparison to
the west runway, 14R/32L.
Source: Advisory Circular: 15015200 -33B - Hazardous
Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports (Aug 27. 2008)
FAA; Bird Strike Summary FY12 113 (undated) JBSA -R;
GIS data provided by JBSA -R
Regional Footprint Elements Relevant to
JBSA -R Flight Operations
Noise and vibration are two of the primary factors
associated with the following regional footprint elements.
The limited focus of noise and vibration is due to the fact
that many of these elements only involve air operations /
overflights that occur over sparsely populated and rural
areas, but that may occur at low altitudes.
Special Use Airspace
There are two types of special use airspace: regulatory
and non - regulatory. Regulatory airspace is airspace that
is established and regulated via Title 14, Part 73 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Non - regulatory airspace
does not require inclusion in the FAA regulations.
With respect to military operations, regulatory special use
airspace includes prohibited areas and restricted areas.
Non - regulatory special use airspace includes military
operating areas (MOAs), military training routes (MTRs),
warning areas, alert areas, national security areas, and
controlled firing areas.
Specific to JBSA -R, regulatory and non - regulatory special
use airspace includes restricted areas, MOAs, MTRs, slow
speed low altitude training routes, and alert areas. These
special use airspace types are shown on Figure 3 -10:
Special Use Airspace.
Source: 14 CFR § 73; Installation Complex Encroachment
Management Action Plan figure (March 2012) JBSA; in
person interview with S Taylor (Jul 2013); GIS data
provided by JBSA -R
Restricted Airspace R -6312
R -6312 is operated by the U.S. Navy as a part of Naval
Air Station Kingsville and is located approximately
65 miles north of Kingsville, Texas. According to Global
Security, "the range offers scored training for air to
surface gunnery and inert weapons drops." The vertical
limit for air operations within R -6312 is a flight level of
23,000 ft.; flight level altitudes are based on barometric
pressure. The U.S. Navy is currently proposing a request
to raise the flight level to 24,000 to allow for the conduct
of high altitude bomb release training. Restricted
airspace does not prohibit other aircraft unassociated
with the military mission from transiting the airspace;
although, passage through the airspace is subject to
limitations.
Source: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Proposed
Modification of Restricted Area R -6312 Cotulla, TX
(April 5, 2001) Federal Register; Global Security website
(accessed Oct 2013); San Antonio Sectional (May 2,
2013) FAA; Installation Complex Encroachment
Management Action Plan figure (March 2012) JBSA; in
person interview with S Taylor (Jul 2013); GIS data
provided by JBSA -R
Military Operating Areas
MOAs provide regulated airspace for military flight
training and flight activities. The MOAs include both floor
and ceiling operational limits as well as lateral limits /
horizontal boundaries. The regulated airspace does not
preclude use by other non - military aircraft. Aircraft
operating under visual flight rules (VFR) are not denied
access, but must remain vigilant to military aircraft.
Aircraft operating under instrument flight rules (IFR) may
be allowed access provided the aircraft maintains proper
separation from and does not interfere with the military
activity. Aircraft operating under VFR means that the
pilots fly in conditions where they can visually observe
their surroundings and can use the surroundings as
geographical references for orientation and navigation.
Aircraft operating under IFR means that the pilots utilize
instruments to obtain lateral and vertical information
relevant to the location of their aircraft.
The JBSA -R MOAs are located outside of the San Antonio
metropolitan area and include:
Randolph lA MOA, TX - floor of 8,000 MSL to
ceiling of 17,999 MSL
Randolph 1B MOA, TX - floor of 7,000 MSL to
ceiling of 18,000 MSL
Randolph 2A MOA, TX - floor of 9,000 MSL to
ceiling of 18,000 MSL
Randolph 2B MOA, TX - floor of 14,000 MSL to
ceiling of 17,999 MSL
Kingsville 5 MOA, TX - floor of 9,000 MSL to
ceiling of 17,999 MSL
TEXON MOA, TX - floor of 6,000 MSL to ceiling of
17,999 MSL
The Randolph 1A MOA is located east /southeast of
San Antonio. The Randolph 1B and Kingsville 5 MOAs are
both located southeast of San Antonio. The Randolph 2A
and 2B MOAs are both located west of San Antonio. The
TEXON MOA is located northwest of San Antonio and is
R6312(A) fl p
5,754 acres
}
"d�trt'slt:7 Lill "`+ �
j+,
r(
Xtli6:aaMk
1140E
ttj}
r [;e,nta,n r } �
Texas
`'H
y )
j,
Gufof
q r}9ex7
t s{ tai, e
FO rt
Legend
t
Lrf[ea P a �
JLUS Airfield /Airport . }t }l1 Slow Speed Low Altitude Training Route
kr
ti�t�
TEXAS
D
U.S. - Mexico Boundary
Military Training Route
r, , .,_,
L 0
San
n(p,fllrr
Ott,,
127
Itr s s t€
1 347 acres
Ri° an
' a 4i t; �2rP5 ib P
J S"A- Randolph
Au�t1nIf' 9l e'A"CrJ "Ind"
A635 A638
118,186 acres �} �� 109,468 acres [
RANDOLPH 2B MOA' TX
°,gtn "Autia °y Aaan�
246,112 acres
4.,00
Ata u8?a RANDOLPH1AMOA,TX`
tt
1,103,243 acres
RA OLPH2AMOA TX i
1 123,696 acres i tY
KINGSVILLE 5 MOA, TX
t 368,120 acres
h MI
\81 ��i „a. +� it {cr +lr
72 acres RAN DOLPH 1 B MOA, TX
Stinson MunicipAl Airport 588,754 acres
R6312(B)
52,483 acres
R6312(A) fl p
5,754 acres
R6312(C)
61,749 acres
Xtli6:aaMk
.:Late;r.k, h,,, '4, J x 4L L J N
`'H
Gufof
q r}9ex7
Legend
JLUS Airfield /Airport . }t }l1 Slow Speed Low Altitude Training Route
Special Use Airspace State Boundary
D
U.S. - Mexico Boundary
Military Training Route
r, , .,_,
0 35 70
Source: Randolph AF6; 2013; ESRI, 2013
Miles
11
U
the greatest distance away from San Antonio out of all of
the MOA; it is located nearest to Midland, Texas.
Source: San Antonio Sectional (May 2, 2013) FAA; Joint
Order 7400.23: Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters
- Military Operations Areas (Aug 22, 2013) FAA;
Installation Complex Encroachment Management Action
Plan figure (March 2012) ]BSA; in person interview with
S Taylor (Jul 2013); GIS data provided by )BSA -R
Military Training Routes
Operations utilizing MTRs typically involve low altitude,
high -speed flight training. Altitudes below 10,000 MSL
and speeds in excess of 250 knots, almost 288 miles per
hour, characterize flight operations within MTR. Aircraft
operations outside of MTR are typically restricted to
maximum speeds of 250 knots while operating below
10,000 ft. As with all other special use airspace, aircraft
not associated with the military operations are permitted
to transit an MTR, but must maintain vigilance for
military aircraft.
There are two types of MTRs associated with the JBSA -R
operations: instrument flight rule or IR and visual flight
rule or VR. The primary difference between IR and
VR MTR is the ability to fly during inclement weather
conditions.
VR MTR typically restrict flight activities to weather
conditions that allow a minimum visibility of five miles
and altitude minimums of 3,000 AGL. Additionally and
unless otherwise stipulated for a specific IR MTR,
altitudes below the lowest published altitude or standard
obstacle clearance flight altitudes may be approved for
use during inclement weather. Table 3 -3 includes a list
of all IR and VR owned or used by JBSA -R.
Source: Area Planning AP/1B Chart, Military Training
Routes - Central U.S. (May 2, 2013) National
Geospatial- Intelligence Agency [NGA]; Area Planning,
Military Training Routes - North and South America
(Nov 15, 2012) NGA; Installation Complex Encroachment
Management Action Plan figure (March 2012) JBSA; in
person interview with S Taylor (Jul 2013); GIS data
provided by JBSA -R
Alert Area A -635
Alert areas are warranted and designated when a specific
airspace area is subjected to activities involving pilot
training or other unusual aircraft operations. The large
amount of flight activity involving student pilots
associated with the JBSA -R mission required the airspace
surrounding the airfield to be designated Alert Area
A -635. It should be noted that Alert Area A -635 does not
extend into or include any of the Class D airspace that is
directly associates with the JBSA -R airfield; it does,
though, envelop and surround the entire Class D
airspace. Alert Area A -635 covers an area comprising
118,186 acres and is illustrated on Figure 3 -11.
Alert Area A -635, like the other special use airspace
associated with JBSA -R activities, does not preclude entry
by aircraft unassociated with the military flight
operations; although, it does require all flight operations
in the area to be conducted under VFR. Other attributes
associated with Alert Area A -635 include an operational
area that extends vertically from 1,500 to 4,000 ft. MSL
and horizontally across a large area encompassing the
airfield. The time of use associated with A -635 begins at
sunrise and ends three hours after sunset from Monday
to Friday.
Source: San Antonio Sectional (May 2, 2013) FAA;
Installation Complex Encroachment Management Action
Plan figure (March 2012) ]BSA; in person interview with
S Taylor (Jul 2013); GIS data provided by JBSA -R
Aerial Refueling Area AR614
There is one aerial refueling area west of JBSA- Randolph
designated as AR614. Aerial refueling must be conducted
within the designated airspace under instrument flight
rules and on flight tracks with specific entry and exit
points. In AR -614, the refueling altitude is designated at
flight level (FL) 250 (25,000 ft.), FL 270 (27,000 ft.) or
as designated by Air Traffic Control. The time of
operation for AR614 is unlimited.
Source: http: / /ivaous.org /main /pilot /military/
Airrefueltracks. pdf
Slow Speed Low Altitude Training Route
Slow speed, low altitude training routes (SR) are
generally not considered MTR, but are treated much the
same as MTR. SR are typically flown under 1,500 ft. AGL
and designated for aircraft speeds not exceeding
250 knots; 1 knot is equivalent to approximately
1.15 miles per hour. Table 3 -3 includes a list of all SR
owned by JBSA -R.
Source: Area Planning AP/1B Chart, Military Training
Routes - Central U.S. (May 2, 2013) NGA; Area Planning,
Military Training Routes - North and South America
(Nov 15, 2012) NGA; Installation Complex Encroachment
Management Action Plan figure (March 2012) JBSA; in
person interview with S Taylor (Jul 2013); GIS data
provided by JBSA -R
Table 3-3. 7 A -R Military Training Routes and Slow Speed Low Altitude 'Training Routes
IR127 12 OSS /OSOA 99th FTS Sunrise- Varies by MTR segment from 10
501 I Street East 1450 5th Street East Sunset daily 600 AGL to 4,000 MSL
Randolph AFB, TX 78150 -4333 Randolph AFB, TX 78150 -
DSN 487 -5580 5000 DSN 487 -6746
IR148 COMTRAWING TWO Same as Originating Activity Daily 0600- Varies by MTR segment from 6
NAS Kingsville, TX 78363 2230 local 500 AGL to 2,000 MSL
DSN 876 - 6518/6283
C361- 516 - 6518/6283/6108
Hrs 0800 -1600 Mon -Fri ONLY
VR140 12 OSS /OSOA 560 FTS Sunrise- Varies by MTR segment from 3
501 I Street East 1450 5th Street East Sunset, daily 500 AGL to 4,500 MSL
Randolph AFB, TX 78150 -4333 Randolph AFB, TX 78150
DSN 487 -5580 DSN 487 -3518
C210- 652 -5580 C210- 652 -3518
VR143 301 OG /SUA Same as Originating Activity 0700 -2200 Varies by MTR segment from Varies by
NAS JRB, Fort Worth, TX 76127 local, 100 AGL to 6,000 MSL segment
DSN 739 - 6903/04/05 OT by NOTAM from 17 to
VR188 12 OSS /OSOA 99 FTS Sunrise- Varies by MTR segment from 10
501 I Street East 1450 5th Street East Sunset, daily 500 AGL to 3,000 MSL
Randolph AFB, TX 78154 Randolph AFB, TX 78154
DSN 487 -5580 DSN 487 -6746
C210- 652 -5580 C210- 652 -6746
SR287 12 OSS /OSOA 559 FTS Sunrise- At or above 500 AGL 10
501 I Street East Randolph AFB, TX 78150 Sunset Daily,
Randolph AFB, TX 78150 DSN 487 -5661 except
DSN 487 -5580 C210- 652 -5661 holidays
C210- 652 -5580
SR293 12 OSS /OSOA 559 FTS Sunrise- At or above 500 AGL Varies by
501 I Street East Randolph AFB, TX 78150 Sunset Daily, segment
Randolph AFB, TX 78150 DSN 487 -5661 except from 6 to
DSN 487 -5580 C210- 652 -5661 holidays 10
C210- 652 -5580
Source: Area Planning, Military Training Routes -North and South America (Nov 15, 2012) NGA
Page 3-23
Auxiliary
Airfield
The history regarding the ]BSA -S Auxiliary Airfield
(JBSA -S) is incredibly limited, but according to the
Randolph AFB General Plan (2008), the airfield was
originally named Seguin Field and "operated as a bomber
training field during World War II ". It is primarily used
for training undergraduate pilots and pilot instructors.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated)
JBSA -S is centrally located in Guadalupe County, three
miles east of the City of Seguin and almost 27 miles east
of ]BSA -R. It includes one runway and 961 acres. It is
an unattended airport and restricted to use by the
military; prior authorization is required prior to landing at
the airfield. The infrastructure and environs at JBSA -S
are the responsibility of JBSA -R.
JBSA -S is located south of and adjacent to U.S. Route 90
Alternate. I -10 is easily accessed from ]BSA -S via State
Highway 123. The airfield is part of and surrounded by
land that is part of Seguin's extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Because the area surrounding ]BSA -S is only part of the
extraterritorial jurisdiction, it is not zoned. It includes
rural and agricultural land uses and an area, west of and
adjacent to the airfield, appears to support surface
mining activities. The airfield itself is primarily
undeveloped and only includes a few facilities further
detailed below.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated);
Guadalupe County Major Thoroughfare Plan
(Map 10 -2012) (Oct 15, 2010) Guadalupe County, TX;
Google Maps website (accessed Oct 2013)
Current Mission Operations and Facilities
Operations
Construction of improvements to the runway, taxiway
and apron at ]BSA-Seguin was completed in 2015 and
the facility is currently operational to support the flight
instruction training mission. ]BSA - Seguin provides an
area free from urban encroachment ideal for
touch - and -go operations, practice approaches, and
emergency landing procedures practice.
Facilities
The airfield includes 961 acres and one runway,
designated 13/31 that measures 150 ft. wide and
8,350 ft. long. The runway is used by high - performance
aircraft and the length is greater than 8,000 ft.;
accordingly, the JBSA -S runway is classified as Class B.
The runway and the associated airfield areas are oriented
along a northwest / southeast axis. Paved areas at
JBSA -S include the runway, aprons, and overrun and
total approximately 404,517 square yards.
The airfield rests at a general elevation of 525 ft. above
MSS. The FAA location identifier for the airfield at JBSA -S
is'SEQ'. Although the airfield is usually unattended, it is
manned during active flight operations and includes two
permanent runway surveillance / supervisory units and a
permanent fire station equipped with aircraft rescue and
firefighting vehicles.
Currently planned airfield activities include: pavement
improvements and repairs, improvements to holding
tanks and the fire station, grading repairs, and a
reduction of the runway control structure footprints.
During active operations at JBSA -S, the personnel
associated with runway surveillance / supervisory
operations take shelter within the runway control
structures.
Source: General Plan Randolph AFB, TX (undated);
AICUZ Study for Seguin Auxiliary Airfield, TX (Dec 2000)
Future Mission Operations and Facilities
JBSA -S is currently under construction and is estimated
to reopen December 2016 to continue to support the
flight instruction training mission. A contract was let to
repair the runway at the airfield and the repair activities
were started, but have been placed on -hold due to
internal issues. Despite the current runway issues,
JBSA -S provides an area free from urban encroachment
ideal for touch - and -go operations, practice approaches,
and emergency landing procedures practice.
Mission rl
The airfield, when it is active, is used for touch- and -go
operations, practice approaches, and emergency landing
procedures practice.
Approach and Departure Flight Tracks
The JBSA -S open / approach and departure flight tracks
generally occur over two primary areas within the vicinity
of the airfield, but only cross through the northeast and
northwest corners of the City of Seguin's incorporated
area. All other flight tracks associated with airfield
operations appear to occur within Seguin's extraterritorial
jurisdiction and unincorporated areas. The specific flight
tracks, bisecting the airfield, may be associated with
transit to the Randolph 1A MOA, TX or to an MTR or SR,
but this has not been confirmed. All of the open flight
tracks are illustrated on Figure 3 -12.
Source: GIS data provided by JBSA -R
Page 3 -2
Airfield Noise Contours
Figure 3 -13 illustrates the noise contours for JBSA -S
Auxiliary Airfield. The figure shows the noise contours do
not interface with the City of Seguin directly. However it
should be noted that a majority of the noise contours
directly affect land uses within the Guadalupe County.
Additionally, the 65 dB contour is proximate to a portion
of the eastern city limit, and there is a small portion of
the 85 dB noise contour that is located off - installation.
Airfield Safety Zones
As noted within the JBSA -R information, the airfield
safety zones are comprised of the CZ and the APZ. The
CZ is the area that begins at the end of each runway and
measures 3,000 ft. wide and 3,000 ft. long. The center
point of the zone corresponds to the center line of the
runway. This is the area where an aircraft accident is
most likely to occur due to the aircraft flying at lower
altitudes and slower speeds. Because of this
characterization of flight operations in this area, the
AICUZ guidelines recommend no development in this
area.
The safety zones, i.e., CZ and APZ, for JBSA -S were
mapped in the AICUZ Study for Seguin Auxiliary Airfield,
Texas (Dec 2000) and are illustrated in Figure 3.14.
Knowing that the length of the runway has not changed
since that time, the safety zone dimensions have not
changed either.
The APZ I is the area that begins at the end of the CZ. It
is 3,000 ft. wide and extends for a length of 5,000 ft.
The potential for an accident in the APZ I is less than that
of the CZ allowing for minimal compatible development,
but it is limited to specific types of development with low
density levels. Based on the data obtained, there are
portions of the northern APZ I and II that are located
within the city limits of the City of Seguin. The southern
APZ I and II are located within unincorporated Guadalupe
County.
The APZ II is the area that starts at the end of the APZ I.
It is 3,000 ft. wide and extends for a length of 7,000 ft.
The potential for an accident in the APZ II is less than
that of the CZ and the APZ I. Development is less
restrictive than CZ and APZ I based on densities and
types of uses. From the north end of the runway and
based on the 2000 AICUZ data, the APZ II area extends
into the incorporated area of the City of Seguin. The APZ
II area, associated with the south end of the runway, is
located within unincorporated Guadalupe County.
Source: AICUZ Study for Seguin Auxiliary Airfield, TX,
Dec 2000.
Other Imaginary Surfaces
The dimensions of the imaginary surfaces layers
overlaying and surrounding the JBSA -S airfield are the
same as those associated with the JBSA -R airfield. Both
JBSA -R and JBSA -S airfields include Class B runways so
the imaginary surface dimensions are the same based on
USAF guidance. For more information regarding the
specific layers comprising the imaginary surfaces, please
refer to the information included for ]BSA-R.
The airfield imaginary surface covers an extensive area;
the JLUS study area for JBSA -S was specifically sized to
fit this footprint element. The entire incorporated area
within the City of Seguin is included within the area
overlain by the imaginary surface element as shown in
Figure 3 -15: Imaginary Surfaces.
Source: AICUZ Study for Seguin Auxiliary Airfield, TX
(Dec 2000); Unified Facilities Criteria: Airfield and
Heliport Planning and Design (Nov 17, 2008) DoD
Vertical Obstruction
As previously indicated within the information regarding
]BSA-R. the FAA established guidance to reduce the
potential for accidents surrounding an airfield. More
information about the FAA guidance is included in
Section 4: Existing Tools and in the JBSA -R description.
Figure 3 -16 illustrates the FAA Part 77 footprint
associated with the JBSA -S airfield in relation to the City
of Seguin and unincorporated areas of Guadalupe
County.
Source: 14 CFR § 77.17
BASH Relevancy Area
In relation to the military footprint for JBSA -S and as
illustrated in Figure 3 -17: BASH Relevancy Area, the
BASH Plan notes one issue related to areas off JBSA -S:
circling and soaring raptors and increased vulture
activity. JBSA -R believes that these activities are
associated with `field dressing deer' during the permitted
hunt season, which extends from the end of September
to the beginning of November for archery only and from
the beginning of November to the beginning of January
for the general season.
Special Use Airspace: Alert Area A -638
As indicated within the section regarding JBSA -R special
use airspace, designation of Alert Area A -635 was
warranted due to the large amount of flight activity
involving student pilots associated with the JBSA -R
mission. The JBSA -R flight training missions extend to
and utilize JBSA -S and, consequently, the airspace
surrounding the airfield at JBSA -S is designated Alert
Area A -638. Alert Area A -638 covers an area comprising
109,468 acres and is illustrated on Figure 3 -18.
Page -2i
Page 3 -31
Alert Area A -638 does not preclude entry by aircraft
unassociated with the military flight operations; although,
it does require all flight operations in the area to be
conducted under VFR. Other attributes associated with
Alert Area A -638 include an operational area that extends
vertically to and including 3,000 ft. MSL and horizontally
across a large area encompassing the airfield. The time
of use associated with A -638 begins at sunrise and ends
at sunset from Monday to Friday.
Source: San Antonio Sectional (May 2, 2013) FAA;
Installation Complex Encroachment Management Action
Plan figure (March 2012) ]BSA; in person interview with
S Taylor (Jul 2013); GIS data provided by JBSA -R
Stinson Municipal Airport
Stinson Municipal Airport (Stinson) is owned and
operated by the City of San Antonio. The inclusion of
Stinson within the JBSA -R JLUS is based on the
occurrence of JBSA -R military flight operations at
Stinson. Accordingly, information in this section
regarding Stinson will be limited to the operations
involving JBSA -R to the extent possible.
Second only to the College Park Airport in Maryland,
Stinson Municipal Airport is the one of the oldest public
airports in the world that is still in continuous use. In
1915, Marjorie, Katherine, and Eddie Stinson rented a
plot comprising 500 acres from the City of San Antonio.
The trio started the Stinson School of Flying the same
year and continued flight education activities until the
start of the First World War. At that time, the City of
San Antonio took over control of the flight operations due
to a civilian flying ban enacted as a result of the war.
In the period between the First and Second World War,
Stinson was host to individual and small -scale aviation
exhibitions and privately -owned commercial aviation
operations including such entities as American, Braniff,
and Eastern Airlines.
During World War II, commercial activities ceased in
support of the war and Stinson was operated by the
U.S. Army Air Forces as a training base. In 1946, the
commercial activities once associated with Stinson were
relocated to the recently constructed San Antonio
Municipal Airport - the predecessor to what is now the
San Antonio International Airport - and the City of
San Antonio resumed operation of Stinson.
Since the late 1940's, Stinson has been host to general
aviation activities and currently serves at the primary
reliever for general aviation within the San Antonio
metropolitan area.
Source: Stinson Municipal Airport Master Plan Update
(May 2013) Kimley -Horn and Assoc.
Stinson is located in Bexar County in the southeast
quadrant of the City of San Antonio. A series of
secondary and tertiary streets form the northern
boundary (96tH 97tH 99', and Echo Streets) and Mission
Road, Ashley Road, and Roosevelt Avenue form the
eastern, southern, and western boundaries, respectively.
Stinson Municipal Airport is 577 ft. above MSL and is
comprised of approximately 360 acres with all of the
acreage developed and / or mowed, maintained open,
grassy areas. The majority of the aviation - related
support facilities are located on the northeast side of the
airfield, north of runway 14/32.
A wide variety of uses surround the areas adjacent to the
airfield's perimeter. To the north, open / institutional
uses predominate in the form of cemeteries and burial
parks; to the east, open / recreational and institutional
uses including Espada Park / the San Antonio River and
Brooks City Base; to the south, low density residential
and some limited industrial uses and undeveloped areas;
and to the west, single family residential uses.
Source: Stinson Municipal Airport Master Plan Update
(May 2013) Kimley -Horn and Assoc.; Airport
Improvements for Stinson Municipal Airport
Environmental Assessment (Jun 2007) Ricondo & Assoc.;
GIS data provided by City of San Antonio
Stinson r 1
General aviation operations and services comprise
Stinson's primary business functions.
Fixed Base Operators
Two fixed base operators are located at Stinson:
San Antonio Aviation and Stinson Jet Center. These fixed
base operators provide aviation - related services
including: fuel, aircraft storage and parking / hangar
space, aircraft maintenance, and other passenger
amenities like rental cars.
Source: Stinson Municipal Airport Master Plan Update
(May 2013) Kimley -Horn and Assoc.
Current Operations and Facilities
While the majority of Stinson's current operations focus
on general aviation, the relevant component to this JLUS
is the military operation involvement by JBSA -R. The
total of all military activities totaled 7,146 for a 12 -month
period ending March 26, 2011 (FAA Airport Master
Record, 2013). This total represents 4.5 percent of the
total aviation operations conducted at Stinson for the
same period. Historical data captured from 2002 to 2011
shows transient military operations outnumbered local
military operations for all years between and including
2002 to 2008. Beginning in 2009, the number of
transient military operations decreased from previous
years, but appears to have stabilized around 3,000 to
3,500 annual operations based on available data. During
the same time period, but beginning in 2008, local
military operations doubled from 2,522 to 5,172. It
should be noted that it is unclear if the military
operations represented here were associated with ]BSA -R
or if some of the operations were associated with
]BSA- Lackland or some other DoD entity.
Stinson includes two intersecting runways, designated
9/27 and 14/32. Runway 9/27 measures 5,000 ft. long
and 100 ft. wide and follows an east / wide alignment.
Runway 14/32 measures 4,128 ft. long and 100 ft. wide
and follows a northwest / southeast alignment. Civilian
runways are not classified as Class A or B like military
runways. Instead, they are classified according two
factors based on aircraft type in use at the airport:
aircraft approach category, a landing speed based on a
fully- weighted capacity, and aircraft design group,
calculated by tail height and wing span. Stinson's
runways are classified as B -I meaning that the aircraft
approach category is B, an approach speed between 91
and 120 knots, and the aircraft design group is I, a wing
span of less than 49 ft. and a tail height of less than
20 ft.
The airspace surrounding the Stinson Municipal Airport is
controlled and classified as Class D. According to the
FAA, Class D airspace is typically measured based on a
set of calculations that includes longest runway length,
airport elevation, flight departure length to assume a
certain elevation, and other measurements. The
calculation of these measurements in a certain equation
establishes a radius length. This radius length extends
from the airport's established reference point, which is
the center of the longest runway, the geographic center
of the airport, or something other fixed point, and fully
encircles an area around the airport to form the
controlled airspace area. Class D airspace typically
extends from the surface to an elevation up to and
including 2,500 ft. AGL. The airspace at Stinson follows
the typical calculation:
577 ft. (airfield elev.at MSL) + 2,500 ft. (AGL) _
3,077 ft.
The Class D airspace associated with Stinson extends
from the airfield surface to an elevation up to and
including 3,100 ft. MSL. The Stinson Master Plan Update
noted that "the airspace reverts to Class G airspace,
which is uncontrolled airspace" when the control tower at
Stinson is not in operation. The tower generally closes to
operations from 10 pm to 7 am.
Source: Stinson Municipal Airport Master Plan Update
(May 2013) Kimley -Horn and Assoc.; Airport Master
Record (Jun 27, 2013) FAA; Advisory Circular
15015300 -13A (Sept 28, 2012) FAA; San Antonio
Sectional (May 2, 2013) FAA
;., r1 ; 10
the footprint relative to the military operations is likely to
be exaggerated since the military operations only
comprise a small percentage of the overall aviation
operations.
Approach and Departure Flight Tracks
The majority of Stinson's approach and departure flight
tracks are oriented in a north -south direction with no
flight tracks arriving from or departing to the west and
only a few that arrive or depart to the east. Closed loop
patterns are also flown.
Source: Airport Improvements for Stinson Municipal
Airport Environmental Assessment (Jun 2007) Ricondo &
Assoc.
Airfield Noise Contours
As part of an analysis to extend runway 9/27 to the east,
the Texas Department of Transportation contracted with
Rincondo and Associates to prepare an environmental
assessment document titled, Airport Improvements for
Stinson Municipal Airport, that reviewed noise generation
and impacts among other things (2007). Similar to the
noise modeling and resulting noise contours prepared for
]BSA -R, noise contours were produced for activities at
Stinson and also included four DNL -based noise contours
associated with the aircraft activities. These are the
DNL 65 dB contour, DNL 70 dB contour, DNL 75 dB
contour, and the DNL 80 dB contour. These contours are
shown in Figure 3 -19: Noise Contours.
The DNL 80 dB and 75 dB noise contours are confined to
the Stinson Municipal Airport property. The DNL 65 dB
contour exceeds Stinson's perimeter in three places: the
west end of runway 9/27 and both the north and south
ends of runway 14/32. The exceedances associated with
the north end of runway 14/32 and the west end of
runway 9/27 are nominal and appear to extend off of
Stinson a maximum of 500 ft. The DNL 65 dB noise
contour associated with the south end of runway 14/32
extends into areas where residential and industrial uses
are located. According to the Airport Improvements
document, four residential dwelling units housing
approximately 11 persons would be affected by noise
equal to or greater than DNL 65 dB.
Source: Airport Improvements for Stinson Municipal
Airport Environmental Assessment (Jun 2007) Ricondo &
Assoc.
Airfield Safety Zones
Object Free Areas and Runway Protection
Zones
Clear zones (CZs) and APZs are associated with military
airfields. Civilian airfields, in contrast, utilize object free
areas (OFAs) and runway protection zones (RPZs). The
OFA is located in the same general area and serves the
same purpose as the military's CZs in that it is an area
located at the end of a runway and is intended to be "free
of objects" as noted in the FAA Advisory Circular
regarding airport design. Additionally, the RPZs act
Page 3 -35
similarly to the APZs in that they are designed to
minimize harm to persons and property in the event of
an aviation - related incident during takeoff or landing
activities. RPZs, though, differ from APZs in size and
shape and property ownership requirements. RPZs vary
in size and are enlarged or minimized according to the
type of aircraft a runway services. Regarding shape, the
RPZ is a four -sided polygon with two parallel sides - a
trapezoid. The other two sides are not parallel, but
mirror each other and angle out from the short side of
the trapezoid.
With regard to property ownership, the FAA Advisory
Circular notes that a property owner must have a
"sufficient interest" in the property at the location of the
RPZ. Sufficient interest is obtained through fee - simple
ownership of the property, an easement for the property,
or reliance on adequate zoning.
All of the runways at Stinson include RPZs, but do not
include OFA as shown on Figure 3 -20: Safety Zones.
This is because the active part of the runway, the point at
which an aircraft will physically gain or lose contact with
the runway during landing or takeoff, starts several
hundred feet from the end of the paved area associated
with the runway. The active start of the runway - the
runway threshold - is 'displaced' from the end of the
paved area. These runway areas are not used for takeoff
or landing and act as the OFA since the area is kept free
of objects by virtue of the paved areas associated with
the runway location. The OFA length beyond the runway
end, though, for Stinson Municipal Airport is deficient as
shown in Table 3 -4.
Certain types of new development proposed for inclusion
within a RPZ require coordination with FAA, as noted in
the FAA Interim Guidance (2012):
• Buildings and structures
• Recreational land use
• Transportation facilities
• Fuel storage facilities
• Hazardous material storage
• Wastewater treatment facilities
• Above - ground utility infrastructure
This guidance does not apply to existing development
already located within a RPZ.
Source: Advisory Circular 15015300 -13A (Sep 28, 2012)
FAA; Memorandum: Interim Guidance on Land Uses
within a Runway Protection Zone (Sep 27, 2012) FAA;
Stinson Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (May 2013)
Kimley -Horn and Assoc.
Table
Municipal Airport Runway Deficiencies
Shoulder 10 20 0
Width
Safety
Area Prior
to 240 240 240 240 240
Landing
Threshold
OFA 250 250 250
Width
OFZ 250 250 250
Width
*Standard Dimensions and Existing Dimensions are
measured in ft.
Source / table extracted from: Stinson Municipal Airport
Master Plan Update (May 2013) Kimley -Horn and Assoc.
Page 3-37
Runway Safety Area
The runway safety area (RSA) includes all areas directly
adjacent to the runway and is sized to arrest 90 percent
of all runway overruns. According to the FAA, "The RSA
enhances the safety of aircraft which undershoot,
overrun, or veer off the runway, and it provides greater
accessibility for fire - fighting equipment during such
incidents." (FAA AC, 2012). The size of the RSA is
standardized based on the aircraft approach category and
the aircraft design group. The RSA for Stinson Municipal
Airport is deficient with regard to the safety area length
beyond the runway end as shown in Table 3 -4.
Source: Advisory Circular 15015300 -13A (Sep 28, 2012)
FAA; Stinson Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (May
2013) Kimley -Horn and Assoc.
Obstacle Free Zone
The primary purpose of the obstacle free zone (OFZ) is to
ensure the safe maneuver of aircraft in the areas near
and adjacent to an airfield / runway. The OFZ is
comprised of several dimensions:
• Runway OFZ
• Precision OFZ
• Inner - approach OFZ
• Inner - transitional OFZ
The OFZ dimensions for civilian runways are fully
dependent on "approach minimums for the runway end
and the aircraft on approach" (FAA AC, 2012).
Accordingly, the size of the OFZ is standardized based on
the aircraft approach category and the aircraft design
group. As shown in Table 3 -4, the Stinson Municipal
Airport OFZ is deficient.
Source: Advisory Circular 15015300 -13A (Sep 28, 2012)
FAA; Stinson Municipal Airport Master Plan Update
(May 2013) Kimley -Horn and Assoc.
Imaginary Surfaces
To further reduce the potential for accidents surrounding
an airfield, a series of imaginary surfaces are employed
around the perimeter of the entire airfield to characterize
acceptable height limits. Height limits are acceptable
when they allow for the safe transit of aircraft in the
areas around an airfield. When structures like
communication towers or objects like trees exceed this
acceptable height limit, they are characterized as vertical
obstructions.
The imaginary surfaces that help to define acceptable
height limits are established by the FAA and implemented
based on the aircraft approach category and the aircraft
design group. The City of San Antonio's Unified
Development Code Airport Hazard Overlay District
stipulates the surfaces and size of surfaces developed for
and utilized by the Stinson Municipal Airport. These
surfaces and their respective sizes include:
Page 3-38
Primary Surface is the area in the immediate vicinity of
the landing or takeoff area and essentially forms a large
rectangle around the entire runway area. It extends
200 ft. in length past the end of the runway surface and
has a varied width depending on the runway
requirements. The primary surface for Runway 9/27
measures 1,000 feet wide and for Runway 14/32
measures 500 feet wide. This means that the surface
measures 500 ft. and 250 ft. wide, respective to Runways
9/27 and 14/32, on either side of the runway centerline.
Approach Surface is the surface that starts at the end
of the primary surface, measures 50,000 ft. long, and is
associated with an aircraft's takeoff and landing area.
Because it is associated with an aircraft's takeoff and
landing, it is fan - shaped and sloped. The approach
surface is aligned with the centerline of the runway and
fans out / increases in width on either side from the
centerline.
Runway 27: the approach surface measures
1,000 feet wide at its start (at the end of the
primary surface) and fans out to a width of
16,000 feet at its full length measure of
50,000 feet. The slope of the approach surface is
angled at 50 to 1 for the first 10,000 feet and 40
to 1 for the remaining 40,000 feet.
Runway 32: the approach surface measures
500 feet wide at its start (at the end of the
primary surface) and fans out to a width of
2,000 feet at its full length measure of 5,000 feet.
The slope of the approach surface is angled at 20
to 1 for the entire length of the surface.
Runway 9: the approach surface measures
1,000 feet wide at its start (at the end of the
primary surface) and fans out to a width of
1,250 feet at its full length measure of 5,000 feet.
The slope of the approach surface is angled at 20
to 1 for the entire length of the surface.
Runway 14: the approach surface measures
500 feet wide at its start (at the end of the
primary surface) and fans out to a width of
1,250 feet at its full length measure of 5,000 feet.
The slope of the approach surface is angled at 20
to 1 for the entire length of the surface.
Horizontal Surface is an area that surrounds the
runway at a height of 150 ft. above the EAE, which, for
Stinson, is 727 ft. above MSL. It is measured 10,000 ft.
out from the centerline of the end of the primary surface
and forms a half - circle at the runway ends. The two
half - circles are joined by straight lines to form a
racetrack - shape.
Conical Surface is a racetrack - shaped area that
measures 4,000 ft. in width and connects to / extends
from the outside edge of the Horizontal Surface. It
slopes outward from the Horizontal Surface to 350 ft.
above the EAE at a ratio of 20 to 1 meaning that it
extends 20 ft. in height for every foot across.
Transitional Surface is comprised of several vertical
and vertically - sloped areas that connect all of the
previously mentioned surfaces together. One set of
transitional surfaces connects the outside edges of the
primary and approach surfaces to the inside edge of the
horizontal surface. The connection is sloped at a ratio of
7 to 1 meaning that it extends seven ft. in height for
every foot across. The second set of transitional surfaces
connects the approach surface with the horizontal and
conical surfaces. This connection is also sloped at a ratio
of 7 to 1.
Source: 14 CFR § 77.17; City of San Antonio Unified
Development Code Section 35 -331: "AHOD "Airport
Hazard Overlay District, Jan 2006
Vertical Obstruction
As previously indicated within the information regarding
JBSA -R and JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield, the FAA established
guidance to reduce the potential for accidents
surrounding an airfield. More information about the FAA
guidance is included in Section 4: Existing Tools and in
the JBSA -R description. Figure 3 -21 illustrates the FAA
Part 77 footprint associated with the Stinson Municipal
Airport in relation to the City of San Antonio and
unincorporated areas in Bexar County.
Source: 14 CFR § 77.17
BASH Relevancy Area
The BASH footprint for Stinson Municipal Airport is
illustrated in Figure 3 -22: BASH Relevancy Area.
Page 3 -41
Please see the next page.
Introduction
This section provides an overview of plans and programs that are currently used or
applied in evaluating and addressing compatibility issues in the Joint Base
San Antonio - Randolph (JBSA -R) Land Use Study (JLUS) area. There are three types of
planning tools evaluated; permanent, semi - permanent, and conditional. Permanent
planning tools include acquisition programs, either fee simple purchase of property or
the purchase of development rights. Semi - permanent tools include regulations such as
zoning or adopted legislation. Examples of conditional tools include comprehensive
plans (CP), memorandums of understanding (MOU), intergovernmental agreements
(IGA), and other policy documents that can be modified. The local jurisdictional
planning tools include existing and proposed plans and programs that have been
prepared and adopted by the study area jurisdictions. This discussion includes an
evaluation of the type of planning tools utilized by the study area jurisdictions. A review
and evaluation of state and federal plans and programs is also included. An overview of
the programs implemented by JBSA -R includes the Randolph Area Environs Plan (2007),
JBSA -R 2030 General Plan, Bird and Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard Plan (2012), 2003
Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, and 2007 Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan.
Federal a Military P g i
Initiatives
The Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program was implemented by the
Department of Defense (DOD) in 1973 to address noise and safety hazards associated
with aviation operations. The AICUZ was established to minimize impacts from aviation
operations (noise and accidents) through specific attention to development and land
uses. The AICUZ framework evaluates noise from military aircraft, created the concept
of clear zones / accident potential zones based on information from previous aircraft
accidents, and recommends specific development / building densities and intensities to
encourage compatibility between military operations and communities, and operational
control effects of noise and aircraft accidents.
The four primary elements of the AICUZ are:
Noise Zone Footprint: Noise zones are classified into three categories:
o Zone I - noise in this area is compatible with most noise sensitive land uses.
• Zone II - noise is usually incompatible with noise- sensitive land uses.
• Zone III - noise is incompatible with noise - sensitive land uses.
Health, Safety, and Welfare: These efforts seek to reduce the nuisance of
excessive noise generated by aircraft operations and public danger by
discouraging the development of incompatible land uses such as businesses and
housing in Accident Potential Zones (APZs);
Public Investment: Promoting compatibility between a military installation and
local communities safeguards military operations and protects the public
investment in the installation; and
Public Awareness and Communication: By working with the community and
informing local citizens of operations and safety measures, the military can
promote safety for community residents. As local leaders work with military
officials to adopt compatible development practices, their relationship is
strengthened through the resolution of mutual concerns.
The U.S. Avian Hazard Advisory System (USAHAS) is a
geographic information system -based bird avoidance
model developed by the U.S. Air Force used for "analysis
and correlation of bird habitat, migration, and breeding
characteristics, combined with key environmental and
man -made geospatial data." The model provides
up -to -date information - "near real- time" - about bird
activity and movements to assist pilots and flight
planners in the scheduling and use of flight routes. The
model can also be used as a forecasting tool to estimate
bird strike risk. Information from the North American
Breeding Bird Survey, Audubon Christmas Bird Count,
bird refuge databases, and the U.S. Air Force
Bird - Aircraft Strike database as well as public domain
information regarding landfill locations is used to
formulate the bird activity and movement data. The
model is available for use by agencies and the general
public, accessible from the USAHAS website at
http://www.usahas.com/.
The Clean Air Act governs air emissions from both
stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources
include fixed - points such as power plants, while mobile
sources include movable - points such as automobiles.
The law authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to set the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards ( NAAQS). The NAAQS regulate six criteria
pollutants harmful to public health and the environment:
carbon monoxide; lead; nitrogen oxide; ozone;
particulate matter; and sulfur dioxide.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) governs the management of
water resources and controls and monitors water
pollution. The CWA establishes goals to eliminate the
release of toxic substances and other sources of water
pollution to protect the high quality standards of surface
waters. In so doing, the CWA prevents the
contamination of near shore, underground, and surface
water sources.
MI
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is an
environmental law designed to conserve threatened and
endangered plants and animals and their habitats. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) are lead
implementing agencies of the ESA. The ESA requires
federal agencies, in consultation with the USFWS and / or
NOAA, to ensure that actions the agency authorizes,
funds, or implements "are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat of such species." The law prohibits any action
that causes a taking of any listed species of endangered
fish or wildlife. The ESA provides a platform for the
protection of critical habitat and species that may be at
risk of extinction.
�.
The Federal Aviation Act [14 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 77] was passed in 1958 to provide methods
for overseeing and regulating civilian and military use of
airspace over the U.S. The Act requires the Secretary of
Transportation to make long -range plans that formulate
policy for the orderly development and use of navigable
airspace. The intent is to serve the needs of both civilian
aeronautics and national defense, but does not
specifically address the specific needs of military
agencies. Military planning strives to work alongside
local, state, and federal aviation law and policies, but
sometimes must supersede these and other levels of
government due to national security interests. The FAA
was created as a result of the Act for a variety of
purposes, including the management of airspace.
The 500 -foot rule, promulgated by the FAA, states that
every citizen of the United States has "a public right of
freedom of transit in air commerce through the navigable
air space of the United States." The rule was formally
announced in the 1963 Court of Claims ruling in Aaron v.
United States and states that flights 500 feet or higher
above ground level (AGL) do not represent a
compensable taking because flights 500 feet AGL enjoy a
right of free passage without liability to the owners
below.
Another important outcome of the Act is FAA Regulation
Title 14 Part 77, commonly known as Part 77, which
provides the basis for evaluation of vertical obstruction
compatibility. This regulation determines compatibility
based on the height of proposed structures or natural
features in relation to their distance from the ends of a
runway. Using the distance formula from this regulation,
local jurisdictions can easily assess height restrictions
near airfields. Additional information on Part 77 is
located on the Federal Aviation Administration website at
http: / /www.faa.gov /.
As of January 29, 2013, the main focus of Part 77.17 is
to establish standards to determine obstructions within
navigable airspace, typically within a certain distance
from an airport or airfield. it defines an obstruction to air
navigation as an object that is of greater height than any
of the following heights or surfaces in the following
manner:
• A height of 499 feet AGL at the site of the object;
• A height that is 200 feet AGL or above the
established airport elevation, whichever is higher,
within three nautical miles of the established
reference point of an airport, excluding heliports,
with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in
actual length. This height increases in the
proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical
mile of distance from the airport up to a maximum
of 499 feet;
A height within a terminal obstacle clearance area,
National Environmental Policy Act
including an initial approach segment, a departure
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is
area, and a circling approach area, which would
a federal law establishing a U.S. national policy to
result in the vertical distance between any point
promote the protection and enhancement of the
on the object and an established minimum
environment and requiring federal agencies to analyze
instrument flight altitude within that area or
and consider the potential environmental impact of their
segment to be less than the required obstacle
actions. The purpose of NEPA is to promote informed
clearance;
decision - making by federal agencies by making detailed
A height within an en route obstacle clearance
information concerning significant environmental impacts
area, including turn and termination areas, of a
available to both agency leaders and the public.
federal airway or approved off - airway route, that
All projects receiving federal funding, requiring a federal
would increase the minimum obstacle clearance
permit, or occurring on federal property require NEPA
altitude;
compliance and documentation. NEPA is applicable to all
The surface of a takeoff and landing area of a
federal agencies, including the military. Not all federal
civilian airport or any imaginary surface
actions require a full Environmental Impact Statement
established under 77.19, DOD: 77.21, and
(EIS). In some cases, an action may not cause a
heliports: 77.2. However, no part of the takeoff or
significant impact, whereby an agency is only required to
landing area itself will be considered an
prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA).
obstruction; and
A NEPA document can serve as a valuable planning tool
Except for traverse ways on or near an airport with
for local planning officials. An EA or EIS can assist in the
an operative ground traffic control service
determination of potential impacts that may result from
furnished by an airport traffic control tower or by
changing military actions or operations and their effect
the airport management and coordinated with the
on municipal policies, plans and programs, and the
air traffic control service, the standards of
surrounding community. Public hearings are required for
paragraph (a) of this section apply to traverse
all EIS documents released under NEPA. The Act
ways used or to be used for the passage of mobile
requires publishing of a draft EA and subsequent Finding
objects only after the heights of these traverse
of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) allowing public
ways are increased by:
comment for a period of 30 days. An EA may result in a
FONSI or Record of Decision concluding that the action
0 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part
will have a significant impact and an EIS is required. The
of the National System of Military and
information obtained by the EA / EIS is valuable in
Interstate Highways where overcrossings are
planning coordination and policy formation at the local
designed for a minimum of 17 -foot vertical
government level.
distance.
The NEPA mandates that the military analyze the impact
0 15 feet for any other public roadway.
of its actions and operations on the environment,
0 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile
including surrounding civilian communities. Inherent in
object that would normally traverse the road,
this analysis is an exploration of methods to reduce any
whichever is greater, for a private road.
adverse environmental impact.
0 23 feet for a railroad.
National 1 ri c Preservati
o For a waterway or any other traverse way not
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 is
previously mentioned, an amount equal to the
a federal law to preserve historical and archaeological
height of the highest mobile object that would
sites. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal
normally traverse it.
government agencies to account for the effects of their
operations on historic properties. DOD Instruction
The FAA has identified certain imaginary surfaces around
4715.3 requires installations to comply with Title 16 of
runways to determine how structures and facilities are
the United States Code, which applies to conservation
evaluated and whether they pose a vertical obstruction in
activities, including both natural and cultural resources.
relation to the airspace around a runway. The levels of
This Instruction is the impetus for Integrated Cultural
imaginary surfaces build upon one another and are
Resource Management Plans (ICRMP).
designed to eliminate obstructions to air navigation and
operations, either natural or man -made. The dimension
or size of an imaginary surface depends on the runway
classification.
National Pollutant i scharge Readiness and Environmental
Elimination
Pursuant to the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls
water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge
pollutants into U.S. waters. Point sources are discrete
conveyances such as pipes or man -made ditches.
According to the law, individual homes that are
connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or
do not have a surface discharge do not need a NPDES
permit, but industrial, municipal, and other facilities must
obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface
waters.
The Noise Control Act of 1972 determined that noise not
adequately controlled has the potential of endangering
the health and welfare of people. It states that all
Americans are entitled to an environment free from noise
that can jeopardize their general health and quality of
life. Along with state, local, and territorial governments,
actions from the federal government were needed to
ensure that the objectives of the Act were met.
Concurrently, military installations were experiencing
impacts related to encroaching urban development
adjacent to an installation and the resulting complaints
regarding noise from military flight operations. In 1973,
the DOD responded by establishing the AICUZ program.
The Noise Control Act and the AICUZ program are
important because encroaching development and
increased population near military installations often
creates compatibility concerns. As communities grow, it
is important that the military installation, developers, and
the communities work together to mitigate the issue of
noise and develop ways to coexist compatibly.
The DOD has implemented a program entitled Partners in
Flight that sustains and enhances the military testing,
training, and safety mission through habitat -based
management strategies. The program assists natural
resource managers in monitoring, inventory, research,
and management of birds and their habitats. As part of
the Partners in Flight program, a strategic plan is created
that can be incorporated into a Bird and Wildlife Aircraft
Strike Hazard (BASH) plan. This program reaches
beyond the boundaries of the installation to facilitate
community partnerships and determine the current
status of bird populations to prevent the further
endangerment of birds.
Congress authorized the Readiness and Environmental
Protection Initiative (REPI) in 2004, which allows the
military services to participate in the development of
buffers around military installations with entities such as
local governments, land trusts, and private property
owners. The REPI allows DOD to enter into agreements
with these entities to acquire conservation easements or
other interests in property adjacent to an installation and
with the same or similar habitat found on the installation.
When conservation easements or other interests are
purchased, the property owner extinguishes development
rights associated with their property in return for financial
payment and tax benefits. The easement acquisition
provides several benefits: protects military readiness by
preventing incompatible development adjacent to
installations and /or providing additional habitat off an
installation for protection and /or advancement of wildlife
and plant species of concern, and provides communities
buffers from military activities and undeveloped, open
areas for natural resources.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the primary
federal law that ensures the quality of drinking water.
The SDWA authorizes the EPA to establish standards for
drinking water quality and oversee the water suppliers
who implement those standards. The SDWA also
mandates the protection of drinking water sources such
as lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and springs. The DOD
created a Compliance Program including a set of
performance metrics designed to meet the requirements
of both the CWA and the SDWA.
Sikes The
The Sikes Act of 1960 was established to ensure that
DOD conserves and protects the natural resources under
its authority. Because of the unique restrictions
associated with public access, military installations are
home to significant tracts of natural resources which
must be managed by DOD. The 1997 amendment to the
Sikes Act requires DOD to develop and implement
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMP),
updated every five years. These plans typically include
an installation description and history, current mission,
management goals and projects, a discussion of how the
military mission will be supported while protecting the
environment, and input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the general public.
313SA-Randolph Plans and
Programs
JBSA -R plans and programs are the specific, existing
tools available to the installation for developing and
implementing various federal statutes and initiatives.
These plans and programs may be changed or adjusted
based on mission changes or requirements and funding
availability.
Air Force Instruction 13-204, Volume
3, Airfield Operations Procedures ani
Proqrams
Since the inception of the AICUZ program, JBSA -R has
completed several AICUZ studies. Aside from the initial
study conducted in 1972, known as the "Randolph Airport
Environs Study ", new studies / updates to existing
studies are prepared when flight activities or operations
change and resulting noise profiles change, requiring a
new analysis. The most recent study was completed in
2007 as a result of "mission restructuring, conversion
from the T -37 aircraft to the T -6 aircraft, and technical
improvements to the noise - modeling software used to
perform the study."
,,'tlird Wildlife Aircraft
Hazard
JBSA -R prepared a Bird and Wildlife Aircraft Strike
Hazard (BASH) plan in 2012 to help minimize the threat
of wildlife strikes to aircraft, particularly during landing
and take -off operations. The plan is implemented by the
12"' Flying Training Wing and establishes the Bird Hazard
Working Group, procedures to identify high hazard
situations and the appropriate mitigation, and outlines
the concept for BASH awareness through the use of a
warning system to include the use of "stop - light" colors
to indicate the level of hazard to pilots and aircraft. The
JBSA -R BASH Plan provides clear guidance about
communicating hazard levels through the established
warning system to the Air Traffic Control Tower and
subsequent approaching and departing pilots. A Bird
Avoidance Model was also prepared in 2012 to encourage
better reporting of bird strikes. All permanent and
transient aircrews require awareness of the procedures
and precautions.
The JBSA -R BASH plan provides workable strategies for
mitigating BASH incidents including, but not limited to:
• Land Management controls;
• Broad - leafed weed management;
• Leveling of airfield;
• Monitoring and maintaining drainage sites;
• Bird proofing buildings and aviation structures;
• Design features;
• Management of off -base land uses; and,
• Depredation and dispersal of birds and wildlife.
While the base does not have control over land uses
outside the installation fence line, it is imperative that the
Air Force provide input in development matters that can
potentially encourage increases in bird and wildlife
populations near the airfield.
Review of the JBSA -R BASH plan finds that the map of
the exclusion zone, where development and development
features that encourage birds and wildlife are strongly
discouraged, is not included. The success of this plan is
based on effective monitoring and mitigating of likely
hazardous conditions, awareness, education of relevant
persons associated with airfield operations, and the
ongoing collection of data regarding BASH incidents. The
concern over BASH risks has prompted the Air Force to
arrange for a U.S. Department of Agriculture wildlife
biologist to manage the JBSA -R BASH program.
JBSA-Randolph 2030 Plac
The general plan also addresses APZ zones identified in
the AICUZ. The plan outlines current measures being
taken to prevent encroachment by surrounding
development, including the 188 -acre perpetual easement
held by JBSA -R to ensure development is compliant with
the AICUZ. The plan also states that development within
the APZs in Universal City is likely to occur, but that all
buildings within the APZ must comply with AICUZ land
use recommendations and be approved by the
12th Flying Training Wing Commander prior to
construction. However after further comment received it
should be noted that, the 12 Flying Training Wing (FTW)
does not consider the AICUZ land use recommendations
as compatible with its training operations. The 12 FTW
conducts approximately 200,000 flight movements
annually in fighter- trainer type aircraft and the density of
urban development recommended by the AICUZ
substantially increases mission risk and the likelihood
that people and property will be significantly impacted by
an aircraft mishap.
2003 Integrated Cultural Resources
Management Plan
The 2003 ICRMP establishes compliance procedures to
properly manage cultural and historical resources. The
ICRMP establishes existing conditions for cultural and
historical resources and identifies the potential impacts of
JBSA -R's mission on cultural and historical resources and
the impacts that preservation, maintenance, and repair of
buildings and the continued use of historic buildings have
on mission readiness. The ICRMP also establishes a
coordination process between the installation and many
state or regional agencies including the State Historic
Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, the National Park Service, Native American
groups, and the interested public. This process is subject
to Section 106 of the NHPA, which establishes a process
for working with federal agencies on historic preservation
issues.
F,14 a n a qawent-Nav
The INRMP outlines the various natural resources
including important habitat found on the installation, soil
types, management of noxious weeds and wildland fire,
wildlife and riparian management, water resources and
water rights, inter - agency responsibilities and
coordination efforts, and the overall management plan
for natural resources on JBSA -R to ensure no loss of
capability for military training exercises.
JBSA -R manages a cooperative program to avoid mid -air
collisions through education and information sharing.
This program, through the use and distribution of a
handbook, informs civilian aircraft operators of:
specific aircraft used by the military;
airfield locations used by the military;
daily airfield operations estimates;
flight patterns flown in and around the military
airfield locations;
local air traffic control services;
military training and operations, including military
operating areas;
actions to avoid midair collisions; and
potential areas of conflict in airspace near municipal
airports.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
42, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of
Municipalities
Chapter 42 of the Texas State Local Government Code:
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) of Municipalities
designates the area beyond a municipality's boundaries
for future growth. The municipality has no zoning
authority in this area, since the designated area is not
incorporated into the municipality, but does give a
municipality the right to regulate subdivision
development within the ETJ area. The extent of the ETJ
area is based on the municipal population and increases
with population growth, ranging from one -half mile for
municipalities with less than 5,000 inhabitants to
five miles for a municipality with 100,000 or more
inhabitants. The ETJ also increases as land is annexed
into a municipality.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes, 2011,
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
43, Municipal Annexation
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 43 includes the
authority and process for local municipalities, meeting
certain conditions, to annex property from the ETJ area
into their corporate limits. The code prescribes rules and
authorities for annexation by home -rule and general -law
cities, including the amount of area that may be
annexed, when voter approval is required via election,
the annexation of specific areas such as streams and
sparsely occupied areas by petition of land owners
subject to annexation, and annexation for certain uses
such as agricultural or wildlife management.
With few exceptions, such as voluntary annexation or
areas with less than 100 separate lots total —each
including fewer than two units —this does not preclude
lots in this scenario that have no development, a
municipality must prepare an annexation plan and
guidelines. Annexation does not change the actual
ownership of any land and the land may revert to its
unincorporated status. If property is annexed, the
annexing municipality's zoning and other municipal
regulations become applicable and enforceable on the
property following annexation precluding uses authorized
by previously granted certificates, permits, etc.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes, 2007.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
211, Municipal Zoning Authority
Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code
authorizes a municipality to adopt zoning regulations
governing "the height, number of stories, and size of
buildings and other structures; the percentage of a lot
that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts, and
other open spaces; population density; the location and
use of buildings, other structures, and land for business,
industrial, residential, or other purposes; and the
pumping, extraction, and use of groundwater by persons
other than retail public utilities." While zoning
regulations are not incorporated into a municipality's
comprehensive plan, they must comply with it.
Buildings, structures, or land "under the control,
administration, or jurisdiction of a state or federal
agency" are exempted from the authority in Chapter 211.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes, 1999.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
212, Municipal Regulation of
Subdivisions and Property Development
The Texas LGC Chapter 212.004 provides for exceptions
to the municipality and the property owner in regulating
subdivisions. A property owner may subdivide their land
into minimum five -acre lots without seeking a permit as
long as the lots have access to a frontage road (public
street) and does not require any major infrastructure
improvements that would warrant additional public
services.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
213, Municipal Comprehensive Plans
Chapter 213 of the Texas Local Government Code
mandates that municipalities maintain a master or
comprehensive / general plan "for the purpose of
promoting sound development of municipalities and
promoting public health, safety, and welfare."
Chapter 213 also authorizes a municipality, without
limitation, to address future land, transportation, public
facilities or other elements in the comprehensive plan,
but requires a notation on the future land use map, if
included, stating that: "A comprehensive plan shall not
constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district
boundaries." Comprehensive Plans are required to be
updated every five years.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes, 2001.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
232, County Regulation of Subdivisions
Chapter 232 of the Texas Local Government Code grants
counties the authority to regulate the subdivision of land.
A county's authority is limited to roads, streets, drainage,
and rights -of -way. Subdivision regulation is
accomplished through the review and approval of plats.
Cities in Texas have the authority to regulate new
subdivisions within their corporate limits and in
unincorporated areas within their ETJ. Counties in Texas,
by the authority granted from their commissioners'
courts, also have subdivision regulation authority within
unincorporated areas and may share authority in a city's
ETJ. According to Chapter 232, Subchapter E:
Infrastructure Planning Provisions in Certain Urban
Counties, commissioners courts can "adopt rules
governing plats and subdivisions; they cannot, though,
use the plats and subdivisions rules to regulate:
the use of any building or property for business,
industrial, residential or other purposes;
the bulk, height, or number of buildings
constructed on a particular tract of land;
the size of a building that can be constructed on a
particular tract of land, including without limitation
and restriction on the ratio of building floor space
to the land square footage;
the number of residential units that can be built
per acre of land;
a plat or subdivision in an adjoining county; or
road access to a plat or subdivision in an adjoining
county.
Although some limitations exist, subdivision regulations
can still be effectively used for compatibility planning
purposes. For example, in areas without existing
wastewater infrastructure, subdivision regulations might
prohibit or limit the development of land, require open
space set asides, or minimize the impact on a sensitive
environmental area.
In addition, the Texas LGC Chapter 232 authorizes a
property owner in the counties of Texas to subdivide their
land into minimum 10 -acre lots without requiring a
permit to do so as long as a public right -of -way is not
being dedicated. In addition, Chapter 232.015(f) enables
the property owner to subdivide this land without the
land having to have access to a public street.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes, 2003.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
233, County Regulation of Housing and
Other Structures
In 2009, Chapter 232 Subchapter F of the Texas Local
Government Code provided counties with the authority to
regulate residential building code standards for
residential construction occurring after September 1,
2009 in unincorporated areas. The code affords the
county a minimum of three inspections during
construction to ensure code compliance, but does not
confer county authority to bill for inspections. A county
must have a population greater than 100 persons to
exercise this authority.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes, 2009.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
240, Outdoor Lighting
Texas Local Government Code, Title 7, Subchapter B:
Outdoor Lighting near Observatories and Military
Installations was enacted September 1, 1987 and
subsequently amended September 2001, May 2007, and
January 2012. The code grants certain Texas counties
authority to regulate the use of lighting to mitigate
interference with training activities, operations, or
research within five miles of a military installation.
Counties authorized to adopt these regulations must
meet two criteria; they must have a population greater
than one million and host at least five military bases. Ar
adjacent county to the sponsoring county also has the
authority to regulate lighting types, adopt shielding
requirements, and specify times of usage in their county
areas within five miles of the designated military base.
Source: Texas International Dark Sky Association website;
House Bill No. 1852, Texas Constitution and Statutes, 2001
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
241, Municipal and County Zoning
Authority around Airports
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 241, as amended
in January 2013, authorizes jurisdictions to create a joint
airport zoning board for the purpose of regulating land
uses within a specified geographic area surrounding an
airport to include unincorporated areas. Referred to as
the Controlled Compatible Land Use Area (CCLUA), this
rectangular area is demarcated by lines located no
farther than 1.5 statute miles from the centerline of an
instrument or primary runway and no farther than five
statute miles from each end of the paved surface of an
instrument or primary runway. Section 241.014 of the
Texas State Local Government Code authorizes
jurisdictions "to whose benefit an airport is used in the
interest of the public or in which an airport owned or
operated by a defense agency of the federal government
or state is located" to create a joint airport zoning board.
The board has the authority to adopt, administer, and
enforce compatible land use regulations for its member
jurisdictions.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes website.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
397.005 and .006, Notification
Requirements for Land Use Regulations,
Plans and Permits
Texas Local Government Code Section 397.005 requires
communities adjacent to or near a military base to seek
comments and analysis from the military base concerning
the compatibility of a proposed ordinance, rule, or plan
on military operations and to seek comments and
analysis from the base or facility authorities concerning
the compatibility of the proposed ordinance, rule, or plan
with base operations. The defense community shall
consider and analyze the comments and analysis before
making a final determination relating to the proposed
ordinance, rule, or plan. This requirement applies to
communities that have not adopted airport zoning
regulations pursuant to Texas Local Government Code
Chapter 241 that fall within one of the following
categories: a county with a population of more than
1.5 million that contains a municipality in which at least
75 percent of the county's population resides; a county
with a population of 130,000 or more adjacent to a
county with a population of 1.5 million; incorporated
community in a county described above or is or includes
a municipality that is located in a county with a
population of more than 130,000 that borders the
Red River. The community and military base may enter in
a MOU to establish a smaller area within a CCLUA where
notification is required; however, the community and
military base shall enter into a MOU to establish
provisions to maintain the compatibility of the proposed
ordinance, rule, or plan on military operations. Upon
receipt of a permit application for a proposed structure
that would be located in the notification area, the
community shall notify the base concerning the
compatibility of the structure with base operations.
Upon receipt of a permit application for a proposed
structure with eight miles of a military base boundary,
communities with a population of more than 110,000 in a
county with a population of less than 135,000 that have
not adopted airport zoning regulations shall notify the
military base concerning the compatibility of the
proposed structure with base operations.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes; House Bill 1640
passed on June 17, 2015 and effective September 1,
2015.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
397A, Regional Military Sustainability
Commissions Relating to Certain Military
Installations
Texas Local Government Code Section 397A allows a
county in which three or more locations of a joint military
base are located; and with a population of more than
1.7 million; or an adjacent county; within five miles of
the boundary of a military installation; and one or more
municipalities located in a county described above with
ETJ area located within five miles of the boundary line of
a military installation, each of which, with respect to the
same military installation, to agree by order, ordinance,
or other means to establish and fund a regional military
sustainability commission for the purpose of: promoting
the public health, safety, and general welfare; protecting
and preserving places and areas of military and national
security importance and significance; protecting critical
military missions and operations related to those
missions; and ensuring state and national security. Upon
receipt of an application for a new project, the governing
body shall request a report from the Commission
regarding the proposed project concerning the
compatibility with the military missions and operations
based on the Commission's compatible development
standards.
Source: Texas Constitution and Statutes; House Bill 2232
passed on June 17, 2015 and effective September 1,
2015.
Texas Private Real Property Rights
Preservation Act
The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act
(PRPRPA) was enacted by the Texas State legislature to
recognize the importance of protecting private real
property interests and ensure that certain governmental
entities consider their actions on private real property
rights. The PRPRPA defines whether or not an action of
the government can be considered a taking. A taking, as
defined by the PRPRPA, occurs when a government action
causes a 25% or greater reduction in the value of private
real property. Government actions identified by the
PRPRPA include:
The adoption or issuance of an ordinance, rule,
regulatory requirement, resolution, policy,
guideline, or similar measure;
An action that imposes a physical invasion or
requires a dedication or exaction of private real
property;
An action by a municipality that has an effect on
the ETJ of a municipality, and that enacts or
enforces an ordinance, rule, regulation, or plan
that does not impose identical requirements or --
restrictions on the entire ETJ of the municipality
and
Enforcement of a governmental action, whether
the enforcement of the governmental action is
accomplished through the use of permitting,
citations, orders, judicial or quasi - judicial
proceedings, or other similar mechanisms.
A governmental entity, based on a prescribed set of
self - employed procedures, may be required to prepare a
Takings Impact Assessment (TIA). If a governmental
entity fails to prepare a TIA, when one is required, the
governmental action may be invalidated. The PRPRPA
defines the required elements of a TIA and criteria for its
evaluation. The TIA requires the government entity to
list and evaluate potential alternatives that could
accomplish the action and evaluate the alternatives to
demonstrate that the proposed action is the most
suitable option to achieve the proposed result.
The PRPRPA also incorporates the takings clauses of the - -
U.S. and Texas Constitutions that private property shall
not be taken for a public use without just compensation.
Source: State of Texas Office of the Attorney General
website; Texas Constitution and Statutes, 1995.
Agencies Programs
Texas Military Preparedness Commission
In 2003, Senate Bill No. 652 established the Texas
Military Preparedness Commission and the Texas Military
Value Revolving Loan Account. Among the Commission
responsibilities, reporting to the Governor's office, is to
work with state agencies in preparing annual reports to
the Governor and Legislature regarding the military
installations, their adjacent communities, and the
associated defense - related business within the state.
The Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Account can
issue up to $250 million in general obligation bonds to
assist communities with significant defense - related
attributes that enhance the value of their associated
military installations and promote compatible land use.
Under the law, a community near a military installation
may request financial assistance to prepare a
comprehensive defense installation and community
strategic impact plan (SIP) that identifies the
communities' long -range goals and development
proposals. One objective of the strategic impact plan is
to better manage the effects of future community growth
on military installations and their training exercise
activities.
Information required within the strategic impact plan
includes a list of existing and future land uses
surrounding the military installation; the proposed
distribution, location, and extent of land uses, e.g.
housing, business, industry, agriculture, recreation,
public facilities and grounds; and other categories of
existing and proposed land use regulations, e.g. zoning,
annexation, and planning recommendations. Other
elements required in the strategic impact plan include:
• Transportation: location and extent of existing and
proposed freeways, streets, roads, and other
modes of transportation;
• Population growth: past and anticipated population
trends;
il Conservation: methods for conservation,
development, and use of natural resources;
Open space: inventory of current open space,
analysis of the military base's forecasted needs for
open -space areas to conduct its military training
activities, and suggested strategies to transition
from currently developed land to open- space, if
needed;
Restricted airspace: creation of buffer zones, if
needed, between the military installation and the
existing land use pattern; and
Military training routes: identification of existing
routes and proposed plans for additional / revised
routes.
Once the community has prepared a SIP, it is encouraged
to develop, in coordination with the military installation, a
planning manual based on the plan actions and
recommendations. The manual should incorporate
guidelines for community planning and development.
The community is recommended to consult with the
installation to routinely confirm that the manual is
continuing to effectively address current installation
concerns.
Source: House Bill No. 652, Texas Legislature website.
Airport Compatibility Guidelines
The Airport Compatibility Guidelines: Compatibility
Planning, Compatible Land Use Zoning, Hazard Zoning for
Airports in Texas was published by the Texas Department
of Transportation Aviation Division in January of 2003.
The guidelines complement the State of Texas Local
Government Code Chapter 241, Municipal and County
Zoning Authority around Airports. The guidelines are
intended to aid decision- makers on how to compatibly
plan in areas around airports. This type of planning is
important as a result of increasing development
pressures in areas surrounding airports. The primary
tools discussed in the guidelines are Airport Compatible
Land Use Zoning Ordinances and Hazard Zoning
Ordinances.
The Guidelines comprise four chapters. The first two
chapters explain the necessity for compatible land use
planning by presenting data and background information
on land use conflicts and assessing the current land use
patterns in Texas. Chapter Three discusses how a
municipality can determine if an Airport Compatible Land
Use Ordinance or a Hazard Zoning Ordinance is best
suited for them. It also outlines preparation, such as the
prerequisites needed for implementation of an Airport
Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance and a Hazard
Zoning Ordinance. Chapter Four details procedural steps
in developing and adopting an Airport Compatible Land
Use Zoning Ordinance and / or a Hazard Zoning
Ordinance.
Source: Airport Compatibility Guidelines: Compatibility
Planning, Compatible Land Use Zoning, Hazard Zoning for
Airports in Texas; Texas Department of Transportation
Aviation Division; Jan 2003
Real estate disclosures are used in some Texas
jurisdictions to notify potential homebuyers of conditions
affecting the property which they should be aware of
prior to purchase. Section 5.008 of the Texas Property
Code requires real estate disclosures to be provided to
the purchaser on or before the effective date of the
contract binding the purchaser to a property purchase.
Pursuant to Section 5.008(a), a seller of residential real
property comprising not more than one dwelling unit
located in the state shall give to the purchaser of the
property a written notice containing disclosures relating
to the property condition.
The Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) disseminates
a Seller's Disclosure of Property Condition form for use in
residential real estate transactions (TREC Form No. OP -H,
revised Sep 2011). The purpose of the Seller's
Disclosure is to document any appliances, equipment,
and features on the property and whether these items
are in working condition. Real estate disclosures are also
identified in the TREC Unimproved Property Contract
Form 9 -10 (revised, Jan 2012). If the seller discloses
property conditions that affect the use of the property
and cannot be cured by the seller within a certain period
of time, the buyer may terminate the contract within a
mutually- agreed upon timeframe. Sellers are required to
disclose knowledge about certain characteristics
pertaining to the location of their property such as
location in a 100 -year floodplain or other natural feature
that may pose unique risks to the property like landfill
activity, settling, soil movement, or a fault line.
Although they are not currently used for this purpose in
Texas, real estate disclosures can be used to notify
buyers that a property offered for sale is in an area of
military influence. The disclosure could also notify buyers
of potential effects relating to the military influence area,
such as lighting requirements, height limitations,
required sound attenuation for new structures, and
impacts to the property such as noise.
Source: Texas Real Estate Commission website.
Regional Planning 0 Military;
Multifamily;
Information and Tools E Office; and
Reta i 1.
. r;
Twenty -four regional councils were implemented within
the State of Texas between the years of 1966 and 1971.
The purpose of these councils is to "deal with the
problems and planning needs that cross the boundaries
of individual local governments or that require regional
attention" as noted by the Texas Association of Regional
Councils. Regional council #18 includes the Counties of
Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Frio, Gillespie,
Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, McMullen, Medina, and
Wilson, which is represented by the Alamo Area Council
of Governments ( AACOG). The AAACOG primarily
focuses on planning functions related to air quality /
natural resources, economic and community
development, and transit and transportation The AACOG
also manages a regional data center that "provides city
and regional planning expertise and geographic
information system support" via data collection and
synthesis of demographics and workforce / employment
information.
Source: AACOG website.
Metropolitan Statistical Areas are defined by the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB
website for Open Government states, the OMB "assists
the President in overseeing the preparation of the Federal
budget and evaluates the effectiveness of agency
programs, policies, and procedures." To prepare budgets
and evaluate effectiveness, OMB manages a multitude of
statistical programs ranging from the study of health and
safety to economics. The OMB formulated Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) for use in their statistical
programs to allow data to be grouped for efficient use.
The U.S, is separated into 366 MSAs, each comprising a
population of at least 2.5 million, allowing the Federal
Government, among other agencies and users,
"comparable areas across the Nation for preparing and
disseminating Federal statistics." (OMB, 2013)
The San Antonio -New Braunfels MSA includes the
Counties of Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal,
Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson. According to
the Real Estate Center at the Texas A &M University, the
San Antonio -New Braunfels MSA provides data on the
following:
County and Local
Jurisdiction Planning
Tools
The planning tools used by the study area jurisdictions
were analyzed and categorized as permanent,
semi - permanent, or conditional. In Texas, only cities and
not counties may enforce land use and development
regulatory authority. Neither counties nor cities are
legally bound by state law to develop comprehensive
plans.
Texas Local Government Code provides cities and
counties with authority to regulate the subdivision of land
within incorporated and ETJ areas, including managing
roads, streets, drainage, and rights -of -way. In general,
land cannot be divided in Texas without local government
approval. Dividing land for sale or lease is regulated by
local ordinances based on the Texas Local Government
Code (Chapter 212 for cities and Chapter 232 for
counties).
In the case of cities, the local comprehensive plan,
zoning, subdivision, and other ordinances govern the
design of the subdivision, the size of its lots, and the
types of improvements (street construction, sewer lines,
drainage facilities, etc.). Counties may only regulate
subdivisions as they apply to roads, property setbacks
and groundwater.
There are twenty -nine incorporated municipalities and
numerous smaller, unincorporated communities within
Bexar and Guadalupe Counties. While the missions
conducted at JBSA -R have the potential to intermittently
affect different parts of the counties at one time or
another, this JLUS focuses on areas of Bexar County and
its incorporated cities of Converse, Garden Ridge, Live
Oak, San Antonio, Schertz, Selma, and Universal City,
and Guadalupe County and its incorporated cities of
Cibolo and Seguin. These areas are most affected by
JBSA -R activities and conversely, the areas that have the
most potential to pose compatibility and mission
protection issues for JBSA -R.
The following planning tools are discussed for each
jurisdiction:
comprehensive plan;
zoning;
outdoor lighting;
• airport zoning / compatibility; Subdivision Regulations
• subdivision regulations; Bexar County has adopted subdivision regulations
• building codes; pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Chapter 232
• extraterritorial jurisdiction; to regulate lots, and street and drain rights -of -way,
• annexation; and which can guide development within unincorporated
• other (additional tools, as applicable). areas.
Table 4.1 provides an overview of existing planning tools
by jurisdiction and their applicability on military
compatibility.
Bexar County
Bexar County is host to the Greater San Antonio area
with a total population estimated at approximately
1.78 million in 2012. Regulatory tools for planning and
zoning are generally limited for counties in the State of
Texas; although, Bexar County does have some limited
authorities. The following is a review of existing planning
tools (policies, plans, and programs) utilized by
Bexar County along with a brief analysis identifying their
efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Bexar County does not have traditional land use authority
and therefore, does not have a comprehensive plan.
Zoning
Bexar County cannot exercise zoning authority per state
law but does regulate stormwater discharges associated
with construction activities larger than one acre.
Outdoor Lighting
Subchapter B of Chapter 240, Texas Local Government
Code, provides certain counties the authority to regulate
outdoor lighting in unincorporated areas within five miles
of a military installation. Bexar County is one of the
counties that meets the requirements to exercise this
authority and was successful in enacting an Order for
Regulation of Outdoor Lighting pertaining to the
unincorporated areas within three miles of Camp Bullis.
A similar regulation has not been enacted for the areas
surrounding JBSA -R and may not be feasible given the
amount of incorporated areas associated with the cities of
Converse, Schertz, and Universal City.
Airport Zoning / Compatibility
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 241 only affords
counties the authority to implement zoning regulation in
unincorporated areas; however, this Chapter also
indicates that this authority would most likely apply to
municipalities. Bexar County does not currently regulate
zoning for airport purposes at either JBSA -R Airfield or
Stinson Municipal Airport. Given that the majority of the
area surrounding JBSA -R Airfield and all of the area
surrounding Stinson Municipal Airport is incorporated,
Bexar County's authority to implement zoning regulations
is limited.
Bexar County does not have the ability to regulate
subdivisions in any municipality's ETJ unless the land
owner entered into an agreement with Bexar County.
The County will have the ability to regulate subdivision in
the City of San Antonio's ETJ when the city reaches a
population of 1.9 million; it is currently approximately
1.3 million.
Areas of Bexar County currently within the City of
San Antonio ETJ require compliance with both Bexar
County subdivision regulations and Chapter 35 of the City
of San Antonio Unified Development Code and approval
from both jurisdictions.
Building Codes
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 233, County
Regulation of Housing and Other Structures, provides
counties the authority to regulate residential building
codes in unincorporated areas within the county. The
authority is restricted to:
• new residential construction,
• additions comprising more than 50 percent of the
original structure,
• occurring after September 1, 2009, and
• does not apply to modular home construction.
Bexar County utilizes and references the 2009
International Code Series and amendments found in the
Bexar County Rules for the Enforcement of the
International Fire Code and International Building
Codes. In additional, references may be made to the
National Fire Protection Association standards and other
pertinent state laws.
Other
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
The Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 361, Solid
Waste Disposal Act, provides counties the authority to
designate unincorporated land areas for solid waste
disposal facilities. Conversely, the chapter effectively
provides counties the authority to restrict the locations of
solid waste disposal authority. This is important with
respect to airport zoning because landfills and other solid
waste facilities attracts birds and other wildlife resulting
in hazards to flight activities.
Table 4-1. focal Political Subdivision Planning Tools
Bexar County
N/A
N/A
City of Converse
N/A
City of Garden Ridge
N/A
City of Live Oak
N/A
City of San Antonio
N/A
City of Schertz
M
FM
0
0
M
N/A
City of Selma
N/A
City of Universal City
N/A
Guadalupe County
N/A
N/A
City of Cibolo
N/A
City of Seguin
N/A
Legend:
= The tool exists, but does not address land use
issue(s) related to military compatibility as
adopted.
The tool exists, but only partially addresses land
use issue(s) related to military compatibility as
adopted.
The tool exists and addresses land use issue(s)
related to military compatibility as adopted.
M = The tool does not exist or jurisdiction does not employ,
not adopted.
The tool exists, but does not affect land use issue(s)
related to military compatibility as adopted.
= The tool exists, but it is unknown if tool would affect
land use issue(s) related to military compatibility due
to lack of information.
By the authority provided in Chapter 16 of the Water
Code, Provisions Generally Applicable to Water
Development, Bexar County regulates and restricts
development within flood prone areas. One example of
County- enforcement within the JLUS study area is the
Cimarron Subdivision flood control project. The project
includes "removal of approximately 15 homes from with
the city limits of Converse currently located within the
100 -year storm event floodplain boundaries ", as noted on
the Bexar County Flood Control website.
This authority may be useful near JBSA -R since Woman
Hollering Creek drains the south end of the installation
between the two runways.
City of Converse
The City of Converse is part of the Greater San Antonio
area, with a population of approximately 18,000. The
City has adopted a Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Regulations, and Building Codes to ensure orderly
development within the City and its ETJ. The following is
a review of existing planning tools (policies, plans, and
programs) utilized by the City of Converse along with a
brief analysis identifying their efficiency or deficiency in
addressing land use and military compatibility and where
potential improvements can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Converse does not currently have a
comprehensive plan.
Zoning
The City of Converse Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 50 of
the city code, was last revised in 2006. The ordinance
allows placement of single - family residences (R -1)
adjacent to the approach /departure corridor for the
southwest end of JBSA Randolph runway 14R/32L.
Although the ordinance specifies minimum lot sizes
(55 feet x 110 feet), it does not otherwise restrict the
number of dwelling units per acre. At a minimum lot size
of 6,050 feet, a single - family residential development
could include as many as seven dwelling units per acre.
This density would be a concern in the accident potential
zones associated with the JBSA -R runway 14R/32L. This
is the only instance in Converse where density may
present a compatibility issue with ]BSA-R. All other land
uses are outside of the CZ and APZ areas.
Height limits are restricted to 38 feet for residential
districts and a maximum of 90 feet for all other buildings
and structures. In some areas adjacent to JBSA -R's
perimeter, a height of 38 feet may interfere with aviation
operations. This is especially true near the southwest
end of runway 14R/32L. Outside of these areas, the
height limit of 90 feet is sufficient to keep buildings and
structures from protruding into the imaginary surface
inner horizontal layer, which is 150 feet.
The ordinance could be improved by including
information about the JBSA -R AICUZ or the JBSA -R
Airfield, as it does not currently reference either site. It
also excludes appropriate air overlay zones or other
zoning mechanisms / height restrictions specific to
structures / wireless communication towers that could
create vertical obstructions within direct proximity to the
base.
Outdoor Lighting
The zoning ordinance for the City of Converse only
addresses outside lighting in special use permit
applications. The application requires information
concerning, "Location and area coverage of all outside
lighting (especially any which might shine into an
adjacent residential area or into vehicle operator vision)."
`Vehicle operator" is an undefined term, but likely means
automobile operators and not aircraft operators.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The City of Converse has not enacted any airport zoning
regulations, but has the authority to implement both
Airport Hazard Area Zoning regulations and Airport
Compatible Land Use Zoning regulations pursuant to
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 241, since it is
within the controlled compatible land use area.
Unofficially, the city has considered or at least is aware of
airport compatibility regarding JBSA -R as noted within
the 1604 Commercial Corridor Study (2013). Some
elements mentioned in the study include flight path
restrictions, setbacks, height / building height
restrictions, noise levels, airshows, zoning in Accident
Potential Zones I and II, and electromagnetic
interference.
Subdivision Regulations
The City of Converse enforces their subdivision
regulations through Chapter 40 of the City Code of
Ordinances. The subdivision ordinance was last revised
in 2008.
Subdivisions are primarily a concern limited to CZ and
APZ areas due to recommended development densities.
The overwhelming majority of Converse is located outside
the CZ and APZ- the exception is the R -1 residential
district. Platting activities do not impact future
compatibility.
The ordinance could be improved by including
information about the JBSA -R Airfield, requirements for
water supply / provision for new development, and
incentives to proactively locate desired development
types - those that are not noise - sensitive, near the
airfield due to the noise levels associated with the
aviation operations.
Building Code
To identify standards and guidelines and provide for
administration and enforcement of the building codes,
the City has adopted by reference the 2012 International
Building Code, the 2012 International Fire Code, and the
2012 International Residential Code; all of which became
effective October 1 of their publishing year. These
current building codes provide basic development
standards for structures and systems and some address
specific elements like sound transmission and energy that
could be better incorporated into the City of Converse's
ordinances. For example, the 2012 International
Residential Code, Appendix K: Sound Transmission,
states, "Wall and floor - ceiling assembles separating
dwelling units ... shall provide air -borne sound insulation
for walls, and both air -borne and impact sound insulation
for floor - ceiling assemblies." This language is important
because of the airborne sound created by flight activities
at JBSA -R. Regarding energy efficiency, Section N1101.2
Chapter 11 states, "This code shall regulate the design
and construction of buildings for the effective use and
conservation of energy over the useful life of each
building." The main objective of installing energy
conservation measures is to save energy, but such
measures may also attenuate sound, e.g. double -pane
glass and thermafiber insulation.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The city does not have any ETJ area available for
annexation.
Annexation
As a home -rule charter municipality, the City of Converse
is enabled by Texas Local Government Code Chapter 43
to annex area adjacent to the municipality as well as
exchange area with other municipalities. The City charter
does not specifically address annexation as a land
development tool. Annexation is improbable based on a
lack of available ETJ area and the proximity of adjoining
municipalities' corporate limits.
City of Garden Ridge
The City of Garden Ridge is wholly located within Comal
County *, north of JBSA -R, with a population of
approximately 3,200. The City has adopted a Zoning
Ordinance and Building Codes to ensure orderly
development within the City and its ETJ. The following is
a review of existing planning tools (policies, plans, and
programs) utilized by the City of Garden Ridge along with
a brief analysis identifying their efficiency or deficiency in
addressing land use and military compatibility and where
potential improvements can be made.
( *Information about Comal County is not included within
this JLUS Study, as it is not a participating jurisdiction.)
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Garden Ridge does not currently have a
comprehensive plan.
Zoning
The City of Garden Ridge implemented their zoning
ordinance in December 2008. The ordinance specifies
the maximum building height in all zones as 35 feet
above grade.
The height of all other improvements, such as
telecommunications towers and poles, may not "exceed
the ridgeline of the largest building on a lot unless
specifically authorized by City ordinance or written
authorization from City Council." One authorized
deviation is related to the installation of direct - broadcast
system video reception; poles or mast mounted antennas
that may exceed "more than twelve (12) feet above the
roofline of the building or other structure ". This may be
a concern, as a part of Garden Ridge is located within the
Federal Aviation Administration Part 150 vertical
obstruction area for JBSA -R. The six nautical mile
boundary for the obstruction area lies south of Gloxinia
Drive; approximately 20 percent of Garden Ridge is
within the vertical obstruction area. The city is also
wholly within the area affected by the outer horizontal
surface of the airfield's imaginary surfaces; all structure
heights are recommended to be less than 500 feet tall in
relation to the elevation of the JBSA -R Airfield. Garden
Ridge is located at approximately 130 feet above the
elevation of JBSA -R, which means that structures should
be no more than 350 feet tall.
Since Garden Ridge is located approximately five miles
outside of ]BSA-R, there are no other compatibility issues
with respect to zoning.
Outdoor Lighting
The zoning ordinance for the City of Garden Ridge
includes the following limitations on exterior lighting for
areas only zoned Single Family (R) Dwelling and Country
Club (CC):
Light fixtures shall be below the building roofline;
Lights shall not aim beyond the owner's property
line nor illuminate adjoining property to more than
five (5) foot - candles measures at the point of
highest intensity;
No single light fixture or cluster of fixtures shall
exceed 150 -watt capacity; and
Any variance shall meet the criteria of not causing
increased illumination off the property.
Limitations on exterior lighting for areas zoned Office and
Professional (B -2), Neighborhood Service (B -1), Municipal
Use (MU), Light Industrial (LI), and Industrial (Z -1)
Districts may not have lights that "aim beyond the
owner's property line nor illuminate adjoining Residential
(R or CC designated) District lots to more than (5)
foot - candles measures at the point of highest intensity."
This doesn't preclude light intensity on the property,
though, which may be a concern for flight operations.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The City of Garden Ridge has the authority to implement
Airport Hazard Area Zoning Regulations pursuant to
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 241, but does not
have the authority to enact Airport Compatible Land Use
Zoning regulations, since it is greater than five miles
from the northern end of the nearest JBSA -R runway and city, its neighborhoods, and public services and facilities.
not within the controlled compatible land use area. The Comprehensive Plan includes the following chapters:
Subdivision Regulations
The City of Garden Ridge enacted subdivision regulations
through the adoption of Ordinance 7- 042013 in
April 2006. Since Garden Ridge is located approximately
five miles outside of ]BSA-R, the subdivision of land is
not a compatibility issue.
Building Code
The City of Garden Ridge has adopted by reference the
Southern Building Code Congress Standard Building and
Fire Prevention Codes, 1991 editions and all future
supplements. The International Code Council has since
replaced the Southern Building Code Congress with the
International Building Code, which has become standard
across the United States.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The ETJ area for the City of Garden Ridge is an existing
quarry located in the center of the city. No other
ETJ area is available to the city since it is bounded by
corporate and / or ETJ areas for the cities of Schertz and
San Antonio. The City of Garden Ridge 2009 Water
Master Plan & Impact Fee Analysis notes that the quarry
will likely complete excavation operations in
°approximately 25 years" at which time, the city will
appropriate the property for residential development.
Annexation
As a Type A general -law municipality, the City of Garden
Ridge is enabled by Texas Local Government Code
Chapter 43.023 to annex area contiguous to the
municipality limited to one mile in width. Property
owners subject to annexation may petition the
municipality to order an election in the affected area and
decide whether to become part of Garden Ridge.
Annexation may be improbable based on a lack of
available ETJ area and the proximity of adjoining
municipalities' corporate limits.
City of Live Oak
The City of Live Oak is located within the San Antonio
MSA and home to a population of approximately 13,000.
The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and Building Codes
to ensure orderly development within the City of Live
Oak. The following is a review of existing planning tools
(policies, plans, and programs) utilized by the City of
Live Oak along with a brief analysis identifying their
efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The City maintains the City of Live Oak Comprehensive
Plan 2022 to guide future land uses, transportation,
economic development, and the general character of the
• Baseline Analysis;
• Goals and Objectives;
• Future Land Use Plan;
• Thoroughfare Plan;
• Neighborhood and Business Enhancement Plan; and
• Implementation.
The City of Live Oak is located outside of the CZ, APZ,
and noise contours for ]BSA-R, so future densities and
land uses noted within the city's comprehensive plan are
not a compatibility concern.
Zoning
The City of Live Oak implemented their zoning ordinance
in 1984 with revisions occurring most recently in 2012.
The City's Zoning Map, dated July 2008, shows the
eastern edge of the city zoned for Office and Professional
(B -1), Neighborhood Services (B -2), and General
Business (B -3) Districts with a few limited parcels zoned
Apartment / Multi- Family Residential (R -5) District. In
each of these districts, the height is restricted to three
standard stories. Standard stories are defined within the
Zoning Ordinance as "having eleven feet six inches
between floors ", which would restrict heights to
approximately 34.5 feet in these zones. Areas zoned
Light Industrial (I -1) and Medium Industrial (I -2) are
allowed up to six stories and may be taller in height with
provision of appropriate set back from applicable lot
lines. A building in these districts could be 69 feet in
height or higher. Only one area is zoned Light Industrial
(I -1); located in the northwest corner of the City of Live
Oak bounded by Lookout Road. No areas are zoned for
Medium Industrial (I -2) uses.
Telecommunications tower facilities / monopoles are
height restricted to a maximum of 120 feet, potentially
limiting the possibility of telecommunications towers as a
vertical obstruction in the City. Live Oak, though, is
located at an elevation of 912 feet, which is
approximately 150 feet above the JBSA -R Airfield. The
majority of the city is within the conical surface, which
increases from 150 feet to 500 feet in elevation. The
allowable heights within the zoning ordinance coupled
with the city's elevation presents a compatibility concern
in the southeast portion of the city due to proximity of
the 150 -foot conical surface elevation.
Outdoor Lighting
Outdoor lighting in the zoning ordinance is limited to the
regulation of off- street parking areas. Lighting for these
areas must be directed or shielded to prevent illumination
of adjoining residential areas.
Lighting is also referenced in the Neighborhood and
Business Enhancement section of the Comprehensive
Plan, but the recommendations are limited to aesthetics.
The recommendations are not enforceable, since they
have not been implemented though the zoning ordinance.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The City of Live Oak has not enacted any airport zoning
regulations, but has the authority to implement both
Airport Hazard Area Zoning regulations and Airport
Compatible Land Use Zoning regulations pursuant to
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 241, particularly
since the city jurisdiction extends into the controlled
compatible land use area.
Subdivision Regulations
The City of Live Oak adopted subdivision regulations in
October 2009. Since Live Oak is located outside of
]BSA -R's safety zones, compatibility with subdivision
development is not a concern.
Building Code
To identify standards and guidelines and provide for
administration and enforcement of the City of Live Oak's
building codes, the City adopted the 2012 International
Building Code. Since Live Oak is located outside of
]BSA -R's noise contours, building code provisions (sound
attenuation) are not a compatibility concern.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The City of Live Oak does not have any ETJ areas.
Annexation
As a home -rule charter municipality, the City of Live Oak
is enabled by Texas Local Government Code Chapter 43
to annex area adjacent to the municipality as well as
exchange area with other municipalities. The City charter
specifies the process for annexation in Article 1,
delineating three methods by which the City may extend
its boundaries. These methods are:
Annexation by ordinance;
Annexation by petition; and
Annexation by election.
Annexation by ordinance can be performed by the City
Council, with or without consent of the owners or
inhabitants, and all annexations shall be limited and
controlled by the applicable annexation laws of the State.
Annexation is improbable based on a lack of available ETJ
area and the proximity of adjoining municipalities'
corporate limits.
City of San Antonio
As the largest incorporated area within the JLUS study
area, the City of San Antonio (COSA) has implemented
and utilized the widest variety of planning tools to ensure
orderly and safe development throughout the city and its
ETJ. The following is a review of existing planning tools
(policies, plans, and programs) utilized by the City of
San Antonio along with a brief analysis identifying their
efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The COSA adopted master plan policies on May 29, 1997
along with the City's first Unified Development Code
(UDC) on May 3, 2001 to implement the policies. Master
plan policies address Growth Management, Economic
Development, Community Services, Neighborhoods,
Natural Resources, and Urban Design and provide
long -range goals for each of these functional areas. The
City has not adopted a city -wide land use plan; instead,
functional plans, sector plans, neighborhood and
community plans, and community development plans
form the basis for comprehensive planning within COSA.
The hierarchy of these plans is such that a local plan may
supersede elements of a sector plan, as shown in the
following table:
City -wide Functional 1 Chapter/ Element
Functional of Policy
Plans Document
Neighborhood Specific 3 May supersede a
& Community Level 2 Plan
Plans Neighborhood
Plan supersedes
Community Plan
Source: Comprehensive Planning Program, COSA, Dec 10,
2009
Sector plans typically include "an existing land use map,
general land use plan (urban, suburban, rural, reserve,
preserve, regional activity center, community activity
center, neighborhood activity center, rural activity center,
special activity center, high capacity corridor) and a
summary of existing growth, economic development,
land use, and transportation trends." Stinson Municipal
Airport is located within the eastern sector and JBSA -R
Airfield is located adjacent to the eastern sector of the
city; COSA is currently preparing the sector plan for this
area. Neighborhood and Community Plans address the
areas surrounding Stinson Municipal Airport and the
areas west of JBSA -R Airfield under the jurisdiction of
COSA. These plans are the Stinson Airport Land Use Plan
(2009) and IH 10 East Corridor Perimeter Plan (2008),
respectively.
The Stinson Airport Land Use Plan provides a future land
use plan to guide decisions undertaken by city planners.
In the areas adjacent to Stinson Municipal Airport, the
future land use plan simplifies zoning by aggregating
large swaths of land into single land uses, thereby
eliminating the patchwork zoning currently in place. The planning recommendations for the COSA corporate areas
plan notes the following for consideration: in the vicinity of ]BSA -R.
"As the airport operations continue to expand, an
attenuation overlay district may be warranted in
the future.
Notations on plats, restrictive covenants, and
property acquisition can also protect airport
operations.
In addition, a corridor overlay district could
enhance the area's urban design through
additional development and design standards."
Additionally, the plan makes the following action
recommendations yet to be implemented:
"Consider adoption of land use compatibility
standards through a zoning overlay to prohibit
certain hazardous and incompatible uses within
the noise contours in accordance with Federal and
State regulations.
Encourage all owners /agents of property within
noise contours to provide a public notification
statement to all prospective purchasers through a
written disclosure statement.
Make the noise contours and airport hazard
overlay zone available for public inspection
through the City's Zoning Map application and
other public venues.
Consider adoption of a zoning ordinance that
provides noise attenuation standards for properties
with DNLs of 65 decibels or greater that requires
acoustical treatments to reduce noise to
acceptable levels within the airport noise contours.
Investigate incentives to assist owners of
properties within noise contours to attenuate
homes and buildings for noise, including fee
waivers, potential grants, etc."
With the exception of the incentives investigation, all
other recommendations were assigned a short -mid
timeframe for implementation; the associated timeframes
are one to two years for short -term implementation and
three to five years for mid -term implementation.
The IH 10 East Perimeter Plan notes that JBSA -R has
been and continues to be a major economic contributor
to the cities of " Schertz, Seguin, San Antonio, and
New Braunfels" and that the City of Schertz "enjoys a
close relationship" with the base. Unfortunately, the
mention of JBSA -R is limited to these two instances. The
perimeter plan includes a future land use plan for areas
under COSA jurisdiction. The future land uses noted
have been implemented and are discussed in the
preceding section on zoning. The IH 10 Perimeter Plan
could be strengthened by including more information
about ]BSA-R, its associated aviation operations, and
Zoning
The last copyrighted edition of the COSA zoning
ordinance is dated 2006, but several updates have been
adopted since.
The COSA zoning ordinance is complex and wide- ranging
and includes Base Zoning Districts, which regulate
standard residential, commercial, and industrial uses
among others; Overlay Districts, which regulate / protect
special land use types such as airports, historic districts,
recharge zones, and outdoor lighting near military bases;
Special Districts, which regulate special /unique uses
such as transit - oriented development, golf courses,
quarries, manufactured housing, and arts and
entertainment; and Flex Zoning Districts, which regulate
unique development areas or patterns to preserve a
certain character or enhance efficiency within the area
and includes areas ranging from farm and ranch uses to
heavy industrial.
The properties surrounding Stinson Municipal Airport
include Residential, Commercial, and Light Industrial
base zoning districts. The properties near JBSA -R include
Residential, Office, and Commercial base zoning districts.
All of these areas are further regulated by an Airport
Hazard Overlay District (AHOD). The AHOD implements
additional restrictions above those regulated by base
zoning districts. Accordingly, the AHOD is comprised of a
series of standards to protect aviation activities and land
uses and land -based activities. Specific standards
include:
Development Standards;
Height- Limiting Imaginary Surfaces, International
and Stinson;
Height Restrictions;
Use Restrictions;
Nonconforming Uses;
Administrative Agency (inside City limits);
Board of Adjustment;
Appeals;
Judicial Review (inside City limits);
Conflicting Regulations; and
Imaginary Surfaces (Kelly and Randolph Air Force
Bases).
These standards are comprehensive in their design and
regulation and include prohibitions on existing and future
uses, nonconforming structures, natural growths, and
land uses and requirements for variances, Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) notification and marking
and lighting.
The AHOD provides height - limiting restrictions in
accordance with imaginary surfaces that regulate civilian
airports, applicable to Stinson Municipal Airport, and
military airfields, applicable to JBSA -R. Note: imaginary
surfaces for civilian and military airfields differ slightly as
discussed in Chapter 3.
The AHOD provides more stringent height restrictions
than those regulated by imaginary surfaces alone by
regulating structures and growth that results "in the
alteration of any flight procedure established by federal
aviation authorities" and, where one or more imaginary
surface exists in the same area, the more stringent
prevails.
Use restrictions address electrical and visual interference,
competition with airport lights, glare and visibility near
the airport, airspace penetration by temporary objects
like balloons, alterations to private flying fields, bird
strike hazards, and general safety of aviation operations.
While the AHOD is comprehensive, it does not reference
specific restrictions for development in the Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ). The RPZ is similar to the military
CZ (more information about RPZs is provided in
Chapter 3). The RPZs for runway 9/27 extend outside
the airfield boundaries. To the west, runway 9's RPZ
extends over an existing residential area comprising
Multi- Family Residential (MF -33) and Single - Family
Residential (R -4) zoning Districts. The MF -33 District
allows a density of up to 33 dwelling units per acre; R -4
allows a density of up to 10 dwelling units per acre and
allows nursery, public, and private school uses, with a
one -acre minimum area. To the east, runway 27's RPZ
also extends outside the airfield's boundaries.
Commercial (C -3) and Single - Family Residential (R -6)
Districts appear to be within the RPZ. The Commercial
(C -3) District allows intensive commercial uses including
regional shopping centers and multi- screen movie
theaters. The Residential (R -6) District allows a density
of up to seven dwelling units per acre and nursery,
public, and private school uses, with a one -acre minimum
area. The single - family residential and commercial uses
are limited to 35 feet in height and the multi - family
residential is limited to 45 feet. It is not known if these
heights are a compatibility concern, since imaginary
surface information was not available for Stinson
Municipal Airport. Density is a compatibility concern as
explained below.
FAA recommendations restrict the RPZ "to such land uses
as agricultural, golf course, and similar uses that do not
involve congregations of people or construction of
buildings or other improvements that may be
obstructions." The FAA Airport Improvement Program
notes, "Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are:
residences and places of public assembly. (Churches,
schools, hospitals, office buildings, shopping centers, and
other uses with similar concentrations of persons typify
places of public assembly.) In cases where the land is
already developed and it would be too expensive to
acquire the existing development, this policy is a
recommendation." The land uses in the runway 9/27
RPZs must be pre- existing and are regulated within the
AHOD as nonconforming uses.
The property near JBSA -R is zoned Neighborhood
Preservation (NP -10), Residential (R -5 and R -6),
Multi - Family Residential (MF -33), Manufactured Housing
(MH), Office (0 -1), and Commercial (C -2 and C -3)
Districts. With the exception of the Neighborhood
Preservation (NP -10) District, all other districts are
located outside of the JBSA -R safety zones and limited to
heights of 25 to 45 feet. With the exception of the
Neighborhood Preservation (NP -10) District, the densities
and building heights do not present a compatibility
concern.
Neighborhood Preservation (NP -10) District is a special
zoning district established by Section 35 -340 and is
"designed to protect existing platted subdivisions which
are substantially developed with single - family detached
dwelling units ". The Neighborhood Preservation (NP -10)
District requires a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size,
equivalent to four dwelling units per acre. A portion of
the zoned area is within the APZ I and II for JBSA -R with
the larger amount located in APZ I. This zoning density
exceeds the recommendation for APZ I, where residential
uses are not recommended. In APZ II, it is twice the
number of recommended dwelling units per acre. The
height is restricted to 35 feet or 2 1/2 stories and may
pose a compatibility concern based on the specific
location of the residential unit relative to the transitional
surface imaginary surface layer. Otherwise, the height
does not appear to conflict with the approach - departure
clearance surface height recommendations.
Aside from the land use concerns noted for both
Stinson Municipal Airport and ]BSA-R, the AHOD zoning
would preclude future development of incompatible land
uses and limit the height of new structures. Densities are
not regulated within the AHOD and current base zoning
districts allow densities greater than those recommended
by the FAA and DOD.
Outdoor Lighting
On December 11, 2008, COSA amended Chapter 35 of
the zoning code by adding Section 35- 339.04 "Military
Lighting Overlay Districts" to Article II, Division 4
"Overlay Districts" and adding Section 35- 498 "Violations
of Military Lighting Overlay Districts Regulations" to
Article IV, Division 11 "Enforcement, Violations and
Penalties." The purpose is to establish regulations for
outdoor lighting impacting military operations within five
miles of the perimeter of Camp Bullis / Camp Stanley,
]BSA-R, and JBSA Lackland. The intent of these
amendments is to reduce glare and the potential
distraction by off - installation activities upon the night
time training exercises and to balance the needs of the
military, COSA, and property owners regarding
responsible development and appropriate outdoor
lighting.
In addition to designating the area within five miles of
military installations perimeters, the ordinance also
states: "...if a Joint Land Use Study determines that
lighting regulations are required in a smaller area than
those required in a designated district, the City may
initiate a rezoning to remove properties from a military
lighting overlay district.
If a Joint Land Use Study determines that different
regulations are required or recommended, the City may
modify the district regulations accordingly." This
ordinance regulates outdoor lighting for COSA corporate
areas within five (5) miles of ]BSA-R. Its purpose is to
protect military night training activities from the
encroachment of new development.
For the areas surrounding Stinson Municipal Airport, the
zoning code includes regulations applicable to signs,
parking areas, and other purposes. This code includes
the following restrictions:
Lighting facilities used to light signs, parking
areas, or for other purposes shall be so arranged
that the source of light is concealed from adjacent
residential properties and does not interfere with
traffic;
Lights illuminating off - street parking or loading
areas shall comply with the following standards as
a protection against excessive glare and light
spilling over to adjacent properties;
When a light source has elements such as shields,
reflectors, or refractor panels which direct and cut
off the light at a cutoff angle that is less than
ninety degrees, the maximum permitted height
shall be thirty feet;
When a light source has a cutoff angle of ninety
degrees or greater, the maximum permitted height
shall be fifteen feet. Moreover, the Airport Hazard
Overlay District (AHOD) regulates lighting
surrounding Stinson Municipal Airport and COSA
corporate areas near JBSA -R Airfield through use
restrictions. Uses are regulated so as not to:
o "Make it difficult for flyers to distinguish
between airport lights and others;
o Result in glare in the eyes of flyers using the
airport; [and]
o Impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport."
In this instance, lighting is regulated by controlling the
light- producing use. The AHOD regulations could be
improved through the addition of specific regulations that
address the lighting source.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The Stinson Airport Vicinity Land Use plan notes that
both an Airport Hazard Zoning District and an Airport
Awareness Zone have been implemented to promote
compatibility with surrounding uses and sustainment of
airport operations. The Airport Hazard Overlay District
limits the height of structures or natural growth that
obstruct airspace required for takeoff, landing and flight
of aircraft (FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 77). The Airport
Awareness Zone was established through a resolution in
2001 to ensure compatible uses around the airport, and
requires consultation with Aviation Department staff for
zoning change requests within the zone." The Airport
Awareness Zone is the controlled compatible land use
area for Stinson Municipal Airport.
The COSA regulates corporate areas near JBSA -R through
the AHOD. The COSA also has the authority to enact an
Airport Awareness Zone in the corporate areas near
JBSA -R, since corporate property is in the controlled
compatible land use area, but has not done so.
The COSA has the authority to enact a Military Airport
Overlay Zone (MAOZ) in the corporate areas near
JBSA -R. The MAOZ is intended to ensure compatibility
between military airports and surrounding communities.
The MAOZ is intended to:
• "Guide, control, and regulate future growth and
development.
• Promote orderly and appropriate use of land.
• Protect the character and stability of existing land
uses.
• Enhance the quality of living in the areas affected.
• Protect the general economic welfare by restricting
incompatible land uses.
• Prevent the establishment of any land use which
would endanger aircraft operations and the
continued use of military airports."
Subdivision Regulations
Although the COSA enforces subdivision regulations
through their Unified Development Code, the properties
surrounding Stinson Municipal Airport and properties
adjacent to JBSA -R Airfield would be more stringently
regulated under the AHOD. The AHOD states, "no
material change in the use of land ... shall be...
established... unless a permit therefor shall have been
applied for and granted. Applications for permits shall be
made to the department of development services upon a
form supplied for this purpose, and by submitting a map
of sufficient accuracy and detail to allow an accurate
determination of compliance with this [AHOD] division."
Building Code
Within Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code, COSA adopted
the 2012 editions of the International Building Code,
International Existing Building Code, and International
Residential Code and the 2000 and 2001 supplement to
the International Energy Conservation Code.
Although the International Residential Code includes
language requiring "air -borne sound insulation for walls,
and both air -borne and impact sound insulation for
floor - ceiling assemblies ", the COSA code makes no
specific reference to attenuating sound or noise, despite
the residentially -zoned land uses within the Stinson
Municipal Airport noise contours. As noted in the
Comprehensive Plan section, the Stinson Airport Vicinity
Land Use Plan recommends five actions to address noise
near the airport. The most important of which is
"adoption of a zoning ordinance that provides noise
attenuation standards for properties with DNLs of
65 decibels or greater that requires acoustical treatments
to reduce noise to acceptable levels within the airport
noise contours."
Despite the use of Stinson Municipal Airport for military
aviation activities, a Military Sound Attenuation Overlay
District has not been implemented by COSA. The
regulation states "To be designated as a military sound
attenuation overlay district, the area must be identified
by the United States military, joint land use study or
adopted master plan as being situated within a noise
military influence area."
The COSA jurisdictional property near JBSA -R Airfield is
not within or affected by existing noise contours.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
With a 2012 estimated population of 1.38 million, the
COSA ETJ extends five miles past the municipal
boundary. This is the largest extent available for an
ETJ area, available to municipalities surpassing a
population of 100,000 pursuant to Texas Local
Government Code Chapter 42.
Annexation
The property surrounding Stinson Municipal Airport is
within the COSA city limits and was annexed in the years
between 1940 and 1959.
The City extended their municipal reach into an area near
the southwest corner of JBSA -R in the years between
1960 and 1979. The corporate limits generally extend
along Interstate -10 (I -10) with part spreading north
along Loop 1604. The property along Loop 1604 is
bounded to the north by the City of Converse, to the east
by the City of Schertz, and to the south and west by
COSA ETJ area.
The City has the authority to annex other property
located in the ETJ, but will have little effect on JBSA -R.
The annexation of City South property is still unfolding
and effects, if any, on Stinson Municipal Airport cannot be
fully determined. It is important to note that this area is
within the Airport Hazard Overlay District, which is
described under Zoning.
City of Schertz
The City of Schertz is located within the San Antonio MSA
and portions of the City are also located within the
Accident Potential Zones (APZ). The City is home to
approximately 32,000 people. The City has adopted a
Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Revitalization Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Building
Codes to ensure orderly development within the City of
Schertz and its ETJ. The following is a review of existing
planning tools (policies, plans, and programs) utilized by
the City of Schertz along with a brief analysis identifying
their efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Schertz adopted a Comprehensive Plan in
2002 to develop a community vision, guide future land
uses and transportation, provide for public facilities,
parks and recreation, community enhancement, and to
assess growth capacity. The Schertz Comprehensive
Land Plan designates a 20 -year horizon that applies
within its corporate limits and surrounding one -mile ETJ.
The key element of the Comprehensive Plan is the Land
Use Plan, which provides guidance for future growth in
Schertz. The Land Use Plan considers, in depth,
compatible land uses for the areas adjacent to JBSA -R,
especially those within the AICUZ. The plan proposes
implementing the land use recommendations from the
AICUZ study to ensure future growth is compatible with
JBAS- Randolph operations. The Schertz Comprehensive
Land Plan also prescribes continuing agricultural land use
and limiting residential construction within the APZ I or
APZ II zones as well as amending the UDC to reflect a
more appropriate use of development tools to preserve
large scale open space in the AICUZ study area.
Goals and Objectives associated with compatibility of land
uses with JBSA -R are:
Goal 2, Objective E, Action 2: Amend the UDC
and zoning map as appropriate to promote the use
of cluster development and large scale
preservation of open space in accordance with
conservation subdivision techniques, particularly in
the area encompassed in the AICUZ study.
Goal 6, Objective A: Determine uses that are
appropriate and in accordance with the AICUZ
study, meet the goals and objectives of the
community, and provide a positive impact on the
community.
Goal 6, Objective B: Develop policies,
restrictions, and incentives to ensure that the land
uses deemed appropriate by the community within
the AICUZ study are promoted.
Information regarding the AICUZ study and the Goals
and Objectives included within the Comprehensive Plan is
beneficial for compatibility. The plan limits the AICUZ
area to the southern end of JBSA -R and acknowledges
compatibility with "severe" noise contours.
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLANNING REPORT
Published in January, 2010, the Schertz Downtown
Revitalization Planning Report addresses Downtown
Schertz, located to the northeast of JBSA -R; a small
portion of which is located within APZ I. The conceptual
Master Plan provided within the Downtown Revitalization
Planning Report describes the study area as a gateway
into Schertz from JBSA -R and calls for the modification of
existing zoning in the study area. The report
recommends modifying existing height regulations in the
zoning code but does not provide specific guidance.
Zoning
The zoning ordinance for the City of Schertz, Article 5 of
the Unified Development Code (UDC), was adopted by
Ordinance Number 10 -S -06 on April 13, 2010. Titled
Zoning Districts, it establishes standards and general
purposes for zoning districts within the City of Schertz;
height, density, and other regulations are also included.
Telecommunication antennas, towers, and monopoles are
regulated in Article 8 of the UDC - Special Uses and
General Regulations.
A key strength of Schertz's zoning ordinance is that it
includes Section 21.5.9, titled, Special Districts. The first
of the two districts covered in this section is the Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) District. This
District calls specific attention to the military airfield
associated with JBSA -R (or Randolph Air Force Base as it
was formerly known). The District also references issues
associated with a military airfield - "subject to high
frequency of noise from aircraft and is at high risk to
potential aircraft accidents." The ordinance relies on the
latest AICUZ study to prescribe allowable uses within the
District, but doesn't specifically mention an applicable
area other than to state the "AICUZ." Upon reviewing
the AICUZ study, the area that Schertz may be
referencing is known as the "area of influence." The
AICUZ study defines the area of influence as "the area
within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure area
and the area within the CZs and APIs." A lack of
referring nomenclature or cross reference of proper
nouns / distinct terms could be confusing. The current
zoning map, dated September 2012, includes outlined
areas depicting the clear zone (CZ) and the accident
potential zones (APZ). The zoning map, though, does
not include the DNL 65 dB noise contour. The zoning
ordinance requires more information about AICUZ to
preclude the cross - referencing between the ordinance
and AICUZ study to interpret the regulations.
All other district zoning information contained in Article 5
indicates that, all residential districts have a maximum
building height of 35 feet above grade. Both General
Business (GB and GB -2) Districts and the Manufacturing
(M -1 and M -2) Districts allow for a building height of
120 feet above grade. In some of the areas outside of
the CZ and APZ areas, but adjacent to the eastern
perimeter of ]BSA-R, some of these building heights
could present a concern for aviation operations,
particularly near the northeast and southeast corners of
the airfield and east of runway 14L/32R. A key
advantage for Schertz is that the ordinance, in Table
21.5.7B: Dimensional Requirements Non - Residential
Zoning Districts, notes that uses within the General
Business (GB and GB -2) Districts and Manufacturing (M -1
and M -2) Districts may require a Specific Use Permit and
that the "City of Schertz will follow the guidelines outlined
in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
study for Randolph Air Force Base." Table 21.5.7.A:
Dimensional Requirements Residential Zoning Districts
carries no such caveat, which may be a concern
depending on the property location.
The height restrictions for telecommunication antennas,
towers, and monopoles in Article 8 are likely acceptable
in most areas for compatibility with JBSA -R operations.
Near the eastern perimeter of the installation, but outside
of the CZ and APZ there may be some concern regarding
height due to the imaginary surface overlays, particularly
in the areas zoned General Business (GB and GB -2) and
Manufacturing (M -1 and M -2).
Outdoor Lighting
Outdoor lighting is regulated by Section 21.9.11 of the
UDC titled, "Lighting and Glare Standards ". The inclusion
of a section specifically regulating light and glare is a
positive compatibility consideration with ]BSA -R. The
regulations require the hooding and shielding of lighting,
the direction of lighting in a downward manner "at least a
forty -five degree angle," and for illumination to remain
within a property. Some beneficial restrictions include:
"Any bright light shining onto an adjacent property
or street that would result in a safety hazard is not
permitted."
"Light trespass... above the horizontal plane shall
be considered non - compliant."
These regulations are not applicable within the ETJ or
areas subject to development agreements, do not apply
to sports field lighting and only have limited applicability
for manufactured home and RV park street lighting,
where only a minimum illumination level is specified.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The City of Schertz has not enacted any airport zoning
regulations, but has the authority to implement Airport
Hazard Area Zoning regulations and Airport Compatible
Land Use Zoning regulations pursuant to Texas Local
Government Code Chapter 241, particularly since the city
jurisdiction extends into the controlled compatible land
use area.
Subdivision Regulations
Article 12 of the Schertz Unified Develop Code addresses
Subdivisions and references applicability to all other UDC
provisions; specifically stating that subdivided land "shall
comply in full with the requirements of this UDC ".
Information from the AICUZ study is incorporated in
UDC Section 21.5.9 and applicable to the subdivision of
property. The subdivision regulations could be
strengthened by implementing the goals, objectives,
actions listed in the comprehensive to incentivize desired
development near military installations.
CITY OF SCHERTz HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 2.02 of the Schertz Home Rule Charter,
Intergovernmental Relations, allows the City of Schertz
to enter into intergovernmental agreements or inter -local
agreement with agencies of the federal government,
state governments, other local jurisdictions, and the
surrounding counties. The City of Schertz can enforce its
platting regulations through Development Agreements
with surrounding Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties.
Building Code
To identify standards and guidelines and provide for
administration and enforcement of the City of Schertz's
building codes; the City has adopted the 2006 version of
the International Building Code, the International Fire
Code, the International Residential Code, and the
International Energy Code. These current building codes
provide basic construction standards for structures and
systems. Incorporation of applicable code provisions, i.e.
International Building Code Section 1207 sound
transmission and Section 1301 energy efficiency, into the
UDC could address noise attenuation.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The City of Schertz has a large designated ETJ area. The
two predominate ETJ areas are located along the
northeast and southeast boundaries of the City's
corporate area, but several small areas are pocketed
adjacent to other City areas. Both larger ETJ areas are
interspersed with properties regulated through
development agreements. Based on the current
population of the City, the ETJ could include an area
within two miles of the City's boundaries pursuant to
Chapter 42 of the Texas Local Government Code. Based
on the Schertz Municipal and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Boundaries map (August 2011), the ETJ extends the full
two miles where possible. Even with projected
population growth, it is unlikely that Schertz's ETJ area
will expand due to existing boundaries with corporate
and / or ETJ areas associated with the cities of Cibolo,
Converse, Garden Ridge, New Braunfels, San Antonio,
Santa Clara, Selma, and Universal City.
Annexation
As a home -rule charter municipality, the City of Schertz
is enabled by Texas Local Government Code Chapter 43
to annex area adjacent to the municipality as well as
exchange area with other municipalities. The City charter
specifies the process for annexation in Article 1.
Annexation by ordinance can be undertaken by the
City Council to annex territory adjacent to the City, with
or without consent of the owners or residents and all
annexations shall be limited and controlled by the
applicable annexation laws of the State. In Schertz, all
annexed property is initially zoned Pre - Development
(PRE) and subject to Schertz's Unified Development
Code. On the 184th day following annexation, Schertz
may initiate a change in zoning for the property.
Rezoning may only occur after receipt of appropriate
approvals from the City Council.
The one exception to annexation zoning and many of the
other municipal requirements that are enforceable upon
annexed property is agricultural- assessed property that is
subject to a development agreement.
In the case of the agricultural- assessed property:
• no zoning applies;
• rezoning does not occur;
• requirements of the Unified Development Code do
not apply when stipulated in the approved
development agreement;
• no city taxes apply; and
• the property owner has no rights to voting in
Schertz elections.
City of Selma
The City of Selma is part of the San Antonio MSA and
located north and east of Universal City and west of
Schertz. The City straddles intersecting boundaries of
Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties and has corporate
area in all three counties. The City is home to
approximately 5,500 residents as of the 2010 Census.
The southeast end of Selma is located within JBSA -R
APZ II. The City of Selma has adopted a Comprehensive -
Plan, Building Codes, a Zoning Ordinance, and
Subdivision Regulations to ensure orderly development
within the City. The following is a review of existing
planning tools (policies, plans, and programs) utilized by
the City of Selma along with a brief analysis identifying
their efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Selma maintains the 2005 -2020
Comprehensive Development Plan, which is divided into
two volumes. Volume 1 addresses issues of residential
land uses, zoning, population growth, future land use,
and public property. Volume 2 addresses the street
system, water system, waste water system, and storm
drainage system for the city.
Within Volume 1, Chapter 2, the City's Comprehensive
Development Plan identifies certain property within the
Kensington Ranch Unit 1 Planned Unit Development
(PUD) as located within the APZ II. The description does
not include additional information about the APZ or
include any reference to implementing restrictions in the
PUD (zoning) District.
Chapter 4 includes information regarding existing and
future land use. The JBSA -R AICUZ study is included as
a man -made development constraint, but states that this
feature has not slowed the City's commercial or
residential growth. The land use map included in the
plan is consistent with planning activity as of 2005. This
is a concern since a small area, located east of FM 1518
and south of Weiderstein Drive, is shown as un- platted
and undeveloped. This area currently comprises the
Kensington Ranch development which is accurately
depicted on the future land use map. The APZ
referenced in the zoning regulations is not shown on
either of the land use maps. The plan does not address
compatibility issues with JBSA -R and does not provide
goals for working with the area affected by the AICUZ
study.
Zoning
The City of Selma adopted a zoning regulation as a part
of their Code of Ordinances in 2002 including Article 7,
Division 3: Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
Special Overlay District.
The AICUZ Overlay District includes the following key
items:
• Identifies the AICUZ District as areas within the
accident potential zone and those areas subject to
high levels of noise from aircraft;
• Any development in the AICUZ District requires a
special use permit;
• Selma's Planning and Zoning Commission will only
consider requests for land uses identified in the
JBSA -R AICUZ study;
• Development in the APZ will be low intensity only;
and
• Noise level reduction standards will be
implemented for any areas affected by noise
contours.
The city allows a maximum height of 30 feet in the
Single Family (R -1) Zoning District and 45 feet maximum
in Multi - Family (MF -2 and MF -3) Districts. In Office
Professional (OP), Commercial (C -1 and C -2),
Light Industrial (LI) Districts, there are no height
restrictions. The lack of height restrictions for uses in
these districts in the eastern third of the city is a concern
for compatibility with JBSA -R since this area is located
within the Approach- Departure Clearance Surface.
Outdoor Lighting
The City of Selma addresses outdoor lighting only as it
applies to parking areas. There are no lighting
regulations for other uses or street rights -of way.
Regulations for parking areas specify:
Arranging lighting so as to reflect the light away
from adjacent residential property;
Lights with no cutoff -type luminaries shall be no
higher than 10 feet and shall have a maximum
illumination measured at the lot line at ground
level of 0.20 candlepower;
Lights with cutoff -type luminaries shall be no
higher than 20 feet with a maximum illumination
measured at the lot line at ground level of
0.30 candlepower; and
Lights with cutoff -type luminaries of less than
90 degrees shall be no higher than 20 feet with a
maximum illumination measured at the lot line at
ground level of 0.50 candlepower.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The City of Selma has not enacted any airport zoning
regulations, but has the authority to implement both
Airport Hazard Area Zoning regulations and Airport
Compatible Land Use Zoning regulations pursuant to
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 241, since part of
the City extends into the controlled compatible land use
area.
Subdivision Regulations
The City of Selma adopted subdivision regulations in
1992 in Chapter 78 of their Code of Ordinances. The
majority of the city is located outside of the JBSA -R
safety zones; the limited municipal area that is located in
the APZ II is regulated by the AICUZ Overlay District.
Building Code
The City of Selma adopted the 2006 International
Building Code, 2006 International Residential Code, and
the International Fire Code. These codes provide basic
development standards for structures and systems.
Incorporation of applicable code provisions, i.e.
International Building Code Section 1207 sound
transmission and Section 1301 energy efficiency, into the
AICUZ Overlay District could address noise attenuation.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The City of Selma does not have any ETJ area.
Annexation
As a Type A general -law municipality, the City of Selma is
enabled by Texas Local Government Code Chapter
43.023 to annex land contiguous to the municipality
limited to one mile in width. Property owners subject to
annexation may petition the municipality to order an
election in the affected area and decide whether to
become part of the City of Selma. Annexation is
improbable based on a lack of available ETJ area and the
proximity of adjoining municipalities' corporate limits.
Other
REAL ESTATE DISCLOSURE
The City of Selma's zoning regulation, specifically the
AICUZ Special Overlay District, requires all developments
in the AICUZ District, "which will be inhabited will be fully
aware of the noise level of the area." Unique to the City
of Selma, the City requires:
The city's building official to prepare a statement
indicating "the noise zone in which the structure
will be located;"
The city's building official to prepare the noise
statement for both "structures on individual lots"
and "developments in the area;"
The builder to sign the building official's statement
noting awareness "of the noise zone level and the
insulation requirement to meet minimum noise
reduction level;" and
The builder to sign a statement that the builder
"will inform the buyer of the home of the area
noise level and whether the home meets the
minimum noise reduction level."
City of Universal City
The City of Universal City is part of the San Antonio MSA
and located north and west of JBSA -R. A substantial
portion of the City is located within APZ I and APZ II, and
a small portion of the City is located within ]BSA-R's
Clear Zone. The portion of the city within the Clear Zone
has a recorded perpetual easement granted to the federal
government for operations related to the installation.
The City is home to approximately 18,500 people.
Universal City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and Building Codes
to ensure orderly development. The following is a review
of existing planning tools (policies, plans, and programs)
utilized by the City of Universal City along with a brief
analysis identifying their efficiency or deficiency in
addressing land use and military compatibility and where
potential improvements can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The Universal City 2008 -2013 Comprehensive Plan is
maintained on a five -year planning cycle. The plan
focuses on economic development, community
development, resource management, public safety,
cultural resources, and infrastructure and includes a
recommendation to develop a light infiltration ordinance.
Zoning
Universal City adopted a zoning regulation as a part of
their Code of Ordinances in 2007. A critical component
of the City's zoning regulations is Section 4: Special
District regulations, which includes both an Aviation
Overlay District and Randolph Compatible Use Zone
Overlay regulations. The unrecorded official zoning map
only references the Aviation Overlay District and does not
reference or delineate the extent of the area where the
Randolph Compatible Use Zone Overlay regulations
apply. The map does not delineate and allows
development within the CZ, but does delineate both
APZ I and II.
The Aviation Overlay District regulations include the
following provisions:
The district "specifies Clear Zones, in which no
land use activity may take place, APZ I Zones,
which enable limited industrial, commercial,
recreation and open space use, and APZ II Zones,
which permit all uses except Public /Quasi Public;"
The overlay district "is intended to provide for the
redevelopment of the area" and to "preserve the
scale, dimension and proportion of the existing
development;" and
Single - family residential, duplex residential,
townhouse residential, and condominium
residential permitted up to 12 units per acre.
The density of 12 units per acre exceeds the
recommended density in the AICUZ study of 1 -2 dwelling
units per acre.
The Randolph Compatible Use Zone Overlay regulations
reference the CZ, and both APZs, and include limited
information about the types of development allowable in
each. One deficiency is that the regulations incorporate
the AICUZ study by reference only and additional
information must be obtained directly from the AICUZ
study. The zoning regulations could be improved by
including more information about AICUZ to preclude the
cross - referencing between the ordinance and AICUZ
study to interpret the regulations.
The regulations note that "interpretation and
determination of permitted uses shall be made on a
case -by -case basis by the Director of Development
Services" with final determination "subject to review by
the Air Force ". These statements:
• May place too much reliance on the AICUZ study,
but
• Provide the Director of Development Services
sufficient flexibility to make determinations outside
of Air Force review.
Universal City's zoning ordinance restricts the height of
buildings in all districts. Residential uses are generally
restricted to a height limit of 35 feet, except for
multi - family residential (R5) and Old Town Residential
(R -OT), which are permitted up to 45 feet. Commercial
uses generally conform to the same height
provisions - structures up to 45 feet are permitted in
Commercial districts (C4 and C5). The ordinance
includes restrictions for commercial communication and
other towers and antenna, and specifically lists
restrictions concerning the towers as an "aircraft hazard."
As potential aircraft hazards, the ordinance stipulates
that commercial communication towers:
• Shall not encroach into or through any established
public or private airport approach as established
by the Federal Aviation Administration," and
• "Authorization by Randolph Air Force Base, Texas,
for the proposed location of any commercial tower
shall be submitted with application for a
conditional use permit."
Antennae primarily used for "amateur and citizens' band
radio" are permitted up to 65 feet and excluded from
restrictions applying to other towers. This potentially
presents a concern with respect to JBSA -R flight
operations and a deficiency in the regulations.
Outdoor Lighting annex territory adjacent to the City, with or without
The City's zoning regulations include performance consent of the owners or residents and all annexations
standards for outdoor lighting and glare: shall be limited and controlled by the applicable
annexation laws of the State.
use or operation shall be located or conducted so
as to not produce intense glare or direct
illumination across the bounding property line from
a visible source of illumination; and
nor shall any such light be of such intensity as to
create a nuisance or detract from the use and
enjoyment of adjacent property.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
Universal City has not enacted any airport zoning
regulations, but has the authority to implement Airport
Hazard Area Zoning regulations and Airport Compatible
Land Use Zoning regulations pursuant to Texas Local
Government Code Chapter 241, since part of the City
extends into the controlled compatible land use area.
Subdivision Regulations
Universal City enforces their subdivision regulations
through Chapter 4 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The
subdivision ordinance was last updated in 2003.
The ordinance could be improved by including
information about the JBSA -R Airfield and incentives to
proactively locate desired development types - those that
are not noise - sensitive, near the airfield due to the noise
levels associated with the aviation operations.
Building Code
The City of Universal City adopted the 2012 version of
the International Building Code, International Residential
Code, International Existing Buildings Code, International
Fire Code, and the International Energy Conservation
Code. These building codes provide basic development
standards for structures and systems. Incorporation of
applicable code provisions, i.e. International Building
Code Section 1207 sound transmission and Section 1301
energy efficiency, into the zoning regulations could
address noise attenuation and would be appropriate since
the regulations include performance standards.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The City of Universal City has limited ETJ area located
along the eastern boundary of the city's corporate limits.
Additional ETJ areas are not available to Universal City
given the borders with the Cities of Selma, to the north,
and Schertz to the east corporate, ETJ areas of the
adjoining Cities of Converse and Live Oak, and the
location of JBSA -R.
Annexation
As a home -rule charter municipality, the City of Universal
City is enabled by Texas LGC Chapter 43 to annex area
adjacent to the municipality as well as exchange area
with other municipalities. The City charter specifies the
process for annexation in Article 1. Annexation by
ordinance can be undertaken by the City Council to
Guadalupe County
Guadalupe County has a total estimated population of
almost 144,000 for 2013. Regulatory tools for planning
and zoning are generally limited for counties in the State
of Texas; although, Guadalupe County does have some
limited authorities. The following is a review of existing
planning tools (policies, plans, and programs) utilized by
Guadalupe County along with a brief analysis identifying
their efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
Guadalupe County does not traditional land use authority
and therefore, does not have a comprehensive plan.
Zoning
Guadalupe County cannot exercise zoning authority per
state law.
Outdoor Lighting
Guadalupe County does not meet the applicability criteria
set forth in Subchapter B of Chapter 240, Texas Local
Government Code, to regulate outdoor lighting in
unincorporated areas within five miles of a military
installation. Applicability requires an adjacency "within
five miles of a United States Army installation, base, or
camp" (emphasis added) and JBSA- Seguin (JBSA -S)
Auxiliary Airfield and JBSA -R, while within five miles of
Guadalupe County's boundaries, are both under the
direction of the U.S. Air Force.
Airport Zoning / Compatibility
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 241, Municipal
and County Zoning Authority Around Airports, authorizes
counties and municipalities to implement zoning
regulations in unincorporated and EJT areas surrounding
airports provided the jurisdictional population is greater
than 45,000.
Guadalupe County has not implemented zoning authority
around JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield, but could implement
both Airport Hazard Area Zoning regulations and Airport
Compatible Land Use Zoning regulations since the area
surrounding JBSA -S is unincorporated area and within
the controlled compatible land use area.
Subdivision Regulations
Guadalupe County regulates the subdivision of land into
two or more parcels through their Subdivision Rule Book,
revised by the Commissioners Court in 2011 and
pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Chapter 232.
Minimum standards are stipulated for the provision of
potable water and wastewater disposal and setback
lines / building setbacks along public roads and major
thoroughfares. The Subdivision Rule Book also regulates
development in floodplains, drainage areas and
residential and non - residential airparks. Regulations for
airpark development include requirements relating to
building locations / obstructions near runways and clear
zones. The language is applicable to smaller private use
airfields and not be fully applicable to the areas
surrounding JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield since the areas are
within the City of Seguin's ETJ.
Building Codes
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 233, County
Regulation of Housing and Other Structures, provides
counties the authority to regulate residential building
codes in unincorporated areas within the county. The
authority is restricted to new residential construction or
additions comprising more than 50 percent of the original
structure, occurring after September 1, 2009, and does
not apply to modular home construction.
Guadalupe Commissioner's Court has adopted the
International Fire Code, 2006 edition but do not specify
whether they have adopted the International Building
Code, version 2008 or the International Building Code,
version 2009 (as adopted by the County seat of Seguin)
per Texas Local Government Code Chapter 233.
With regard to Guadalupe County, this authority may be
useful for new construction occurring in unincorporated
areas under approach and closed pattern flight tracks
associated with JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield. The
unincorporated areas that exist under these flight tracks
would include areas east and southeast of the City of
Seguin's ETJ area.
Other
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
The Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 361, Solid
Waste Disposal Act, provides counties the authority to
designate unincorporated land areas for solid waste
disposal facilities. Conversely, the chapter effectively
provides counties the authority to restrict the locations of
solid waste disposal authority. This is important with
respect to airport zoning because landfills and other solid
waste facilities attracts birds and other wildlife resulting
in hazards to flight activities.
By the authority provided in Chapter 16 of the Water
Code, Provisions Generally Applicable to Water
Development, counties can regulate and restrict
development within flood prone areas. This authority
may not be useful with respect to the JBSA -S Auxiliary
Airfield since the flood plain area associated with
Geronimo Creek, located west of JBSA -S may not include
the airfield.
REAL ESTATE DISCLOSURE
Guadalupe County does not participate in actions
pertaining to real estate disclosures, but the preliminary
checklist that must accompany each preliminary plat
request, per the County's Subdivision Rule Book, requires
information about the location of the proposed
subdivision in relation to "the clear zone or noise
abatement [area] of an airfield ".
City of Cibolo
The City of Cibolo is part of the Greater San Antonio area
with a population of approximately 17,000. The City has
adopted a UDC, Master Development Plan, and Building
Codes to ensure orderly development within the City and
its ETJ. The following is a review of existing planning
tools (policies, plans, and programs) utilized by the City
of Cibolo along with a brief analysis identifying their
efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The 2005 City of Cibolo Master Plan update, completed in
January 2005, guides the future development of the City
and addresses economic development, future land use,
and community facilities. The Master Plan makes
reference to ]BSA-R, then known as Randolph Air Force
Base, several times, noting that the installation "provides
a significant number of job opportunities within very
close proximity to Cibolo" and has been a major
economic influence on Cibolo.
Zoning
The City of Cibolo adopted a UDC in February, 2013,
which consolidates its zoning regulations, subdivision
standards and regulations, flood control, transportation
standards, and a variety of other regulatory tools. The
UDC does not address compatibility factors with JBSA -R,
although the location of the city and its ETJ (both
separated from JBSA -R by the City of Schertz) is such
that vertical obstructions might be the only concern
relative to zoning. Cibolo's UDC does not currently
include restrictions on wireless transmission facility
(towers / monopoles) heights, but has reserved an
article, Article 11, for inclusion at a future date.
Outdoor Lighting
Article 7 of the Cibolo UDC addresses light and glare
performance standards. Specifically mentioned in
Section 7.2.3, all sources of light are required to be
controlled and fully shielded.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The City of Cibolo has not enacted any airport zoning
regulations, but has the ability to implement Airport
Hazard Area Zoning regulations pursuant to Texas Local
Government Code Chapter 241. The City does not have
authority to implement Airport Compatible Land Use
Zoning regulations, since jurisdictional boundaries do not
extend into the controlled compatible land use area.
Subdivision Regulations
The City of Cibolo (UDC) adopted subdivision regulations
as a part of their UDC in 2013. The city is located
outside of the JBSA -R Airfield safety zones; the
subdivision of land and density of development have
limited bearing on compatibility with JBSA -R aviation
operations. The City has not entered into an
intergovernmental agreement with Guadalupe County
regarding the regulation of subdivisions in its ETJ.
Building Code
The City of Cibolo adopted the 2012 International
Building Code, 2012 International Energy Code, 2012
International Existing Building Code, 2012 International
Fire Code, and 2012 International Residential Code.
These building codes provide basic development
standards for structures and systems. Since the City is
located outside JBSA -R noise contours, existing building
codes have limited bearing on noise compatibility with
JBSA -R aviation operations.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The City of Cibolo has a large and fragmented ETJ area.
The ETJ areas are interspersed with properties that have
been annexed into the city. Based on the current
population, the ETJ can include an area within one mile of
the city's boundaries as provided for in Chapter 42 of the
Texas Local Government Code.
With future population growth eclipsing 25,000, Cibolo's
ETJ area could expand to two miles as provided for in
Chapter 42. While some additional areas could be added
to the ETJ, the areas available for ETJ are limited due to
the existing boundaries with corporate and / or ETJ areas
associated with the cities of Marion, San Antonio,
Santa Clara, and Schertz.
Additionally, Cibolo's ETJ is regulated only by the
Subdivision Regulations per the City's UDC. Properties
within the ETJ are not subject to zoning regulations and
the City has only limited jurisdiction to enforce land use
restrictions established in its UDC.
Annexation
As a home -rule charter municipality, the City of Cibolo is
enabled by Texas LGC Chapter 43 to annex area adjacent
to the municipality as well as exchange area with other
municipalities. The City charter specifies the process for
annexation in Article 1. Annexation by ordinance can be
undertaken by the City Council to annex territory
adjacent to the City, with or without consent of the
owners or residents and all annexations shall be limited
and controlled by the applicable annexation laws of the
State.
City of Seguin
The City of Seguin is located within the San Antonio MSA
and is the county seat for Guadalupe County. The City's
population is slightly higher than 25,000. The City has
adopted a Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivision Regulations, Building Codes, and an
inter -local cooperation agreement with Guadalupe County
to ensure orderly development within the City of Seguin
and its ETJ. The following is a review of existing planning
tools (policies, plans, and programs) utilized by the City
of Seguin along with a brief analysis identifying their
efficiency or deficiency in addressing land use and
military compatibility and where potential improvements
can be made.
Comprehensive Plan
The City maintains the 2008 Seguin Comprehensive
Master Plan to guide the future development of the City,
assess economic issues, city form, and physical and
natural systems. Of particular importance is the Plan's
attention to the JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield. The
Comprehensive Master Plan addresses the "Randolph
District" as the area west of the city and inclusive of the
JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield. The Plan states that "future
eastward expansion of local residential development is
limited by the presence of the base air strip" and that the
existence of the base air strip presents a land use
challenge for the District.
The Comprehensive Master Plan also states that "future
plans for the Randolph Air Force Auxiliary [JBSA -S
Auxiliary Airfield] should consider the potential that the
Randolph airstrip could be decommissioned and this
facility become available to the economic development
initiatives of the City of Seguin." The Plan views the
airstrip as a constraint on development, and does not
address issues of compatible land uses.
Zoning
The City of Seguin adopted their Zoning Ordinance
(No. 884) in April 1989. The ordinance has since
undergone several revisions with the last set occurring in
June 2012.
JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield and the area surrounding it is
located within the City's ETJ; the City cannot enforce
zoning ordinances proximate to the airfield. The City
may enforce zoning in incorporated areas subject to
JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield safety areas; however, it is
unclear whether safety zones overlay incorporated areas
and if enhanced zoning in these areas should be adopted
to restrict land uses or limit density.
Section 37 of the zoning code restricts commercial
communications towers from encroaching into or through
any established public or private airport approach as
established by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Outdoor Lighting
The ]BSA-Auxiliary Airfield is located with the city's ETJ
area where zoning regulations are unenforceable.
Airport Zoning/ Compatibility
The City of Seguin does not have the authority to enact
airport zoning regulations within the city's ETJ area, since
the city lacks the requisite population (45,000) to
implement such authority. The City has the authority to
enact Airport Hazard Area Zoning regulations within the
corporate area pursuant to Texas Local Government Code
Chapter 241, but has not done so.
Subdivision Regulations
According to the interlocal agreement entered into in May
2008 between the City of Seguin and Guadalupe County:
"The City shall require the preparation of a
subdivision plat for the division of property into
5 -acre tracts or less, and in accordance with
Ch. 212.004, Texas Local Government Code "; and
Any subdivision plat calling for the division of
property into tracts greater than five acres shall by
subject solely to the subdivision regulations of
Guadalupe County, Texas.
Building Code
The City of Seguin's adopted the 2009 version of the
International Building Code, the International Existing
Building Code, the International Fire Code, the
International Residential Code, and the International
Energy Code. The City's building codes are not applicable
within the ETJ area surrounding JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The City of Seguin has a large designated ETJ located
around the entire periphery of the City. Based on the
2010 U.S. Census population data, the City of Seguin
surpassed 25,000 and qualifies for an ETJ area within two
miles of the city's boundaries pursuant to Chapter 42 of
the Texas Local Government Code. To further expand
the ETJ, the City population would have to surpass
50,000. This does not seem likely in the short -term
future given the rate of growth over the preceding years.
Barring growth of the City of San Marco ETJ and a
longer -term future population growth exceeding 50,000,
Seguin could expand its ETJ to a width of 3' /2 miles from
municipal boundaries to the east, southeast, and south.
The City entered into an inter -local cooperation
agreement with Guadalupe County to ensure orderly
development within the City of Seguin and its ETJ.
Annexation
As a home -rule charter municipality, the City of Seguin is
enabled by Texas LGC Chapter 43 to annex area adjacent
to the municipality as well as exchange area with other
municipalities. The City charter specifies the process for
annexation in Article 1. Annexation by ordinance can be
undertaken by the City Council to annex territory
adjacent to the City, with or without consent of the
owners or residents and all annexations shall be limited
and controlled by the applicable annexation laws of the
State.
Other
RESOLUTION NO. 2012R-134
In November, 2012, the City of Seguin's City Council
voted on a resolution to investigate the feasibility of
developing an "enhanced use lease" with JBSA -R for the
development of aerospace and aviation facilities that
would benefit both the Air Force and the City. This
°enhanced use lease" would be a public - private
partnership enabling development of long -term leases for
the property surrounding the JBSA -S Auxiliary Airfield for
the purpose of attracting aviation and aerospace- oriented
businesses.
Other Resources
In the interest of land use compatibility between the
military and the local community, the DOD Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA) and other public interest
groups, such as the National Association of Counties
(NACo), have prepared educational documents and
videos that educate and inform the public about
encroachment issues and methods that can be used to
address existing or future compatibility concerns. Five
resources published to inform the public on land use
compatibility are:
Guides
The Practical Guide to Compatible Civilian
Development Near Military Installations
(July 2007), OEA
This guide offers general information on community
development and civilian encroachment issues. The
guide can be found at: http: / /www.oea.gov /.
Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual
(November 2006)
This manual provides guidance on the JLUS program,
process, and efforts to support compatible development.
This manual can be obtained on the OEA internet site at
the following address: http: / /www.oea.gov /.
Encouraging Compatible Land Use Between Local
Governments and Military Installations: A Best
Practices Guide (April 2007), NACO
This guidebook presents case studies of best practices
between the military and communities through
communication, regulatory approaches, and Joint Land
Use Studies. The guide can be accessed on the NACo
internet site at the following address:
http://www.naco.org/.
Videos
The Base Next Door: Community Planning and
The Joint Land Use Study Program, OEA
This informative video discusses the issue of
encroachment near military installations as urban
development occurs within the vicinity. This video can be
accessed on the official OEA YouTube channel at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UiyWDgLe]M
Managing Growth, Communities Respond, OEA
This video highlights the lessons learned from three
communities (Kitsap Naval Base in Bangor, Washington;
Fort Drum in Jefferson County, New York; and
Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, Missouri) that have
successful programs for managing growth near their
respective military installations. This video can be
accessed on the official OEA YouTube channel at:
http: / /www.youtube.com /watch ?v= rea6d3bDp3c
Introduction
Compatibility, in relation to military readiness, can be defined as the balance or
compromise between community needs and interests and military needs and interests.
The goal of compatibility planning is to promote an environment where both community
and military entities communicate, coordinate, and implement mutually supportive
actions that allow both to achieve their respective objectives.
A number of factors assist in determining whether community and military plans,
programs, and activities are compatible or in conflict with joint land uses such as
community activities and military installations. For this Joint Land Use Study (JLUS),
24 compatibility factors were reviewed to identify, determine, and establish a set of key
study area issues. These compatibility factors, as listed below. The factors in gray were
not relevant for the Joint Base San Antonio - Randolph (JBSA -R) JLUS.
Air Quality
Alternative Energy Development
Anti - Terrorism / Force Protection
Biological Resources
Communication / Coordination
Cultural Resources
Dust, Smoke, Steam
Frequency Rpectrrrrn Capacity
Frequency Spectrum Interference! Impedance
Housing Availability
Infrastructure Extensions
Land / Air Space Competition
Land Use
Legislative Initiatives
Light and Glare
• Marine Environments
• Noise and Vibration
• FPrubiic Trespassing
• Roadway Capacity
Safety Zones
Scarce Naturai Resources
Vertical Obstruction
Water Quality / Quantity
An action undertaken by either the military or community that minimizes, hinders or
presents an obstacle to the action of the other is characterized as an issue. Issues
arising on the part of either or both the military and community are grouped according
to the relevant factor and listed in this section. An overview is provided regarding the
cause or source of the issue.
The methodology for the JBSA -R JLUS consisted of a comprehensive and inclusive
discovery process to identify key stakeholder issues associated with the compatibility
factors. At the initial Executive Committee (EC) and Advisory Committee (AC)
workshops and public meetings, stakeholders were asked to identify the location and
type of issue in conjunction with compatibility factors they thought existed today or
could occur in the future. As a part of the evaluation phase, the EC, AC, and the public
examined and prioritized the extent of existing and potential future compatibility issues
that could impact land within or near the study area. Other factors and associated
issues were analyzed based on available information and similarity with other
community JLUS experiences around the country.
Following the sorting and grouping of issues within each
factor, the comprehensive list of all issues was presented
to the EC, the AC, and the public. This provided another
opportunity for further stakeholder review to determine if
the issue, as captured, was truly relevant and also to
characterize or clarify the issue, where additional
information was needed.
Additionally, a prioritization of all issues was performed
by the committees and the public. This prioritization is
not reflected in this section; instead, the prioritization is
included with the section on recommendations and
strategies. It is important to note that the assigned
priorities are intended to determine the timeframe for
implementing or initiating specific recommendations and
strategies to resolve the issues.
When reviewing the information in this section, it is
important to note the following:
• This section provides a technical background on
the identified factors and issues based on available
information. The intent is to provide an adequate
context for awareness, education, and
development of JLUS recommendations. It is not
designed or intended to be utilized as an
exhaustive technical evaluation of existing or
future conditions within the study area.
• Of the 24 compatibility factors, eight factors were
determined to be inapplicable to this JLUS: Air
Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources;
Frequency Spectrum Capacity; Frequency
Spectrum Impedance / Interference; Marine
Environments; Public Trespassing; and Scarce
Natural Resources.
Similar issues were consolidated into single
compatibility factors. For example, the Noise and
Vibration issues were consolidated into one factor
since the impacts associated with each of these
are typically very similar.
5.1 Alternative n r
Development
Development of energy sources, including alternative
energy sources (such as solar, wind, or geothermal)
could pose compatibility issues related to glare (solar
energy), vertical obstruction (wind generation), or water
quality / quantity.
Local ordinances do not regulate alternative energy
equipment or facility siting which may pose a vertical
obstruction and /or safety issue for flight operations.
Construction and use of alternative energy facilities can
have unintended consequences on military operations.
The moving blades of a wind turbine create a Doppler
effect that can interfere with radio transmissions between
air traffic controllers and aircraft and other types of
communications, such as radar. Wind turbines can reach
heights of up to 500 feet and create a vertical
obstruction. Glare produced by sunlight reflected from
untreated solar photovoltaic panels can cause blinding
conditions and other secondary visual problems like
temporary after -image or retinal burn. Steam plumes
from geothermal energy production can affect visibility.
Many of the communities surrounding JBSA -R do not
regulate the siting and use of alternative energy
equipment as shown in Table 5 -1.1.
Table 5-1.1 Ordinances Regulating Alternative
Energy
City of Converse No
City of Live Oak No
City of Schertz No
City of Selma No
iii H
City of San Antonio Unified Development Code
Section 35 -398 of the UDC regulates Renewable Energy
Systems in the City of San Antonio. The policy regulates
wind energy and solar farms. Both topics include site
development standards that dictate location, height,
signage, noise, and other elements.
Wind Energy policy is more compliant with military
aviation from JBSA -R. Wind Energy includes a section on
compliance with other regulations including coordination
with the FAA. Coordination with the FAA is required for a
tower over 200 feet tall or within three and three - quarter
miles (3 -3/4) miles of a commercial runway regardless of
height. By requiring the FAA to be involved in the
approval of wind energy systems, the likelihood for
incompatibility with aviation is lessened.
JBSA -R is protected by the Airport Hazard Overlay
District (AHOD). This overlay district requires notice to
the FAA for any objects affecting navigable airspace as
follows:
• Any construction or alteration of more than
200 feet in height above the ground level at its
site.
• Any construction or alteration of greater height
than an imaginary surface extending upward and
outward at any one (1) of the following slopes: (b)
for military airports, a slope of 50 to 1 (50:1) for a
horizontal distance of ten thousand (10,000) feet
from the nearest point of the nearest runway.
Solar farm policy is not as compliant. There is no
language that ensures anti -glare technology is used on
solar panels. However, because of the AHOD, use
restrictions are placed on any land use that:
• Result in glare in the eyes of flyers using the
airport;
• Impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport.
City of Schertz Unified Development Code
The City of Schertz has an Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone District that is described in section 21.5.9 of the
UDC. Subsection A.2 states that a request for
development that is not a permitted use by the AICUZ
study requires written notification to ]BSA-R. According
to the AICUZ study, utilities are a recommended use
provided transmission lines are below grade in APZ I.
Utilities are not called out as a permitted use in the UDC,
but new and unlisted uses are allowed by special use
permit. Specific use permit findings do not call for
compatibility with ]BSA-R. This could potentially lead to
the development of incompatible energy facility
development within proximity of the base.
Pace 5,1 -,I
City of Seguin Zoning Ordinance
Section 37.1 of the Seguin Zoning Ordinance regulates
Small Wind Energy Systems (SWES). While heights are
capped at 80 feet, taller structures may be granted by
way of a specific use permit. However, specific use
permit findings for the City do not require compliance
with military operations. There is also no mention of
communication with JBSA -R. By not requiring military
compatibility or communication with the base, oversight
could lead to adverse impacts on mission - critical
activities.
City of Selma Land Development Regulations
The City of Selma Land Development Code Division 3
includes information on the Air Installation Compatible
Use Zone (AICUZ) Special Overlay District. Any land
development within the AICUZ Overlay District is referred
to the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of a
specific use permit. The Commission will recommend
approval or denial of the permit to the City Council based
on Division 2, Article III of the Land Development
Regulations.
Project review by appointed and elected bodies based on
AICUZ compatibility is a proactive process that ensures
any projects, including utility systems, will be assessed
for adverse impacts on military missions.
City of Universal City Zoning Ordinance
Section 4 -5 -43 of the Universal City Zoning Ordinance
includes a Randolph Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
(AICUZ) Overlay District in which all development is
subject to the requirements of the AICUZ study. As with
the City of Schertz, the AICUZ study recommends utilities
within the APZ. Universal City allows major utility
facilities by way of a conditional use permit.
Findings required for a conditional use permit through
Universal City do not specifically require compatibility
with military missions. This could lead to a utility system
being installed in an area that would cause adverse
impacts on JBSA -R.
Iii This Entry Gate lacks an adequate rejection area for
unauthorized vehicles to exit before entering the base
Protection and lacks the necessary denial barrier to intercept an
incoming threat, though barriers have been tested for
Antiterrorism force protection (AT / FP) relates to the effectiveness and installation at the East Gate.
safety of personnel, facilities, and information on an
installation from outside threats. Security breaches and
trespassing are immediate compatibility concerns for
installations. Due to current world conditions and recent
events, military installations are required to implement
more restrictive standards and protocols to address
AT /FP concerns. These measures include increased
security checks at installation gates and physical changes
(such as new gate / entry designs).
The Department of Defense (DOD) AT / FP standards
require all DOD components to adhere to design /planning
criteria and minimum construction standards to mitigate
vulnerabilities and threats to an installation and its
occupants. Important aspects of these criteria and
standards include minimum standoff distances or
required separation between buildings and roadways and
parking lots and buildings and trash enclosures. Security
engineering criteria for entry facilities include: minimum
spacing for areas within an entry facility including the
approach area where vehicles queue, vehicle and ID
check area and response area should a threat bypass an
ID check; and minimum sight distances, lighting, and
barriers to prevent unauthorized access.
JBSA-Randolph
AT / FP requirements, which may affect security
and local community traffic congestion due to
the traffic throughput constraints at the gate.
The East Gate at JBSA -R is classified as a secondary
entry control facility for non - commercial vehicles entering
the installation from Farm -to- Market 78 (Gordon A. Blake
Highway). Historically this entry gate has provided
limited access - inbound during morning rush hour and
outbound during afternoon rush hour only. The
functionality of this gate is dependent on three factors:
design and operational constraints inside the base and
intersection design immediately outside the base.
The East Gate is not fully compliant with DOD AT / FP
and security engineering requirements since the required
distances for each entry area and associated components
are inadequate or missing. The area primarily impacting
the outside community is the approach zone where
inbound traffic queues prior to ID check and minimum
sight distances. This area is insufficiently separated from
the intersection and coupled with the limited number of
inbound lanes and inspection lanes can cause traffic
stacking outside the installation on Farm -to- Market 78.
New security protocols also affect the volume of traffic
throughput since vehicle and ID inspections can be more
thorough and the East Gate has a limited number of
inspection lanes contributing to traffic stacking on
Farm -to- Market 78.
Traffic impacts outside the base are typically associated
with inbound traffic which must queue prior to an ID and
vehicle inspection. Outbound traffic typically does not
create localized traffic congestion because vehicles must
yield to existing traffic and enter the flow once only safe
and practical to do so. The intersection configuration at
Farm -to- Market 78 provides only limited turn lanes for
traffic stacking - there is no dedicated turn lane for
traffic entering from the west and only limited stacking
area in the turn lane for traffic entering from the east.
These conditions make the base both more vulnerable at
the East Gate and contribute to local traffic congestion
outside the base. Though these issues can be mitigated
through redesign both inside and outside the fence line,
they require collaboration and coordination, which can be
land intensive (inside the fence line), and costly to
implement.
Existing
Unified Facilities Criteria 4- 022 -01,
Security Engineering: Entry Control
Facilities / Access Control Points
DOD instruction Unified Facilities Criteria 4- 022 -01,
Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities / Access
Control Points, specifies requirements for entry gate
design compliant with AT / FP standards and security
measures. This instruction includes considerations for
modifying existing entry facilities for compliance:
4 -2.2 ECF spatial requirements vary depending
on the type, the traffic demand, and the security
measures necessary. The installation should
have a corridor (tract of land for the ECF) at
least 140 feet (43 m) wide for collector streets
(2,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day) and 180 feet
(55 m) wide for arterial streets (8,000 -
25,000 vehicles per day). These corridors should
have a dedicated right -of -way protected from
encroachment by buildings, trees, and other
objects. This will provide a safe, clear roadway
and accommodate future expansion. Space must
also be available for the other ECF elements.
The amount of space required depends on the
layout selected in accordance with this UFC and
should include space for parking, buffer and
Page 5,2-1
transitional space between ECF elements, and
surrounding land use.
4 -2.3 Future Development Plans
Carefully evaluate future development plans for
the installation and the surrounding community
when selecting a site for a new ECF or modifying
existing facilities. All ECF development plans
should accommodate future modifications
necessitated by increased demand or revised
security measures.
5 -1.1.2 Size of the Approach Zone
The length of the Approach Zone is based on
available land, distance required for queuing and
performing traffic sorting, and the space
required to create additional lanes of traffic
without queuing excessively onto adjacent public
highways (Securing U.S. Army Site Access
Points). The design should also support
measures that may be needed during higher
FPCON levels, the use of RAMS at lower FPCON
levels, and the temporary placement of traffic
barriers as specified in the Installation AT Plan
to constrain and slow traffic. Space may also be
required to support traffic calming techniques to
mitigate high -speed threats.
6 -2.1 Layout Guidelines for the Approach Zone
Design the approach to the installation to
accommodate peak traffic demand without
impeding traffic flow in the surrounding road
network.
6 -7 TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS
The effect of an entry control facility design on
the surrounding roadways and intersections is of
paramount concern. If congestion occurs, and
there is inadequate stacking distance, the
queues may extend into adjacent intersections
or cause congestion on feeder roads.
Additionally, the stopped vehicles become a
target of opportunity themselves. The design of
a modification or renovation of an existing ECF
should improve the throughput of the ECF, and
as a minimum not reduce the throughput.
6 -7.2 Adequate Lanes
The number of lanes planned for an entry
control point should be sufficient to handle the
expected volume of traffic, especially during
times of peak demand such as morning rush
hour. If necessary and possible, increase the
number of lanes to increase the throughput of
the entry control point.
Source: DOD UFC 4- 022 -01, Security Engineering: Entry
Control Facilities /Access Control Points; DOD UFC
4- 010 -01 DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for
Buildings.
Communication
Coordination
Communication /coordination relates to the level of
interaction on compatibility issues among military
installations, jurisdictions, land and resource
management agencies, and conservation authorities. It
is a foundational compatibility factor that must be
recognized to ensure successful balance and / or
compromise between community and military needs and
interests.
questions, specific ..
efforts.
There is an unclear process for communication between
community and military leaders. While the cities and the
base have assigned liaisons, points of contact (POC), and
public affairs officers to lead various communication
efforts, the communication process is affected by various
factors such as changes in personnel either through
military reorganization or staff turnover, where different
military or civilian personnel may rotate based on new
missions, promotion, or career changes. These scenarios
can create situations where the previous POC is no longer
charged with a particular operational or functional
element in the communication process at JBSA -R
(JBSA -R). Due to this personnel movement, the
information and knowledge about a particular operation
or function may not transfer wholly to the next individual.
This results in a breakdown in the communication process
for JBSA -R, the communities, and public.
The breakdown in communication results in confusion for
the public regarding whom the appropriate contact is
which affects the overall relationship between JBSA -R
and surrounding communities. If a community
representative is unable to identify an appropriate POC
within JBSA -R for review of a potential development
activity, then that jurisdiction's approval process could be
delayed by the military's review of development impacts
on the military mission. In some cases and due to
statutory mandated review timeframes, the jurisdiction
may approve the development activity without input from
the military. This lack of coordinated and timely
response from the military to surrounding communities
can result in incompatible development with the JBSA -R
military mission.
Existing
JBSA Website
The JBSA website provides extensive information for all
the missions and tenants for three bases and its
sub - installation at Camp Bullis. However, the website
includes limited direction for the public to comment on
activities and other matters concerning the public. The
website also provides all the leadership information for
each mission and major command but no specific contact
information for the major command nor information
about each major command's responsibilities to assist the
public with questions.
While the website provides each base's public affairs
office contact information and address, there is no name
associated with the position or estimated response time
to questions or concerns. The website does provide a
listing of frequently called numbers for each base;
however, these lists are not consistently in the same
location on each webpage - in the middle of the
homepage or the bottom right corner of the Contact Us
webpage.
12th Flying Training Wing Community
Engagement Office
The 12t' Flying Training Wing (FTW) has recently
established a Community Engagement Office that acts as
a central point of contact to manage questions,
complaints, and coordination efforts.
There is a need for JBSA-R to enhance their
notification coordination and
there jurisdictions / public when is an increase
training in military training activities that are outside
their typical schedule.
At certain times, missions, operations, and special events
at JBSA -R may require temporary constraints placed on
surrounding communities. For example, in the event of
the annual airshow, there is a requirement for extended
clear zones in adjacent cities, since the aircraft fly
outside their traditional flight patterns. This type of
event could create temporary inconveniences for the
public and landowners if the requirements are not
communicated to the affected stakeholders on a regular,
consistent basis each year or before each occurrence.
The lack of consistent notification about such events and
other changes in training can result in increased numbers
of complaints and lead to future failed communication
efforts. An overall failure in communication can result in
incompatible planning and coordination of activities that
could impact mission training delays or create increased
inconveniences for the general public and ultimately
jeopardize the overall JBSA -R mission and economic
stability the base provides to the surrounding
communities.
Complementing the efforts of the 12th FTW Community
Engagement Office mentioned in the previous issue
discussion existing tools section, the following additional
tools assist in addressing this issue.
Federal Aviation Administration Advisory
Circular 91 -45C
Pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Advisory Circular (AC) 91 -45C - Waivers: Aviation
Events, minimum horizontal distances must be
established to "isolate spectators from flight areas, active
runways, run -up areas, and other active areas such as
emergency or police helipads, parachute landing areas,
etc." Horizontal distances are established by delineating
showlines for aerobatic and spectator use and also
include passive spectator areas outside showlines.
JBSA -R complies with the AC by establishing showlines
and an aerobatic box surrounding Runway 14R/32 during
the annual airshow to protect the general public. The
aerobatic box is primarily located on JBSA -R property,
but a portion extends into the cities of Converse and
Schertz. An evaluation of existing land uses within the
aerobatic box located off - installation is shown on
Figure 5.3 -1. Agriculture land uses are typically
compatible with airshow activities and other aviation
operations. In the event of airshows, single - family
residential and other such buildings including farmhouses
must be vacated during the event. If persons re -enter
the buildings, then efforts to vacate them must occur.
Although the land in Converse is currently used for
agriculture, it is zoned as commercial / retail and single
family residential. The City is concerned about the
temporary restrictions employed during airshows due to
potential impact on future business and overall land
desirability. An evaluation of zoning for the land located
in the aerobatic box off - installation is shown on
Figure 5.3 -2. While there would be temporary
restrictions for future business, residents, and / or base
development that locate in this area, restrictions would
be minimal and temporary.
Sources: Federal Aviation Administration Advisory
Circular 91 -45C - Waivers: Aviation Events, 1990
3BSA -R Facebook Page
The JBSA -R Facebook Page provides various updates
including information about changes in training and
operations that could impact the public and persons
on -base. This source provides valuable information to
those persons who "like" and "follow" the page regularly
for updates.
The JBSA -R Facebook page is located at
https: / /www.facebook.com /JBSARandolph; there are
currently 7,366 likes for this page.
The following notifications about changes in training or
operations were posted on the JBSA -R Facebook page
this year.
Posted on January 10, 2014:
We're going to be testing out the Giant Voice on
Tuesday between 10 a.m. and noon to make
sure you can hear us loud and clear during mass
notifications. Let us know if you can hear us!
Posted on January 8, 2014:
Heads up! The 12th Flying Training Wing will be
conducting after hour engine runs during the
rest of January, from 1Op. m. - 6: a.m., in order
to meet student production requirements. Please
pardon the noise.
Heads up! The 12th Flying Training Wing will be conducting after
hour engine runs during the rest of January, from 10 p.m. -- 6.
a.m., in order to meet student production requirements. Please
pardon the noise:
This is a good example of public notification as it provides
the information, allows for comment, and gives the
persons who like the page the opportunity to share this
information with others. However, there are two
limitations: the notification only reaches the persons who
have a Facebook account and follow this page regularly,
potentially limiting the audience that can learn about this
information and the post does not contain guidance for
retrieving more information about this training change.
No contact information or direction for more information
about this operational change is provided in this post.
JBSA -R Newspapers and Other
Periodicals
In addition, the base publishes notifications of changes in
training missions and activities in the base newspapers to
inform the base population. This is also a good platform
for communicating with the base and the visitors of the
base.
t.
There are several organizations that advocate for the
continued protection and preservation of JBSA -R in the
surrounding communities such as the Northeast
Partnership and the Randolph Metrocom Chamber of
Commerce. These organizations have common goals in
protecting the installation and encouraging similar
compatible business growth in the area.
The jurisdictions surrounding JBSA -R are encouraged to
consult with the base for proposed development projects
and rezonings especially if the location of the proposed
development or rezoning is located within the accident
potential zones (APZs) of the airfield. This action is
important for the purposes of preserving the military
mission and protecting the welfare of the general public.
Military reviews allow the installation to evaluate the
impact and consider potential future impacts the
proposed development or zoning change could have on
the JBSA -R training mission. This evaluation can result in
a determination that the proposed development is an
encroachment and presents a potential incompatibility
with JBSA -R's aviation training mission which can
potentially jeopardize the future military mission at
]BSA-R.
Perpetual Clear Zone Easement
The perpetual clear zone (CZ) easement established a
requirement for the City of Universal City to notify the
military within 60 days of any proposed development
actions within a 188.712 acre area north Runway 14R.
In addition to the 60 -day notification, the City had to
certify that the proposed land uses were consistent with
the current AICUZ Report for Randolph AFB. While this is
a good formalized tool for coordination of a specific area,
this tool's authority is confined to the parcel of land and it
does not define a response timeframe for the military to
review the said development actions.
Universal City Coordination Letter with
JBSA -R
The City of Universal City develops a form letter
addressed to the JBSA Commander informing the
commander of proposed development actions in the
areas near the base. This letter describes the following
items:
• Proposed land uses,
• The size and location of the proposed uses are
provided,
• Detailed information about the number of persons
using the proposed land use,
• Hours of operations, and
• An assessment of the proposed use's compatibility
as recommended by the 2007 Randolph AFB
AICUZ guidelines.
This letter also allows for a 60 -day review of the
proposed development and copies are provided to the
JBSA -R community planner, the ]BSA community
planner, and the project manager for the project or
developer. This coordination letter is a good tool for
improving communication and coordination between the
city and the base but lacks the response window - if a
response is not received by the city within the 60 -day
timeframe, then the project will be considered compatible
based on the information provided in the letter and a
permit will be approved and issued.
City of Schertz Unified Development
Code, Section 21.5.9, Special Districts
The City of Schertz Unified Development Code (UDC),
Section 21.5.9, Special Districts establishes formal
communication and coordination protocol with the base
for proposed development actions that occur within the
city's jurisdiction and proposed for locations within the
APZs. The City's UDC clearly states that formal
notification identifying the specifics of the development
must be provided to JBSA -R. The following regulations
are required in the city of Schertz:
Section 21.5.9.2. A request for development
that is not a permitted use by the AICUZ Study,
as adopted by the City, or a request for zoning
change for property located within the AICUZ
requires written notification to Randolph Air
Force Base (RAFB) of the proposed
development, type occupancy, occupant load,
hours of operation, and any special conditions of
the project that may include noise, dust, smoke
emissions, etc., and any proposed request for a
zone change within the AICUZ, with applicable
reference the Standard Land Use Code Manual
(SLUCM) as adopted in the AICUZ Study. An
acknowledgment from RAFB will be requested on
the proposed development within sixty (60)
days. RAFB may conclude that the proposed
development or zoning change should be
permitted. Unless RAFB affirmatively
recommends to the City that the proposed
development or zoning change in the AICUZ be
permitted, the development or zoning change
will not be approved by the City. Failure on the
part of RAFB to respond within sixty (60) days
will be deemed to be disapproval.
While this regulation establishes certain controls for the
land located in the city's jurisdiction and in the APZs, this
regulation does not require a response by JBSA -R and
states that if no response is received from the base, then
the development request will be denied. This action may
not consider factors within the proposed development
that could be changed or mitigated to ensure
compatibility with the military mission in these areas.
Other communities have established development review
timeframes for development actions. Table 5 -3.1
illustrates the subdivision and rezoning review periods for
property affected by the AICUZ organized by jurisdiction.
San Antonio (subdivision) 10 to 50 days* 30 days N/A N/A
Schertz
N/A
30 days
30 days
N/A
(subdivision)
Schertz (zoning);
N/A
N/A
N/A
60 days
Seguin (subdivision)
N/A
30 days
N/A
N/A
Selma (subdivision)
N/A
20 days
30 days
N/A
Universal City (subdivision)
N/A
30 days
N/A
N/A
*depending on number of lots
+within Military Airport Overlay Zone only
Aincludes 30 day allowance for San Antonio- required U.S. Air Force review
N/A process does not exist for this jurisdiction or there is no specified review period
There is no *. for
reviewing proposed development actions withi
the Universal City Perpetual Clear Zone
Easement Area. This impacts the length of time
takes to process a development application. t]
In 1988, JBSA -R was granted a perpetual easement on
land in Universal City located at the north end of Runway
14R/32L as shown on Figure 5 -3.3. Any proposed
development actions that are slated for this area must be
coordinated with JBSA -R as prescribed by the easement.
However, there are no provisions in the easement that
require a base or military response. This presents an
issue for the City as they are required by law to notify
the development applicant of any concerns or issues with
a proposed development action in a timely manner. This
lack of defined response time from the base not only
presents a potential legal issue for the City, but can also
mean decreased development opportunities for the City
and lost tax revenue. This delay on the part of JBSA -R
can exacerbate an already challenging communication
effort and diminish collaborative, interagency
relationships.
Perpetual Clear Zone Easement
The perpetual clear zone easement states the following
regarding response timeframes.
6. The right to prohibit new construction or
alteration of any structure which is inconsistent
with the then applicable Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) study for
Randolph Air Force Base (AFB), Texas. No new
construction or alteration of any structure may
be started without providing sixty (60) days'
advance notice and Grantee certification to the
Base Commander of Randolph AFB, Texas, that
the construction is consistent with the AICUZ
study.
Page x,3 -7
7. The right to prohibit new activity unless it is
consistent with the current Randolph AFB, TX
AICUZ study recommendations. No new activity
may be started without providing sixty (60)
days' notice and certification to the Base
Commander of Randolph AFB, TX, that the
activity is consistent with the AICUZ
recommendations.
This time requirement is applicable only to the City. The
easement does not obligate JBSA -R to provide a
time- specific reply or any reply to the City for these
reviews.
Source: Perpetual Easement 1989 between Randolph and
United Financial Corporation
Universal City Development Review
Process
Per the City's Development Review Process, the City
stipulates time for staff review of certain development
projects. Specifically, the City allows for five to seven
days for a Residential Plan Review and 10 to 45 days for
a Commercial Plan Review. These timeframes are
inconsistent with the 60 -day required review as
prescribed by the easement.
Additionally, the City's development review process does
not acknowledge the 60 -day notification requirement
within the perpetual clear zone easement area to
encourage transparency and notification to prospective
developers. The City's listing of cooperative agencies in
its development review process does not include )BSA -R.
There is a lack of notification or accurate
notification to potential
purchase property / homes within the Accident
Potential Zones or Clear Zones. Typically,
the property or home is located within an
Accident Potential Zone or Clear Zone Area.
.. • : .
The disclosure to prospective home buyers within CZs
and APZ I is not comprehensive. While construction of
homes in these areas may have been approved by the
base and buyers are required to sign an
acknowledgement recognizing the property's location in
the CZs or the APZ, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) prescribes policies that deny
financial assistance and insurance to homebuyers if the
property is located within these zones. This
miscommunication can create unnecessary safety risks
for the military mission and frustrate homebuyers in the
area.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development 4150.1 REV -1
HUD's policy for insuring homes with a high degree of
risk reflects the agency's desire to restrict loans and
insurance for this type of development in critical flight
locations. The following excerpt illustrates HUD's position
regarding developments within the CZ and APZ I areas.
C. Airport Hazards.
1) HUD will not accept proposed construction
cases and existing dwellings less than one year
old if the property is located within Runway
Clear Zones at Civil Airports or Clear Zones or
Accident Potential Zone I at Military Airfields.
2) Existing dwellings more than one year old
are acceptable provided the prospective
purchaser acknowledges awareness that the
property is located in a Runway Clear
Zone /Clear Zone. This acknowledgment "Notice
to Prospective Buyers of Properties Located in
Runway Clear, Zones and Military Airport Clear
Zones" must be used in every instance where
applicable and should be used without change.
A signed acknowledgment must accompany the
application for firm commitment.
This policy also provides an example of typical language
that should be communicated to homebuyers and
incorporated into a disclosure affidavit that homebuyers
sign indicating they understand the risks associated with
the property or home location.
Veteran Administration Pamphlet 26 -7:
Lenders Handbook
The Veteran Administration (VA) also addresses loan
guaranty and credit underwriting. Section 10 - Property
Eligibility and Appraisal Requests notes that a "Property
is not eligible for appraisal if the improvements are or will
be located in an airport Noise Zone 3" and references
Section 11.12. Section 11.12 defines appraisal
requirements for properties near airports and notes the
following:
The appraisal report must identify any airport
noise zone or safety - related zone in which the
property is located.
• Clear zones are areas of highest accident
risk located immediately beyond the ends
of a runway.
Accident potential zones are beyond the
clear zones but still have significant
potential for accidents. Only military
airports identify them.
• No existing property will be rejected
because of airport influence if that property
is already the security for an outstanding
VA loan.
Depending on the type of construction and the
airport noise or safety- related zone involved, the
following requirements also apply with regard to
the appraisal and /or VA Notice of Value (NOV):
A
Noise
Noise
Noise
Accident
Type
Zone
Zone
Zone
Clear
Potential
Construction
One
Two
Three
Zone
Zone
Proposed
A
A, B,
E
F
A, C, H,
being purchased is located in an area near an
C, D
airport, and that aircraft noise may affect
I
New /Existing
A
A, D
A, D
A, C,
A, C, I
noise zone three contours were changed to
include it. In that situation, the requirements
G
for proposed construction in noise zone two
A
The fee appraiser's market data analysis must
include a consideration of the effect on value, if
any, of the property being located near an
airport.
B
Sound attenuation features must be built into
the dwelling to bring the interior DNL of the
living unit to 45 decibels or less.
C
Available comparable sales must indicate market
acceptance of the subdivision in which the
property is located.
D
The veteran must sign a statement which
indicates his /her awareness that the property
being purchased is located in an area near an
airport, and that aircraft noise may affect
livability, value, and marketability of the
property.
E
Not acceptable as the security for a VA loan
unless the project was accepted by VA before
noise zone three contours were changed to
include it. In that situation, the requirements
for proposed construction in noise zone two
must be met.
F
Not acceptable as the security for a VA loan.
G
The veteran must sign a statement which
indicates his /her awareness that the property
being purchased is located near the end of an
airport runway, and that this may have an effect
upon livability, safety, value, and marketability
of the property.
H
The project in which the properties are located
must be consistent with the recommendations
found in the airport's Air Installation Compatible
Use Zone (AICUZ) report.
I
The veteran must sign a statement which
indicates his /her awareness that the property
being purchased is located in an accident
potential zone and that this may have an effect
upon livability, safety, value, and marketability
of the property. "
Although it is not unlawful to develop property without
following the AICUZ study recommendations, doing so
comes with associated financial risks for communities,
potential buyers, and residential builders.
Sources: HUD 1450.1 REV -1; VA Pamphlet 26 -7
Disclosure and notification to potential homebuyers who
are new to the area is not comprehensive relative to
impacts from the JBSA -R operations. Noise, overflight,
vibrations, and other impacts are likely to affect
properties in the vicinity and this awareness is not
necessarily directly communicated at the point of sale.
There is a perception that communicating the military
impacts to the potential homebuyers could have an
adverse impact on desirability of the property, which
could result in property devaluation. Conversely, this
lack of adequate notification could lead to future
complaints to the base resulting in issues for the base as
the installation is evaluated in the future by the DOD for
possible mission realignments. Realignment of missions
can mean loss of economic activity and revenue for the
surrounding area.
While the issue is primarily focused on prospective
homebuyers, there is a general concern about notification
to current residents. The base performs operations daily
and noise from aircraft is heard throughout the
communities during the day. However, there is minimal
to no noise at night associated with flying operations.
Notifications are made to the public through various
communication methods for any operations that occur
outside the normal training schedule.
Existing
Texas Association of Realtors Form 1506:
Notice to Buyers
The Texas Association of Realtors (TAR) Form 1506:
Notice to Buyers is a form used by Texas realtors to
inform sellers about a property of interest. The
information disclosed to sellers includes topics such as:
Lead -Based Paint,
Mold, and
Noise.
This form provides a disclosure that noise associated with
certain types of adjacent uses to the subject property can
impact the property. The following statement on the
TAR Form 1506 provides a notification disclosure to
buyers of property located near an airport.
Noise. Properties around the property you may
buy are used for a variety of purposes. Some of
the uses cause noise (for example, airports,
railways, highways, restaurants, bars, schools,
arenas and construction). You are encouraged to
drive and review the area around any property
in which you are interested at various times and
days.
While this statement partially addresses disclosure of
noise in the area around ]BSA -R, neither this statement
or TAR 1506 form disclose any other information about
other potential impacts associated with military training
operations.
Regional Right -of -Way Notification
Signage
Jurisdictions within the study area have designed,
developed, and placed signage in the community road
rights -of -way to increase visibility and awareness of
]BSA- Randolph. The signage acknowledges the presence
of JBSA- Randolph, the proud heritage of the installation
within the community, and notice that the communities
may be impacted by overflight and noise.
Sample notification signage designed for
placement in road rights -of -way
Multiple agencies advocate for the preservation
of „ ;
development and have similar overarching goals,
b ut lack integrated coordination reducing the
potential for maximization of resource use and
shared benefits. This fragmented coordination
among similar agencies can reduce
Given the similar missions of various organizations in the
JBSA -R area, there are many opportunities for
coordination and collaboration to address common goals
and realize shared benefits. There is concern that these
organizations are not coordinating effectively and some
of these goals and benefits are not being realized. A lack
of coordination can also result in a duplication of efforts
and ineffective use of resources within the region. This
can create inefficiencies which could result in lost
potential opportunities and affect success in achieving
common goals to the detriment of future development
and growth.
Alamo Area Council of Governments
The Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) is a
regional planning organization that covers 13 Texas
counties, including Bexar and Guadalupe. It provides
technical assistance to member governments with their
planning functions, preparation of applications, and the
administration of area -wide programs. The programs
and functions AACOG provides include regional transit;
air quality and natural resource monitoring and
regulation; resource recovery; workforce services, such
as job seeking services; a center for regional data; and
senior care services.
While there are no directly related programs associated
with the JBSA -R mission, the AACOG's regional transit
program and other programs benefit the personnel who
are employed at JBSA -R.
Military Transformation Task Force
The Military Transformation Task Force (MTTF) was
developed by an initiative of the City of San Antonio,
Bexar County, and Greater San Antonio Chamber of
Commerce to share information and work with the
military to enhance mission readiness through a
Community - Military Partnership; advocate for the military
at a local, state, and national level; and address any
impacts that the military may have on the community.
There are several committees responsible for different
areas of interest, such as infrastructure and
transportation, communication and legislative affairs, and
military enhancement and readiness. ]BSA is a key
military- member of this organization.
Northeast Partnership
The Northeast Partnership for Economic Development
(NEP) is a non - profit corporation that promotes economic
growth and quality of life in member cities, including
Cibolo, Converse, Garden Ridge, Live Oak, Schertz,
Selma, and Universal City. Their mission is to enhance
the region's identity, broaden job opportunities, promote
businesses, and identify sources of investment. They
have an explicit goal of promoting and enhancing the
local civilian / military partnership with JBSA -R through
the Randolph Air Power Community Council whose
members work with JBSA -R leadership to support
community efforts of mutual concern for military and
civilian populations.
Randolph Metrocom Chamber of
Commerce
The Randolph Metrocom Chamber of Commerce is an
organization representing 10 communities surrounding
]BSA-R. This organization promotes business
opportunities and networking in the area. It has a strong
connection to the base and promotes synergistic
opportunities with JBSA -R. The Chamber's goal is to
encourage business growth and prosperity.
Sources: Alamo Area Council of Governments website;
Northeast Partnership for Economic Development
website; City of San Antonio, Military Transformation
Task Force; Randolph Metrocom Chamber of Commerce
website
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is an interactive
platform to collect, review, and assess similar and / or
disparate data concurrently, which is critical to planning.
GIS organizes and employs geographic spatial data, such
as zoning and land use designations, property
information, and utility and infrastructure data, and
allows a user to select and review discrete pieces of
information to evaluate a specific planning project or
proposal for informed decision- making. Without GIS,
planners have to rely on static maps and sketches to
view and interpret the interrelationship of multiple data
sets.
GIS is only as valuable as the data is available. Lack of
available GIS data from the military can make
development decisions including future infrastructure
siting difficult for communities.
The communities expressed challenges with long -range
planning relating to military compatibility due to the lack
of a comprehensive set of GIS layers. Properly siting
satellite, telecommunications, and water towers is critical
due to the imaginary surfaces associated with JBSA -R,
JBSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield (JBSA -S), and Stinson
Municipal Airport and their associated approach and
departure corridors and flight paths. The siting of towers
within navigable airspace can present a threat to mission
readiness, the safety of the public and military personnel,
and the infrastructure investment.
Siting of towers at their highest acceptable point is often
a goal for telecommunications, satellite, and water
towers because obtaining a clear line -of -sight signal to
the communities or a sufficient pressure for gravity -
based systems is necessary for optimum operation.
Though it is imperative for communities to site
infrastructure towers in a location that will best serve
their citizens, placement at a high elevation relative to
JBSA -R, ]BSA-S, or Stinson Municipal Airport can cause
impacts on flight and flight training operations.
Continued coordination of the shared airspac
between 3BSA-Randolph and San Antonio
safety of the pilots and the public located
beneath the airspace.
Due to the volume of air traffic and the location of flight
patterns at San Antonio International Airport (SAT) and
]BSA-R, there is some overlap in airspace and a need for
high levels of coordination to prevent safety issues. It is
understood that SAT does not always issue air traffic
advisories to JBSA -R training aircraft since SAT may
assume that the military aircraft onboard radar systems
are sophisticated enough to render the advisories
unnecessary. The military aircraft need to be informed of
these advisories and, in most cases, JBSA -R relies on
SAT radar. Continued communication needs to be
consistent to maintain a safe flight environment for both
military aircraft and other commercial and general
aviation aircraft in the vicinity.
Air traffic volumes are predicted to increase at both SAT
and JBSA -R in the future. An increase in regional
population over the next 20 to 30 years will likely result
in an increased demand for commercial and private
flights at SAT. There is also potential for an expansion of
flight operations JBSA -R through an increased number of
missions or introduction of missions that require
additional airspace.
The San Antonio Tower (SAT) and JBSA -R have a letter of
agreement (LOA) stipulating the use of the San Antonio
Tower to assist JBSA -R training pilots considering the
regional airspace is used for private, commercial, and
military training air traffic.
The current LOA became effective in July 2009 and
delineates operations and responsibilities of both SAT and
Randolph Tower (RND). This LOA defines applicability
standards:
8. APPLICATION. Procedures contained in this
agreement may be altered when deemed
necessary in the interest of safety or expediting
traffic flow and after coordination between all
appropriate agencies. This agreement is not
applicable when SAT radar /STARS is out of
service. SAT will not provide service to training
missions during radar /STARS outages.
In operations that involve departures, the following rules
apply which also stipulate when and which tower releases
advisories:
c. Departures.
(1) When Randolph ceiling /visibility are
reported at or above 300013 mission departures
shall maintain VMC conditions until radio and
radar contact are established with SAT. If the
above conditions are not met within 10 NM, the
aircraft shall maintain VFR and return to
Randolph.
(2) Interval Departure. When weather
conditions preclude normal formation
departures, pilots shall file individual flight plans
for each element of the flight. RND shall
request "INTERVAL" departure release from SAT.
Traffic permitting, SAT shall provide an interval
as follows: T -6 90 second /3 NM; T -38 1
minute 15 NM; BE40 1 minute 14 NM; SAT
understands that join -up is desired as soon as
possible after departure and shall assume that
the pilot has so requested. Pilots are expected
to fly normal speeds and climb rates on
departure. When the last element of a flight
reports lead in sight, SAT considers the join -up
complete. Join -up shall be accomplished in the
MOA if conditions preclude doing so on
departure.
(3) 20 Second Trail Departure. 20 Second Trail
Departure procedures shall be conducted as
follows:
(a) Departure procedures are strictly at the
discretion of SAT TRACON and will only be
allowed as traffic and workload permits. When
conditions do not allow 20 Second Trail
Departures formations shall utilize "Interval
Departure" procedures.
(b) 20 Second Trail Departure procedures shall
be conducted under Military Assumes
Responsibility for Separation (MARSA). These
departures are authorized only for T -38 aircraft,
are limited to 2 elements of one or two aircraft,
and shall only be requested / approved when
weather conditions prohibit normal formation
departure procedures and spacing.
In the instances of other conditions that affect flight and
aviation operations, the LOA stipulates responsibilities for
both RND and SAT:
k. Weather Recall.
(1) RND shall provide SAT with as much
advance notice as possible of a weather recall.
SAT shall broadcast an advisory on all
appropriate ATC frequencies. Repeat this
broadcast approximately 2 minutes after initial
broadcast.
The LOA prescribes responsibilities for both RND and SAT
governing other operations such as alternative patterns
or pattern status and / or change of airports:
1. Pattern Status /Alternate Airport.
(1) RND shall be responsible for advising SAT of
the pattern status, any pattern restrictions due
to birds, and alternate airport(s).
(2) As soon as practical after receiving any
change in pattern status or alternate airport
information, SAT will broadcast an advisory on
appropriate ATC frequencies. Repeat this
broadcast approximately two minutes after
initial broadcast.
This LOA prescribes the operating procedures and
responsibilities of the towers and the pilots when training
and using the airspace in the JLUS study area. There are
several other LOAs between JBSA -R and other smaller
area airports to ensure training operations are executed
in an effective and safe manner. It is imperative that the
rules as established for communicating operations in the
airspace are followed and executed by all stakeholders to
ensure a safe and navigable airspace for all airspace
users.
Source: Letter of Agreement between San Antonio
International Airport and Randolph AFB, July 2009.
performance enter Military Operating Areas where military
aircraft are conducting high
air collision.
There are FAA and military regulations for special use
airspace (SUA) that surround ]BSA installations. Some of
these SUA include the designation of military operating
areas (MOAs) where military aircraft are allowed to
practice non - traditional flight maneuvers like spins,
aerobatics, stalls, and formation flying at higher than
normal airspeeds. All of these factors make it difficult to
see and avoid both for the military aircraft involved in the
training and for general aviation who may be attempting
to fly through the MOA.
SUA by definition is advisory in nature and does not
preclude general aviation aircraft from flying into it
utilizing Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Under VFR the pilot of
the aircraft is responsible for maintaining visual
separation from all other aircraft in the vicinity including
military aircraft in the MOA. The concern with general
aviation activities occurring in SUA, even by negligence,
is that these incursions can create safety risks for both
pilots —the military training or instructor pilot and the
general aviator. The high speed of the jet trainer along
with the unusual maneuvering makes it nearly impossible
for pilots to see the general aviation aircraft until it is
potentially too late to avoid a collision. Additionally,
these incursions can cause delays in training activities
from slowing or stopping the training mission.
Existing
JBSA Mid -Air Collision Avoidance
Program
]BSA implemented a Mid -Air Collision Avoidance (MACA)
program to inform general aviators of these designated
MOAs and to provide recommended operational
procedures within them. The purpose of the MACA
program is to reduce the potential of a mid -air collision
through a process of education and distribution of
information to pilots. The memorandum outlines
procedures and responsibilities to inform general aviation
pilots of MACA and is a cooperative effort undertaken by
JBSA -R and JBSA- Lackland.
The MACA memorandum lists 11 airports where JBSA -R
has LOAs with to ensure military training operations are
executed for the JBSA -R mission. This memorandum
establishes provisions for the education of general
aviators in the areas:
]BSA will conduct visits to provide presentations,
Supply /update published MACA material, and /or
Discuss any major changes to flight activities.
The memorandum does not specify how often these
airports are visited or how information will be distributed,
although the outlets identified for dissemination are
extensive and include:
Hard copy handouts,
Web -based information,
In- person presentations, and
Participation in monthly meetings held by the
San Antonio General Aviation Pilots Association.
Despite these efforts and notification by Houston Air
Route Traffic Control Center, general aviation aircraft
have been entering MOAs.
Sources: Department of the Air Force Air Education and
Training Command memorandum, Cooperative Mid -Air
Collision Avoidance (MACA) Program, 2013; 121h Flying
Training Wing MACA Program presentation, 2012.
Federal Aviation Administration Advisory
Circular 90 -66A
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory
Circular (AC) 90 -66A is an advisory to pilots and other
aviation stakeholders about the recommended standard
traffic patterns and practices for aeronautical operations
at airports without operating control towers. This tool
establishes the authority for the State of Texas Rule 5 -16
and its model ordinance described in the following tool.
However, this tool also establishes provisions for each
pilot to be familiar with the traffic patterns at both the
departure and arrival airports so as to follow appropriate
and standard protocols. The following excerpt from
AC 90 -66A states that pilots are responsible for
familiarizing themselves with the air operations in the
area for which they are departing and arriving.
c. As part of the preflight familiarization with all
available information concerning a flight, each
pilot should review all appropriate publications
(AFD, AIM, Notices to Airmen (NOTAM), etc.),
for pertinent information on current traffic
patterns at the departure and arrival airports.
Source: Federal Aviation Administration AC 90 -66A,
"Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices
for Aeronautical Operations at Airports without Operating
Control Towers"
Texas Department of Transportation
Model Airport Rules and Regulations for
General Aviation Airports without Control
Towers
The Texas Department of Transportation has model
ordinances / orders available on their website that assist
local governments to establish regulations for general
aviation airports and aircraft operations. The general
rule of thumb for general aviation operations operating
without the use of a control tower is to give other aircraft
the right of way and to see and avoid other aircraft.
Additionally, general aviation aircraft operating in the
area without control towers are also recommended to
follow the standard traffic pattern. The standard traffic
pattern for lighter and smaller aircraft is recommended at
altitudes at 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL). The
standard traffic pattern for heavier, larger aircraft is
1,500 feet AGL. The following is an excerpt from the
Texas Model Ordinance for General Aviation Airports and
Aircraft.
Rule 5 -10. Standard Traffic Pattern and
Altitude, Non Towered Airports -All flight
activity will adhere to FAA Advisory
Circular 90 -66 (latest change) "Recommended
Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices for
Aeronautical Operations at Airports without
Operating Control Towers "; also depicted in the
Aeronautical Information Manual. Recommended
traffic pattern altitudes are 1000 feet Above
Ground Level (AGL) for piston powered airplanes
and 1500 feet AGL for turbine powered
airplanes. Helicopters will operate as to not
obstruct the normal traffic pattern. The use of
standard traffic patterns does not alter the
responsibility of each pilot to see and avoid
other aircraft.
Source: Texas Department of Transportation, Airport
Rules and Standards. Model Airport Rules and
Regulations,
http://www.dot.state.tx.uslbusinesslgovemmentslairport
_rules. htm
exclusion may result in a lack of roadway
Membership of the Metropolitan Planning Organization
Board is representative of the government structure in
the region and includes a 25- member board that
participates in regional planning. The membership on
this board does not include a representative from JBSA -R
in either an official or advisory / technical capacity. The
following is a list of members involved in the
San Antonio -Bexar Metropolitan Planning Organization:
City of San Antonio, District 6 (Chair)
Bexar County, Precinct 3 (Vice Chair)
Advanced Transportation District
Alamo Regional Mobility Authority
Bexar County, Precinct 1
Bexar County, Precinct 4
Bexar County Public Works
City of Boerne
City of New Braunfels
City of San Antonio, District 1
City of San Antonio, District 5
City of San Antonio, District 8
City of San Antonio, Public Works
City of San Antonio, Community Development
City of Seguin
Comal County
Greater Bexar County Council of Cities
Guadalupe County
Northeast Partnership
Texas Department of Transportation
VIA Metropolitan Transit
Ex- Officio Members are:
• Federal Highway Administration
• Texas Department of Transportation
• VIA Metropolitan Transit
• San Antonio Mobility Coalition
• Non - Governmental Representative
This exclusion can result in a lack of coordination on
roadway improvement or capacity issues, especially from
a large regional trip generator such as JBSA -R. JBSA -R is
a major contributor to traffic impacts in the region and,
without representation; changes at JBSA -R could result in
adverse impacts on the regional roadway system.
Existing o
Kneupper Road Concept
The Kneupper Road Concept is one proposed alignment
alternative for exiting traffic from Loop 1604, a major
highway perpendicular to Farm -to- Market - 78 (FM -78)
as part of the intersection improvement for the northeast
segment of Loop 1604, extending from Interstate -35
(I -35) North to Interstate -10 (I -10) East. The project
under current consideration involves the expansion of
Loop 1604 to a four and six lane expressway with
managed toll lanes.
JBSA -R representatives have expressed safety concerns
with the Kneupper Road concept alignment, since it will
transfer automobile queuing from a roadway with a
45 mile per hour (mph) speed limit to a roadway with a
65 mph speed limit immediately outside the JBSA -R
perimeter.
Lack of temporary
MIUNER
.; a safety hazard to flight operations.
Construction cranes can cause temporary vertical
obstructions that can impact navigable airspace in the
JLUS study area. These cranes can reach heights
upwards of 100 feet, and depending on their location can
penetrate the imaginary surfaces of the active military
airfield at JBSA -R. This penetration of navigable airspace
near the airfield can increase the risk of safety for pilots
and the general public as well as for the aircraft and the
heavy equipment.
City of San Antonio Crane and /or
Temporary Construction Equipment
Procedures in and around Airports
Building Permit Form
The City of San Antonio requires a temporary
construction and crane operation permit, which provides
advance notice to the city and requires the permit holder
to coordinate with FAA. However, the contact
information for the FAA is outdated, which can lead to
delays when seeking approval from the FAA and cause
further delays for the construction company.
Source: COSA Crane and Temporary Construction Permit,
http://www.sanantonio.govldsdlpdflAviation.pdf
City of Schertz, Unified Development
Code, Section 21.8.7 - Temporary
Structures
The City of Schertz regulates the use of temporary
structures for storage and construction purposes. The
UDC does not specifically identify temporary construction
cranes as a use within this section. The following is the
excerpt from the city's UDC regarding temporary
construction buildings.
B. Temporary Construction Buildings: Temporary
building and material storage areas to be used
for construction purposes may be permitted for
a specified period of time in accordance with a
permit issued by the Director of Development
Services or his /her designee for cause shown.
Upon completion or abandonment of
construction or expiration of permit, such field
offices and buildings shall be removed at the
direction of the Director of Development
Services or his /her designee.
Source: Schertz Unified Development Code, Section
21.8.7 Temporary Construction Structures, 2010.
City of Universal City Zoning Ordinance,
Section 4 -5 -68. - Temporary Uses
The City of Universal City has controls for temporary uses
if a temporary use permit is obtained from the City
Manager or his / her designee. The permit specifies the
type of use, the duration of use, and any special
conditions that may be associated with the issuing of the
permit. The ordinance does not identify temporary
construction cranes as a use in this section of the code.
The following excerpt from the zoning ordinance identifies
the types of uses associated with construction permitted
by a temporary use permit in the city.
3 (c) Business offices, construction offices or
sales facilities where construction of a
permanent facility is being diligently completed,
provided that the structure is in compliance with
all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Source: Universal City Zoning Ordinance,
Section 4 -5 -68 - Temporary Uses, 2007.
City of Converse Zoning Ordinance
While the City of Converse does not issue temporary use
permits, it does have limited regulations for temporary
construction buildings as permitted uses in three zoning
districts:
R -1 Single Family Dwelling District
R -5 Mobile Home / Manufactured Home District
R -6 Single Family Small Lot Dwelling District
These zoning districts allow for the construction or
placement of temporary construction buildings provided
the structures are removed upon completion of the
construction. The following is from the City's Zoning
Ordinance regarding these temporary buildings.
Temporary buildings to be used for construction
purposes only, which shall be removed upon
completion or abandonment of construction
work, and field offices for the sale of real estate,
which shall be removed upon request of the
building inspector.
Source: Converse Zoning Ordinance, Division 2, 2006.
® t Smoke, and
Steam
Dust results from the suspension of particulate matter in
the air. Dust and smoke can be created by fire from
controlled burns, agricultural burning, and artillery
exercises; ground disturbance from agricultural activities,
military operations, and grading; and industrial activities
or other similar processes. Dust, smoke, and steam are
compatibility issues if sufficient in quantity to impact
military and / or flight operations including reduced
visibility and equipment damage, or if military activities
cause dust, smoke, or steam that interferes with civilian
uses or quality of life.
r,
particulate M the air that can create a visibility
hazard for pilots.
The refining facility owned and operated by Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. is San Antonio's only
petroleum refinery and serves the U.S. Air Force with
their handling of jet fuel and diesel. It is located on the
southeast side of San Antonio less than two miles from
Stinson Municipal Airport. The refinery processes
14,500 barrels per day and 0.72 million tons of oil
annually. Emissions from the plant can include smoke
and particulates like volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxides, and hazardous air pollutants. The Stinson Airport
has Class D airspace extending from the airport surface
upwards to 3,100 feet MSL. Emissions from the refinery
at a certain volume and under dense weather conditions
will linger within this airspace. Dense air pollutants can
cause visibility issues for pilots who may be navigating in
the area resulting in greater risks to the community, the
pilots, and the aircraft.
New Technology Implementation Grants
Program
To maintain the State's attainment status for air
pollution, the State established various programs to
encourage the reduction of air pollution. The
New Technology Implementation Grants (NTIG) Program
provides resources to companies who strive to reduce air
pollutants emissions from facilities and other stationary
sources in Texas.
The last NTIG application period ended in November
2010; however, there is contact information about this
program and information about the Texas Emissions
Reduction Plan Program online at the following website:
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/terp/ntig.htmi.
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality Permitting
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
is the organization responsible for monitoring air
pollutants in the State of Texas. Currently, their policies
require any person or company who plans to construct
new facilities or renovate an existing facility that will emit
air contaminants into the atmosphere to obtain
authorization from the TCEQ prior to commencement of
construction.
Source: Stinson airport map notes, article- Refinery near
Stinson; Stinson Master Plan 2013 Section 4.2.1,
http://abarrelfull. wikidot. com /age - refining- san- antonio-
refinery, article - NuStar invests millions, article NuStar
finalizes sale; Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/.
Please see the next page.
5.5 Local Housing
Availability
Local housing availability addresses the supply and
demand for housing in the region, the competition for
housing that may result from changes in quantity of
military personnel, and the supply of military family
housing provided by the installation.
housing to support the needs of
personnel
All of the communities surrounding JBSA -R are growing
at steady rates. As these growth rates continue, new
housing options will be needed to support increased
populations. Competition between military personnel
searching for housing options off -base and civilian
residents may increase the demand for new housing
options in the region.
In 2010, the City of Schertz had a population of 31,465,
an increase of 68.3 percent from 2000. Schertz has been
continually growing, both in population and economic
activity, creating an increased demand for both
residential and commercial /industrial land uses. The
constraints on future growth include the amount of
available land, restrictive floodplain areas, and
development regulations on properties near ]BSA-R.
In the Schertz Comprehensive Plan, a comparison of the
2002 land use inventory map and future land use map
indicates a large scale conversion of rural and
low- density residential land into industrial and
commercial land. Part of this conversion is in accordance
with recommendations for areas within an AICUZ, where
residential uses are not considered compatible within the
clear zone and APZ I. These constraints and anticipated
changes from low- density and rural residential uses to
industrial and commercial uses may reduce the amount
of land available for residential development relative to
current availability and drive the demand for increased
housing.
The population of the City of Cibolo increased by
406 percent between 2000 and 2010, with a 2010
population of more than 15,000, and is continuing to
grow at a rapid pace. Cibolo has significant future
development plans to accommodate the boom in
population and commercial development. A comparison
of current and the future land use maps for Cibolo
reveals a striking increase in the area of the city with
extended development far beyond Interstate -10 (I -10).
South of I -10, there is currently minimal or no
development in localized areas. Along with this
geographic expansion is an increase in land zoned for
residential uses, primarily single - family. This provides
limited housing options for single people, non - traditional
families, or families who may not be able to afford
traditional single - family homes. A lack of diverse housing
options and limited investment in multi - family and high
density housing will be a challenge for Cibolo, since it
may not provide an adequate supply of housing to meet
market demand.
The cities of Live Oak, Converse, and Universal City on
the north and western side of JBSA -R are also growing at
steady rates, but have experienced a smaller percentage
of growth between 2000 and 2010 than Schertz and
Cibolo. These communities are in close proximity to
JBSA -R and may be sought by military personnel at
JBSA -R as desirable places in which to reside. A potential
future change in mission that increases military personnel
at JBSA -R could create a higher demand for housing by
military families in these communities.
City of Cibolo - Update to the Master
Plan, January 2005
The Cibolo Master Plan was most recently updated in
2005. It includes a Housing Element that provides an
overview of the housing market and availability in the
city at the time. The plan mentions a need for the city to
plan for its future population by providing more housing
options including rental properties. The plan identifies a
lack of diversity in housing options citing a 2000 Census
trend of 83 percent owner - occupied homes and a poor
market for single members of the workforce, students, or
employees at JBSA -R looking for rental housing. This
plan is now outdated and the housing information needs
to be revised to reflect current conditions and the
approach to accommodating growth.
City of Live Oak Comprehensive Plan
2022
The Live Oak Comprehensive Plan 2022 identifies housing
as an important factor to consider as the community
grows in the future. One of the goals in the plan is to
provide for housing diversity in neighborhoods
throughout the city since single - family units account for
nearly 79 percent of the city's housing stock.
City of Schertz Comprehensive Land Plan
The Schertz Comprehensive Land Plan does not include a
separate housing element, but does identify a priority to
ensure adequate acreage in appropriate locations for a
range of housing types. The plan does not address
specific housing needs or current housing stock, and the
plan does not factor housing needs associated with
JBSA -R.
Universal City Comprehensive Plan,
2008 -2013
The current Universal City Comprehensive Plan does not
include a housing element, but does recognize the need
for an increased number of apartment units to support a
military population due to a reduction in housing
available at JBSA -R.
1604 Commercial Corridor Study
The City of Converse commissioned a study of the 1604
corridor within their city limits. The intent was to master
plan the areas along Loop 1604 to encourage economic
development and quality living and working spaces for
residents of the city and newcomers that may settle in
the city.
In the study, there are residential uses planned for the
corridor area; however, the residential uses are proposed
for an area where the uses would be subject to noise,
overflight, and safety hazards associated with the JBSA -R
runways. Additionally, the study did not specify a density
associated with the residential uses. According to AICUZ
recommendations, residential uses are not compatible
with the activities of runways when they are located
within the CZs and APZ I. Residential uses may be
located in APZ II at a maximum density of two dwelling
units per acre.
Sources: City of Schertz comprehensive plan- figure 4.1
(Land Use Inventory map) and Figure 4.2 (Future Land
Use Plan map); Schertz Sector plan final p. 6; City of
Cibolo future land use map, City of Cibolo Zoning map,
2013; City of Cibolo UDC -DCM, 2013; 1604 Commercial
Corridor Study, 2013.
There limited supply of housing rent
properties
support the military personnel
There may be an increased demand for rental housing in
communities surrounding JBSA -R due to military
personnel who reside off -base. In 2011, the median
monthly rent ranged from $858 in Universal City to $991
in Converse, both of which were slightly higher than the
median for Bexar County ($791) and Guadalupe County
($799). The higher median rentals in the cities near
JBSA -R may be one indicator of demand for rental
housing. According to the 2010 Census, the rental
vacancy rates in communities immediately surrounding
]BSA-R, including the cities of Converse and Universal
City, are 7.0 and 7.9 percent respectively, below the
9.7 percent in San Antonio. These low vacancy rates
may be indicative of limited rental housing supply in the
area, which could further limit the availability of
affordable rental properties for JBSA -R personnel.
Military personnel who enter the rental market receive a
basic allowance for housing (BAH), a stipend provided to
military personnel who choose to live off base or who
cannot be accommodated in housing on -base. This
allowance is an equitable housing compensation for rental
housing based on local housing markets and dependent
on the geographic duty station, pay grade, and
dependency status. For JBSA -R, this stipend ranges from
$972 for a recently enlisted soldier up to $1,590 for the
highest ranking officer. When compared with median
rental rates, the BAH provides personnel with adequate
funds to rent housing near the base. This may cause an
issue in the rental housing markets if the military
personnel out - compete civilians for rental housing.
Non - military citizens may face a situation where
affordable and /or high - quality rental housing is not
available or it may increase commutes.
There may be demand for rental housing by non - military
local residents who cannot afford or do not want a
traditional single - family home or who may be residing in
the area on a temporary basis. This demand could create
a deficiency in rental housing units for military personnel.
It may also lead to a general undersupply of rental
housing where there are not enough suitable units to
satisfy both military and non - military demand. In this
instance, both non - military citizens and military
personnel may be forced to rent less desirable housing,
housing which does not meet their family size needs, or
housing further away from the workplace resulting in a
longer commute.
�t
Randolph Housing Websites
There are several websites available that provide housing
relocation information for personnel and families
stationed at JBSA -R. The websites provides helpful links
to rental properties in the area, BAH information, local
area real estate agents, and information on the local
communities. Some examples of websites available are:
• www.housing.af.mil /jbsa - randolph (operated by
the Air Force)
• www.randolphhousing.com (an independently -run
website)
• www.randolphfamilyhousing.com (operated by the
privatized housing company at JBSA -R)
5.6 Infrastructure
Extensions
This factor covers the extension or provision of
infrastructure, e.g., roads, sewer, water, etc.
Infrastructure plays an important, but varied role in land
use compatibility. Infrastructure can enhance the
operations of an installation and community by providing
needed services, such as sanitary sewer treatment
capacity and transportation systems. Infrastructure can
also become an encroachment issue if enhanced or
expanded without consideration for development
impacts. The extension or expansion of community
infrastructure to a military installation or areas proximate
to an installation have the potential to encourage growth,
potentially leading to incompatible uses and conflicts
between military mission and civilian communities.
Through careful planning, the extension of infrastructure
can serve as a mechanism to guide development into
appropriate areas, protect sensitive land uses, and
improve compatibility of land uses and military mission.
*' y
surrounding within the City of Schertz - south and east of
infrastructure improvements in
communities could encourage incompatible
Infrastructure improvements are necessary to
accommodate future growth without discouraging
development. Municipalities surrounding JBSA -R have
proposed infrastructure improvements to facilitate growth
and development. If not properly managed, this growth
may be incompatible with JBSA- Randolph flight
operations. Two cities have defined development plans
with potential compatibility implications.
The City of Schertz favors a development approach that
positions the city as an emerging destination within the
metropolitan region. The city recognizes that
infrastructure provision is key to growth and has
programmed additional sewer capacity improvements
with other planning initiatives to achieve development
goals.
The City of Schertz's sewer system currently comprises a
network of sewer lines located within various subdivisions
that discharge into a collector system owned and
operated by the Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority
(CCMA). The collector system distributes the wastewater
to a regional treatment plant adjacent to Cibolo Creek.
Plans for the construction of a regional treatment plant at
the southern end of Schertz have been proposed by the
City to CCMA, the agency responsible for construction.
Because infrastructure extensions are proposed in the
southern part of Schertz, including Town Creek Sewer,
Woman Hollering Creek Sewer Treatment Plant, and the
South Schertz Trunk Lines and Lift Stations, development
near these sewer lines will be favored.
The City of Schertz estimates that more than 5,000 new
residential units will be required to recoup capital costs of
proposed sewer improvements through impact fees.
Though they do not anticipate this magnitude of
development over the Capital Improvements Program
10 -year planning horizon, additional infrastructure will
likely increase densities and continued growth.
New sanitary construction is proposed at various
locations, construction of local and regional lift stations,
and new pumps on the Autumn Run Lift Station. The city
proposes a new 750 gallon water interconnect,
interconnect pumps east of Farm -to- Market Loop 1604 at
Lower Seguin Road, and new distribution lines to support
future development water demands.
The interconnects and new distribution lines along
Farm -to- Market Loop 1604 and Lower Seguin Road are of
particular concern since they are adjacent to JBSA -R and
will facilitate development of vacant land in this area.
Source: City of Schertz Water and Sanitary Sewer
System Capital Improvements Program and Impact Fee
Analysis Year 2011; City of Converse Water and
Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan 2012
Existing
City of Schertz Water and Sanitary Sewer
System Capital Improvements Program
The City of Schertz updates their Water and Sanitary
Sewer System Capital Improvements Program every five
years. While the primary purpose of the program is to
reassess impact fees, the program is based on a rational
nexus of projected populations and facilities
improvements and / or expansions to meet future
development needs.
The Capital Improvements Plan in the Capital
Improvements Program outlines the nature of water and
sanitary systems improvements specific to the City of
Schertz. The Capital Improvements Program does not
address coordination or impacts on adjacent areas or
jurisdictions.
Source: City of Schertz Water and Sanitary Sewer
System Capital Improvements Program and Impact Fee
Analysis Year 2011
City of Schertz Economic Development
Plan
The City of Schertz Economic Development Plan outlines
the city's position on future development and growth and
underscores the vision of Schertz as an emerging
business destination within the metro region. The plan
includes development recommendations:
Town center development. Establishing a town
center to create a mixed -use district combing civic,
commercial, and entertainment functions.
Farm -to- Market 78 corridor. Redevelopment of
Farm -to- Market 78 as a high priority given its
strategic linkage between the community and
]BSA -R and serving as one of Schertz's primary
gateways. Infrastructure improvements, including
the intersection of Farm -to- Market 78 and Schertz
Parkway, are a key component.
Recreational /entertainment destination.
Expanding recreational and entertainment options
to position the community as a regional
destination including the encouragement of
mixed -use development.
Conference /convention center. Exploring the
feasibility of establishing a conference /convention
center.
Higher education facility. Establishing a college
campus in the community.
Rail station development. Continuing to pursue
development of a rail station in conjunction with
the eventual establishment of a commuter rail
corridor.
The plan goals recommend infrastructure improvements
as part of the overall approach to growth:
Goal 2. Ensure adequate sites and
infrastructure is in place to attract new
businesses. While each of these projects was
chosen for its ability to leverage a distinct
opportunity, they were also intentionally chosen
for their ability to support Schertz's greater
economic development needs, including
diversification, talent attraction, and innovation
development. The City should, however, remain
mindful that it cannot operate within a vacuum
and expect success. Consequently, an internal
awareness campaign should be initiated to
communicate the goals and strategies in this
plan and solicit support from area allies.
Leaders should recognize that policies
supporting a strong business climate cannot be
implemented within isolation. Instead, policies
and program activities should be considered
within the overall context of the variety of
factors that can influence Schertz's long -term
economic development prospects.
Source: Economic Development Plan Update for the
Schertz Economic Development Corporation, 2010
City of Converse Water and Wastewater
Capital Improvements Plan
The City of Converse Water and Wastewater Capital
Improvement Plan outlines the public water and sanitary
sewer systems or infrastructure projects through 2022.
This plan provides a framework to identify required
system improvements to maintain reliable water and
sanitary sewer service to existing customers, provides a
framework for future growth, and is utilized for budgetary
purposes. The Capital Improvements Plan outlines the
nature of water and wastewater systems improvements
specific to the City of Converse and does not address
coordination or impacts on adjacent areas or
jurisdictions.
Source: City of Converse Water and Wastewater Capital
Improvements Plan 2012
JBSA-Randolph currently does not have a
The function of the water supply system is to provide
adequate supply and storage of potable water to meet
duration, flow rate, and pressure requirements of
industrial and domestic consumption and fire protection.
A redundant water supply system is critical to ensure
security of the water supply.
Potable water for the base is supplied by five
groundwater wells screened in the Edwards Aquifer and
recently completed mains supplying municipally available
supply from San Antonio Water Systems and the Schertz
District. The new line provides needed redundancy in
supply. The groundwater wells, continuously monitored
through an energy management control system, are
located on the northwest side of the base and have a
pumping capability of 329,000 gallons per hour.
There are two water storage tanks at JBSA -R: Building
100 with a capacity of 500,000 gallons and Facility 864
with a capacity of 550,000 gallons. Storage tank 51 holds
water for the hangar fire protection system. The potable
water delivery system consists of 74 miles of cast iron
water mains. The system's original equipment is about
55 years old.
To ensure onsite system redundancy, closed looped
systems are preferred to prevent point failures from
compromising the integrity of the remaining delivery
system.
The JBSA -R water system requires major repair,
upgrades, or replacement since the majority of
components associated with the system are original. The
infrastructure system requires extensive improvements
to meet the current and expanded mission objectives.
Source: ]BSA-Randolph General Plan 2011
313SA- Randolph General Plan
The JBSA -R General Plan discusses the state of the
on -site installation water supply system. Projects are
both planned and underway to address the aging system
and build redundancy into the water supply system.
As of 2011, approximately 25 percent of the water
distribution system is new and within the last 9 years,
cast iron has been replaced with polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
pipe which is corrosion resistant. Projects are also being
completed that will close the system loops but continued
upgrades to the infrastructure system are required. New
water towers may be needed for future mission
expansion and firefighting.
Because JBSA -R is currently implementing water
distribution system improvements that address
redundancy and aging infrastructure, this issue has been
addressed and no further study is required.
Source: JBSA - Randolph General Plan 2011
Please see the next page.
Land Air
Space
Competition
The military manages or uses land and airspace to
conduct testing, training, and operational missions.
These resources must be available and of a sufficient
size, cohesiveness, and quality to accommodate effective
training and testing. The demands of extended
operational reach, both in breadth and depth, make the
military installation, training area, and airspace of the
region more important as requirements and capabilities
of weapons and command and control systems continue
to improve.
Military and civilian air operations can compete for limited
airspace, especially when the airfields are in close
proximity. Use of this shared resource can impact future
growth in operations for all users. The land and
airspaces used by the military may be owned by the
DOD, designated for DOD use by a federal or state
agency, provided through easements or other
agreements with public or private entities, or maintained
as a historic usage right. Public and private requests to
share or take over some of these resources may have an
impact on military training, test objectives, and future
missions.
congested and concerns exist that the
competition for airspace o
community airport ,
JBSA-
Randolph operations, and potential _ .
International Airport runway improvements.
With the presence of many military, public, and private
airports in the San Antonio region, there is constant
competition for airspace and frequent issues regarding
overlapping flight paths. Figure 5 -7.1 shows the
proximity of air facilities competing for regional airspace.
With the growth in population, the associated increased
demand for commercial and private air travel and the
possibility of military reorganization, this competition is
likely to intensify. There are a few noted areas where
potential growth in flight activity is possible. JBSA -R
could acquire additional flight missions in the future due
to its available capacity, which could generate more air
traffic around JBSA -R and JBSA- Seguin. Additional
missions could include training with unmanned aerial
systems, which require significant airspace and clear
zones for safety.
San Antonio International Airport (SAT) is experiencing
an increased frequency of flights and the need to
accommodate larger aircraft. This is reflected in the
Vision 2050 San Antonio International Airport Master
Plan, which includes short -, intermediate -, and long -term
plans to widen, extend, and relocate runways to
accommodate increased demand (Runway 3 -21 has been
installed with an Instrument Landing System in 2013)
and installation of advanced navigational aids to improve
air operations capacity and safety. More flights
anticipated in and out of SAT and the potential for
additional or changing missions requiring more airspace
at JBSA -R will result in greater competition for existing
airspace and further overlapping of flight patterns. These
may require re- routing of flight patterns, which may
cause subsequent communication and noise issues and
the potential for increased safety hazards and delays due
to highly- trafficked airspace.
In anticipation of future growth, San Antonio
International Airport, responsible for handling all local air
traffic (San Antonio Approach), has programmed
long -term improvements between years 2021 and 2023
as part of the 2050 Vision Master Plan including radio
navigation (RNAV) for Runway 12 -30 and other next
generation air transportation system navigational aids for
runways.
Sources: SAT runway extension EA 2007; Vision 2050
San Antonio International Airport Master Plan
Existing Tools
Next Generation Air Transportation
System
The Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) is a multi- faceted federal initiative to combine
the capabilities of satellite -based and other emerging
technologies with the need to accommodate increasing
levels of air traffic, especially aircraft operating in
constrained airspace and at congested airports. The
NextGen program seeks to implement safer and more
efficient departure, en route, and arrival procedures to
improve the overall capacity of the nation's
airport /airspace system. Benefits indicated by the
implementation of NextGen technology and procedures
include:
Direct Flight Operations. Pilots will have the ability
and authority to select specific flight paths, rather than
being required to follow existing airways defined by
ground based navigational aids. To do this safely, each
aircraft will communicate precise location, altitude,
direction, airspeed and other data to other aircraft and to
air traffic managers, to avoid conflicts, and enable
sequencing when required.
Collaborative Air Traffic Management. Imbalances
created by uneven demand on existing airport and
airspace capacity can be managed through stronger
collaborative efforts among air traffic managers and
aircraft operators. Increases in the scope, volume and
distribution of available data provided by NextGen will
serve to improve the quality of participation in
decision - making processes.
Pace ,7 -i
Page 5. S -2
Reduced Weather Impacts. NextGen will reduce the
impact of weather on air traffic flows by improving the
decision - making process through better information
sharing. New technologies will be employed to sense
existing and impending inclement weather, improve
weather forecasting, and to integrate weather data into
the data dissemination process.
Improved Airfield Capacity. NextGen will provide the
capability of providing more efficient procedures to
improve airport surface movements and reduce air traffic
spacing and separation requirements. Doing so will allow
better management of the flows into and out of the
constrained airspace of major metropolitan areas to
enable the maximum use of high- demand airports.
The continuing implementation of NextGen programs
include a move away from ground -based surveillance and
navigation equipment and procedures based on this
technology and places a greater reliance on the
capabilities and flexibilities of the new and more dynamic
GPS procedures.
Some of the NextGen programs include:
System Wide Information Management (SWIM) is an
advanced technology program designed to facilitate
greater sharing of Air Traffic Management (ATM) system
information, such as airport operational status, weather
information, flight data, status of special use airspace,
and National Air Space (NAS) restrictions. SWIM will
support current and future NAS programs by providing
flexible and secure information management architecture
for sharing NAS information.
From an airspace standpoint, NextGen will allow pilots
the ability to specify direct routes for their flight rather
than fly established routes along with up -to -date,
accurate information about other pilots in the immediate
area and weather. This data transferred electronically
through the NextGen system will reduce the volume of
communication and information required to be processed
through ATC, increasing the traffic volume that they can
handle. It is also expected that the system will
significantly reduce flight delays due to operational and
system inefficiencies.
NextGen will serve to expand the capacity of the national
air transportation system by encouraging the use of
underutilized airport and terminal facilities. By providing
the same capabilities available to the larger airports, a
broader definition of "reliever airport' can expand the
ability of congested regions to handle increasing activity
without requiring extensive capital improvements. The
implementation of NextGen will help to ensure that there
will continue to be adequate room to accommodate
future traffic and the development of new approach and
departure procedures for each of the region's airports.
2. Area Navigation (RNAV) Implementation
Area Navigation (RNAV) allows pilots to fly directly from
one pre- assigned point (or waypoint) to another, rather
than having to depart using vectors or assignments from
ATC, thus resulting in better traffic flow in the terminal
airspace. RNAV significantly reduces the dispersion of
flight operations by condensing the flight tracks to
specific corridors.
® Automatic Dependent Surveillance — Broadcast
Automatic Dependent Surveillance. Broadcast
(ADS -B) is one of the newest technologies to be utilized
by ATC as part of the FAA's NextGen. ADS -B allows for
pilots and controllers to monitor and control aircraft with
more precision over a larger area. The name is derived
from the fact that the system is always operating, is
dependent on accurate GPS signals, provides surveillance
services, and continuously broadcasts the data to other
pilots and ATC via ground equipment. Unlike receiving
broadcast aircraft position reports, the accuracy does not
degrade with range, atmospheric conditions, or altitude.
This accuracy has the potential for allowing pilots to fly at
reduce separation distances, reducing the risk of mid -air
collisions and weather related incidents, improving
situational awareness, and providing efficient routes in
adverse weather conditions. Aside from the obvious
safety benefit, ADS -B will increase the capacity of the
system to accommodate additional traffic.
Source: Regional Airspace Report, A review of the
current airspace system of North Central Texas, May
2010
Mid -Air Collision Avoidance Program
7BSA -R manages a cooperative program to avoid mid -air
collisions through education and information sharing.
This program, through the use and distribution of a
handbook, informs civilian aircraft operators of:
• Specific aircraft used by the military;
• Airfield locations used by the military;
• Daily airfield operations estimates;
• Flight patterns flown in and around the military
airfield locations;
• [Local air traffic control services;
• Military training and operations, including military
operating areas;
• Actions to avoid midair collisions; and
• Potential areas of conflict in airspace near
municipal airports.
See and Avoid Web Portal
The Air National Guard also maintains the
SeeandAvoid.org web portal offering a centralized,
credible website that provides civilian and military pilots
with reciprocal information and education on airspace,
visual identification, aircraft performance, and mutual
hazards to safe flight; with the ultimate goal of
eliminating midair collisions and reducing the close calls.
Originally created by the Air National Guard Aviation
Safety Division, this portal is funded by the Defense
Safety Oversight Council and includes all military
services. The goal is to eliminate midair collisions and
reduce close calls through continuous flight safety and
proper flight planning. By promoting information
exchange between civilian pilots and the military flight
safety community, the site provides a one -stop shop
allowing users to find and link all existing military Mid -Air
Collision Avoidance (MACA) programs in a single web
site.
This portal targets both general aviation pilots and
military safety officers at all military bases and integrates
and links with related sites such as FAA Special Use
Airspace, AOPA's Air Safety Foundation, and the new FAA
MADE (military airspace deconfliction) program.
Source: http: / /www.seeandavoid.org
New Braunfels Regional Airport and S,
training Municipal Airport civilian flight
operations
]BSA-Randolph
mid-air collision may increase.
.,
Civilian flight training operations occur at several area
airports but primarily at New Braunfels Regional and
Stinson Municipal Airports. Analyses completed by the
DOD concluded that areas along the approach and
departure flight paths have the greatest potential for
aircraft accidents, and civilian flight training within these
zones creates a safety issue for both civilian and military
aircraft pilots / passengers. Correctly approaching a
runway in preparation for landing is an important step to
ensuring a safe landing and requires concentration and
precision. If runway approach corridors are congested
with other aircraft, then the landing execution may be
more cumbersome creating a more vulnerable flight
environment. Since some civilian aircraft are operated
by trainees who may lack necessary experience needed
to navigate through military airspace, the risk of
interfering with landing at JBSA -R may be amplified.
Source: Randolph AICUZ 2008
§°
In addition to the NextGen Air Transportation System
improvements proposed for San Antonio Approach,
Mid -Air Collision Avoidance Program and See and Avoid
web portal, there are formally executed agreements
between JBSA -R which outline flight procedures around
regional airports New Braunfels Regional and Stinson
Municipal Airports, and FAA publications which identify
local conditions through aeronautical charts, airport
remarks, and up -to -date notices for pilots.
Formal Agreements
JBSA -R maintains formalized Letters of Agreement (LOA)
with New Braunfels Regional and Stinson Municipal
Airports which include procedures and responsibilities for
flight operations, maneuvering airspace requirements,
and emergency landing patterns.
FAA Publications
The FAA publishes aeronautical charts and data for each
airport and frequently publishes airport- specific
advisories known as Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs)
accessible to general aviation pilots and the general
public. Aeronautical charts define MOA and restricted
airspace boundaries. Airport data includes location,
airport operations and communications, navigation aids,
runway information, instrument approaches, and
additional remarks.
Source: https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov
There are three public use airports in the area
surrounding JBSA- Seguin. These include Geronimo
Airfield, located 5 miles northwest of JBSA- Seguin;
New Braunfels Municipal Airport, located 11 miles
northwest of JBSA- Seguin; and Beicker Airport, located
7 miles southeast of JBSA- Seguin. In the area
surrounding ]BSA-R, SAT is 16 miles west, Zuehl Airfield
is 8 miles southeast, Cibolo Sea -Willo Airpark is 11 miles
southeast, and Kitty Hawk Flying Field is 7 miles to the
north. The location and proximity of these airports result
in overlapping flight patterns and corridors.
JBSA - Seguin's northern runway approach encroaches into
New Braunfels airspace by 1/10 mile and Zuehl Airfield
lies on the edge of the JBSA -R military operating zone
with its departure path right underneath the JBSA -R
runway approach to the south - aeronautical sectional
maps identify Zuehl Airfield as `objectionable" due to
conflicts with military flight operations.
Source: Seguin ACIUZ 2000; Randolph AICUZ 2008
In addition to the NextGen Air Transportation System
improvements proposed for San Antonio Approach,
Mid -Air Collision Avoidance Program and See and Avoid
web portal, there are formally executed agreements
between JBSA -R which outline flight procedures around
regional airports New Braunfels Regional and Stinson
Municipal Airports, and FAA publications which identify
local conditions through aeronautical charts, airport
remarks, and up -to -date notices for pilots.
Formal Agreements
JBSA -R maintains formalized Letters of Agreement (LOA)
with local civilian airports including New Braunfels and
Stinson Municipal Airports which define procedures and
responsibilities for conduct of flight operations,
maneuvering airspace requirements, and emergency
landing patterns.
FAA Publications
The FAA publishes aeronautical charts and data for each
airport and frequently publishes airport- specific
advisories known as Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs)
accessible to general aviation pilots and the general
public. Aeronautical charts define MOA and restricted
airspace boundaries. Airport data includes location,
airport operations and communications, navigation aids,
runway information, instrument approaches, and
additional remarks. In the case of New Braunfels
Regional Airport, additional remarks note, "HIGH
PERFORMANCE MILITARY ACFT OPERATING AT
RANDOLPH AFB AUX (SEGUIN) AIRFIELD" to alert
general aviation pilots to military flight operations in the
area.
Source: https :llpilotweb.nas.faa.gov
Please see the next page
5.8 Land Use
The basis of land use planning relates to the
government's role in protecting public health, safety, and
welfare. County and local jurisdictions' growth policy /
general plans and zoning ordinances are effective tools
for preventing or resolving land use compatibility issues.
These tools ensure the separation of land uses that differ
significantly in character and apply to properties where
one use may impact another. For instance, industrial
uses are often separated from residential uses to avoid
impacts related to noise, odors, lighting, etc.
Land use planning proximate to military installations is
similarly used to evaluate land use compatibility, as is the
case when local jurisdictions consider compatibility
factors such as noise when locating residential
developments near commercial or industrial areas.
are located within the airfield safety zones or
noise to ; ro no t reference or implement
the AICUZ recommendations.
The cities of Converse, San Antonio, Schertz, Seguin,
Selma, and Universal City contain municipal areas
affected by safety zones and / or noise zones, as shown
by noise contour modeling associated with JBSA -R
Airfield or JBSA- Seguin operations.
A summary of which comprehensive plans / sector plans
and zoning ordinances reference Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) study information is shown
in Table 5 -8.1.
Table 5-8.1 Plant and Ordinances Rkftt*ncJJ
AICUZ
San Antonio No Yes
Seguin No No
Universal City No Yes
Comprehensive plans and / or sector plans that do not
reference the AICUZ study or areas affected by the
AICUZ result in a lack of awareness regarding special
conditions that potentially adversely impact portions of
communities. The lack of AICUZ reference also limits the
ability of communities to proactively consider future
development compatible with nearby military missions.
Existing
City of Schertz Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone District, Section
21.5.9.A.
The City of Schertz established the AICUZ District to
incorporate the recommendations from the most recent
Randolph AFB AICUZ study. The recommendations
include densities and sound attenuation measures for
safety and noise sensitive land uses. The following is
from the City's AICUZ District.
1. Established to provide control on
encroachment around a military airfield,
encroachment that could destroy the
harmonious relationship existing between the
local community and a military airfield. This
could eventually lead to the removal of the
airfield, which would affect the economy of the
area. Restrictions established in accordance with
suggested guidelines and studies published by
the military will control the development,
construction and density of the area. The area is
subject to high frequency of noise from aircraft
and is at high risk to potential aircraft accidents.
All uses and regulations contained within the
AICUZ shall be in accordance with the AICUZ
study and regulations published by Randolph Air
Force Base.
2. A request for development that is not a
permitted use by the AICUZ Study, as adopted
by the City, or a request for zoning change for
property located within the AICUZ requires
written notification to Randolph Air Force Base
(RAFB) of the proposed development, type
occupancy, occupant load, hours of operation,
and any special conditions of the project that
may include noise, dust, smoke emissions, etc.,
and any proposed request for a zone change
within the AICUZ, with applicable reference the
Standard Land Use Code Manual (SLUCM) as
adopted in the AICUZ Study. An
acknowledgment from RAFB will be requested on
the proposed development within sixty (60)
days. RAFB may conclude that the proposed
development or zoning change should be
permitted. Un less RAFB affirmatively
recommends to the City that the proposed
development or zoning change in the AICUZ be
permitted, the development or zoning change
will not be approved by the City. Failure on the
part of RAFB to respond within sixty (60) days
will be deemed to be disapproval.
A concern with this language is that there is no map
within the UDC that identifies the area covered by the
AICUZ special district and there is no table specifying the
various land uses that are compatible and incompatible
with the safety zones and noise contours of the JBSA -R
(2) Noise zone (NZ). The noise level reduction
airfield.
standards established by the Randolph Air Force
Base AICUZ study are guidelines which will apply
City of Selma, Division 3. Air Installation
to any area this overlay is imposed upon. All
Compatible Use Zone Special Overlay
developments in the area which will be inhabited
District
will be fully aware of the noise level of the area.
The City of Selma has incorporated by reference the
AICUZ guidelines in its municipal code. These
recommendations are implemented by the city to protect
the general welfare of the public and preserve the
military training mission at JBSA -R. The following
excerpts from City's Municipal Code reference the area,
but do not include a map indicating the area the
regulation applies to. Additionally, these excerpts
reference a table of land uses that have been designated
as compatible, compatible with conditions, or
incompatible which is also not in the code.
Sec. 82 -871. - Location. Areas identified by
Randolph Air Force Base Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone's most recent study
published and distributed by Randolph Air Force
Base Flight Operations Branch identify areas
within the accident potential zone and those
areas subject to high levels of noise from
aircraft.
Sec. 82 -873. - Specific use permit required.
(a) Any development of land within the AICUZ
district will be referenced to the planning and
zoning commission for consideration of a specific
use permit in accordance with division 2, article
III of this chapter, special use permits. The
planning and zoning commission will deny the
permit or recommend its approval to the city
council.
(b) In considering land uses within an AICUZ
overlay district, the planning and zoning
commission will consider only written requests
for land uses identified in the Air Force Base Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone most recent
study, published and distributed by Randolph Air
Force Base Operations. Any land use requested
not included in Table IV -1 "Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines" of the AICUZ study will
be placed within one of the compatible land use
categories by the planning and zoning
commission and considered accordingly.
(c) Land use restrictions are as follows:
(1) Accident potential zone (APZ). Authorized
use within the accident potential zone will be
restricted to those uses having a low intensity of
population during the training mission of
Randolph Air Force Base and will be restricted to
those identified in the AICUZ study.
a. A statement will be prepared by the building
official indicating the noise zone in which the
structure will be located.
b. Structures on individual lots. The statement
prepared by the building official indicating the
noise zone in which the structure will be located.
c. Developers /builders of subdivisions. The
above statement prepared by the building
official will be completed and signed, at the time
construction plans are approved. The builder of
residential dwellings will not only sign the
statement that he is aware of the noise zone
level and the insulation requirement to meet
minimum noise reduction level, the statement
will include a statement that he will inform the
buyer of the home of the area noise level and
whether the home meets the minimum noise
reduction level.
Source: City of Selma Municipal Code, Division 3, Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone Special Overlay District,
2002.
http : / /library. municode. com /index. aspx ?clientlD= 13626 &sta
telD = 43 &sta tename =Texas
City of Universal City Zoning Ordinance,
Section 4 -5 -64.5. Randolph Compatible
Use Zone Overlay Regulations
The City of Universal City Zoning Ordinance,
Section 4 -5 -64.5 references the AICUZ
recommendations. However, there is no map referring to
the specific area located within the overlay area. There
are no tables that incorporate the AICUZ recommended
guidelines for compatible use in this overlay. The
individual or developer must refer to another document
to obtain the information needed to perform a general
assessment of compatibility with the identified areas and
proposed land uses.
The following excerpt is from the City's Zoning Ordinance
establishing the regulations by reference to the AICUZ.
(5) Randolph Compatible Use Zone Overlay
Regulations. Properties located within the
Randolph Compatible Use Zone Overlay are
subject to the requirements of the Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone for Randolph
Air Force Base. This requirement specifies Clear
Zones, in which no land use activity may take
place, APZ I Zones, which enable limited
industrial, commercial, recreation and open
space use, and APZ II Zones, which permit all
uses except Public /Quasi Public.
Specific restrictions pertaining to the AICUZ are
found with the Randolph AFB Public Affairs Office
and are incorporated by reference to this
chapter. Interpretation and determination of
permitted uses shall be made on a case -by -case
basis by the Director of Development Services.
Final determination is subject to review by the
Air Force AICUZ Administrator.
Source: City of Universal City Zoning Ordinance,
Section 4 -5 -64.5, Randolph Compatible Use Zone Overlay
Regulations, 2007.
City of San Antonio Unified Development
Code, Section 35 -334, Military Airport
Overlay Zones
The City of San Antonio established Military Airport
Overlay Zones (MOAZ) to regulate land uses that are
located or could be located in these areas. The City has
developed two overlay zones, MOAZ I and II. The areas
are defined below, but generally, the MOAZ I corresponds
to the area defined in the AICUZ as accident potential
zone I (APZ I). The area referred to as the MOAZ II
corresponds to the area identified in the AICUZ as APZ II.
Military Airport Overlay Zone 1 (MAOZ -1): The
area that extends approximately five thousand
(5,000) feet in length and three thousand
(3,000) feet in width beyond the clear zone.
Military Airport Overlay Zone 2 (MAOZ -2). The
area that extends approximately seven thousand
(7,000) feet in length and three thousand
(3,000) feet in width beyond district 1.
The City has incorporated the tables from the AICUZ into
the UDC and identified what uses are permitted and
permitted with conditions in the two zones. The City has
identified the MOAZs on the official zoning map which can
be reviewed at the Development Center Office.
These districts assist in regulating for the factors that can
impact land uses situated near a military airport including
noise, heights of structures, and densities and intensities
of land uses. The following is an example of the
regulations found in this section as it pertains to future
development in the MOAZ II.
Section 35 -334 (d) 3. (3) Unplatted Property.
Unplatted properties zoned for single - family
residential may be platted and used for
single- residences in the "MAOZ -2 ", providing
they conform to all other applicable
requirements of this district. Such lots may not
exceed a density of one (1) single- family
residence per acre.
These overlay districts also regulate other factors that
may impact the military's mission such as smoke, steam,
dust, and bird attractants:
Section 35 -334 (e) Visual and Electrical
Interference. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of these regulations, no use shall be
made of land within the military airport overlay
zones in such a manner to:
(1) Release into the air any substance which
would impair visibility or otherwise interfere with
the operation of aircraft; e.g., steam, dust,
smoke, etc.;
(2) Produce light emissions, either direct or
indirect (reflective) which would interfere with
pilot vision;
(3) Produce electrical emissions which would
interfere with aircraft communications systems
or navigational equipment; or
(4) Attract birds or waterfowl, or in any other
manner constitute an airport hazard.
This is a good example of implementing the AICUZ
guidelines from the various military installations within
the City.
Source: City of San Antonio UDC, Section 35 -334, Military
Airport Overlay Zones, 2008.
The language rt
few of the local jurisdictio
interpretation are not clear and may create an
The cities surrounding JBSA -R have incorporated the
AICUZ guidelines in their UDCs and zoning ordinances to
varying degrees. When the nomenclature differs from
that found in the AICUZ study, it can be difficult to clearly
evaluate a proposed development action. This lack of
clarity can cause delays not only for the communities
during the development review process, but also from
JBSA -R when military personnel are evaluating a
proposed development action.
This can result in frustration on the part of all
stakeholders involved in the development review process
and potentially result in lost economic development
opportunities for communities surrounding ]BSA-R.
Based on the issue discussion under LU -1, no further
assessment of this issue is required.
The floor area ratio (FAR) information is provided to
communities to guide compatible non - residential
development and land uses with military activity. The
FAR is the ratio of total building area (gross floor area) to
the area of the parcel on which it is built. For example, a
building may be permitted a FAR of 0.50 which means
the building may occupy 50 percent of a property.
Requirements such as parking and open space may
constrain the building footprint; however the number of
floors of a building may increase up to the maximum
permitted height. In the case above, a use with 0.50 FAR
may be a one -story building occupying 50 percent of a
property or a five -story building occupying 10 percent of
a property.
Floor area ratio is sometimes referred to as "intensity,"
i.e. the intensity of the use on a property, and can
determine the numbers of employees and patrons
supported by that use, i.e. generally though with
exception, the larger the building the greater number of
people employed.
Floor area ratio is relevant to non - residential
development, e.g. commercial and industrial uses, and is
useful for both communities and military in determining
compatibility with active military aviation operations.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Food & kindred products; manufacturing
7BSA -R Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone Report
The AICUZ report is a tool designed to assist local land
use planning agencies to plan compatibly next to active
military airfields. This report provides information about
the base's airfields and components such as the runway
length and the length and width of the APZs. Table 5 -8.2
lists the recommended compatible land uses associated
with the 7BSA -R airfield.
DOD Instruction 4165.57 - Air
Installation Compatible Use Zones
The DOD Instruction 4165.57 identifies the CZs and APZs
for both fixed and rotary -wing aircraft. In addition, this
DODI discusses the differences in the CZs and APZs
relative to the Navy. In this DODI, the table for
recommended land use in these areas is clearly
incorporated for use by communities when planning land
uses for these high risk areas. Table 5 -8.2 contains the
information from the DODI 4165.57 including the
Standard Land Use Code Manual ([SLUCM] which defines
the land use type and the recommended FAR for certain
land uses in these areas. The blank boxes for density
and intensity simply mean that density and intensity
were not specified in the DOD instruction.
Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather,
and similar materials; manufacturing
Furniture and fixtures; manufacturing
Printing, publishing, and allied industries
Petroleum refining and related industries
Rubber and misc. plastic products, manufacturing
Primary metal industries
Maximum FAR 0.56 in APZ II
Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
Maximum FAR 0.56 in APZ II
Some AICUZ guidelines include FAR in the compatibility
MOMEM
land use guidelines. The Department of Defense (DOD)
has an instruction document that recommends FAR for
Concern about the application of the 2011 AICUZ
specific uses in association with military mission critical
OD Instructions Floor Area Ratio
areas such as airfield safety zones and noise contours.
recommendation. The Floor to Area ratio
recommendation was not part of the AICUZ but it
Existing
is part of the DOD Instructions.
The floor area ratio (FAR) information is provided to
communities to guide compatible non - residential
development and land uses with military activity. The
FAR is the ratio of total building area (gross floor area) to
the area of the parcel on which it is built. For example, a
building may be permitted a FAR of 0.50 which means
the building may occupy 50 percent of a property.
Requirements such as parking and open space may
constrain the building footprint; however the number of
floors of a building may increase up to the maximum
permitted height. In the case above, a use with 0.50 FAR
may be a one -story building occupying 50 percent of a
property or a five -story building occupying 10 percent of
a property.
Floor area ratio is sometimes referred to as "intensity,"
i.e. the intensity of the use on a property, and can
determine the numbers of employees and patrons
supported by that use, i.e. generally though with
exception, the larger the building the greater number of
people employed.
Floor area ratio is relevant to non - residential
development, e.g. commercial and industrial uses, and is
useful for both communities and military in determining
compatibility with active military aviation operations.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Food & kindred products; manufacturing
7BSA -R Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone Report
The AICUZ report is a tool designed to assist local land
use planning agencies to plan compatibly next to active
military airfields. This report provides information about
the base's airfields and components such as the runway
length and the length and width of the APZs. Table 5 -8.2
lists the recommended compatible land uses associated
with the 7BSA -R airfield.
DOD Instruction 4165.57 - Air
Installation Compatible Use Zones
The DOD Instruction 4165.57 identifies the CZs and APZs
for both fixed and rotary -wing aircraft. In addition, this
DODI discusses the differences in the CZs and APZs
relative to the Navy. In this DODI, the table for
recommended land use in these areas is clearly
incorporated for use by communities when planning land
uses for these high risk areas. Table 5 -8.2 contains the
information from the DODI 4165.57 including the
Standard Land Use Code Manual ([SLUCM] which defines
the land use type and the recommended FAR for certain
land uses in these areas. The blank boxes for density
and intensity simply mean that density and intensity
were not specified in the DOD instruction.
Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather,
and similar materials; manufacturing
Furniture and fixtures; manufacturing
Printing, publishing, and allied industries
Petroleum refining and related industries
Rubber and misc. plastic products, manufacturing
Primary metal industries
Maximum FAR 0.56 in APZ II
Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
Maximum FAR 0.56 in APZ II
35 Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments;
photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks
manufacturing
41 Railroad, rapid rail transit and street railroad transportation Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
43 Aircraft transportation Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
45 Highway & street right -of -way Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
46 Automobile parking Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ 11
47 Communications Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
49 Other transportation communications and utilities See Note 2 below
50 Trade
51 Wholesale trade Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I & 0.56 in APZ II
53 Retail trade - general merchandise including shopping centers, Maximum FAR of 0.16 in APZ II
discount clubs, home improvement stores, electronics
superstores, etc.
55 Retail trade - automotive, marine craft, aircraft and accessories Maximum FAR of 0.14 in APZ I & 0.28 in APZ II
57 Retail trade - furniture, home furnishings and equipment Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ II
58 Retail trade- eating and drinking establishments
59 Other retail trade Maximum FAR of 0.16 in APZ II
61 Finance, insurance and real estate services Maximum FAR of 0.22 in APZ II
62 Personal services i Office uses only. Maximum FAR of 0.22 in APZ II.
62.4 Cemeteries
63.7 Warehousing and storage services4 Maximum FAR of 1.0 in APZ I; 2.0 in APZ II
65 Professional services Maximum FAR of 0.22 in APZ II
65.1 Hospitals, nursing homes
65.1 Other medical facilities
67 Governmental services Maximum FAR of 0.24 in APZ II
69 Miscellaneous services Maximum FAR of 0.22 in APZ II
70 Cultural, Entertainment and Recreational
71 Cultural activities (including churches)
72 Public assembly
72.11 Outdoor music shell, amphitheaters
73 Amusements
75 Resorts and group camps
79 Other cultural, entertainment and recreation
81 Agriculture (except livestock)
82 Agricultural related activities
84 Fishing activities and related services
89 Other resources production and extraction
91 Undeveloped land
Maximum FAR of 0.11 in APZ I; 0.22 in APZ II
Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I; 0.56 in APZ II,
no activity which produces smoke, glare, or
involves explosives
Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I; 0.56 in APZ II,
no activity which produces smoke, glare, or
involves explosives
Maximum FAR of 0.28 in APZ I; 0.56 in APZ II,
no activity which produces smoke, glare, or
involves explosives
Notes:
1. Within each, uses exist where further evaluation may be needed in each category as to whether it is clearly compatible, normally
compatible, or not compatible due to the variation of densities of people and structures. In order to assist air installations and local
governments, general suggestions as to FARs are provided as a guide to density in some categories. In general, land use restrictions
that limit occupants, including employees, of commercial, service, or industrial buildings or structures to 25 an acre in APZ I and
50 an acre in APZ II are considered to be low density. Outside events should normally be limited to assemblies of not more than
25 people an acre in APZ I, and maximum assemblies of 50 people an acre in APZ II. Recommended FAR is calculated using
standard parking generation rates for various land uses, vehicle occupancy rates, and desired density in APZ I and II. For APZ I, the
formula is FAR = 25 people an acre /(Average Vehicle Occupancy x Average Parking Rate x [43560/1000]). The formula for APZ II is
FAR = 50 /(Average Vehicle Occupancy x Average Parking Rate x [43560/1000]).
2. No above ground passenger terminals and no above ground power transmission or distribution lines. Prohibited power lines
include high - voltage transmission lines and distribution lines that provide power to cities, towns, or regional power for
unincorporated areas.
3. Within SLUCM Code 52, maximum FARs for lumberyards (SLUCM Code 521) are 0.20 in APZ -I and 0.40 in APZ -11. For hardware,
paint, and farm equipment stores, SLUCM Code 525, the maximum FARs are 0.12 in APZ I and 0.24 in APZ II.
4. Big box home improvement stores are not included as part of this category.
Source: DODI 4165.57 for Air Installation Compatible Use Zones, May 2011.
The cities of Schertz, Selma, and Universal City use and
refer to the AICUZ recommendations when assessing
development actions proposed for areas within the APZs.
However, the cities UDCs and zoning ordinances do not
contain the tables from the AICUZ nor do they contain
information regarding the maximum density or intensity
recommended by the AICUZ report or DODI 4165.57.
Many of the communities have established overlay
districts where the AICUZ recommendations apply, but
the recommendations are only incorporated by reference.
The City of San Antonio is the only jurisdiction that has
incorporated a land use compatibility table as a guiding
framework for assessing land use compatibility.
Sources: Randolph Air Force Base AICUZ, 2008; City of
Schertz Amended and Restated Unified Development Code,
Apr 2010; City of Selma Zoning Ordinance, Sep 2002; City of
Universal City Zoning Ordinance, Jan 2007.
occur in the southeast CZ after land ownership
„ ram&zctions are finalized..
The City of Schertz has been receiving calls and emails
from a property owner that has property located between
the 2,000 foot (ft) and 3,000 ft southeast CZ requesting
a building permit to develop the land. This property is
approximately 17 acres and currently has three owners —
one of which is JBSA- Randolph. JBSA - Randolph
purchased one tract of land in 1977.
Currently, the property is subdivided into three tracts —
one of which has one commercial structure in the front
and one residential structure in the back. The owner of
the tract has since subdivided this property into a typical
flag lot, which contains the residential structure. The
property owner is requesting a building permit to develop
additional commercial uses on the tract containing the
commercial structure. In order to do this and due to the
way the land was purchased in the late 1970s, all
property owners must sign the title before the City of
Schertz can issue a building permit. However the
property owner has had a challenging time trying to
contact the right individual at JBSA- Randolph to discuss
this matter.
The primary concern is of course, the CZ should remain
free and clear of development, so additional commercial
structures in this area would represent an encroachment
risk and safety hazard to the aviators performing flying
training operations and residents, visitors, or patrons of
such structures. Additionally, the land ownership concern
and the property owner not being able to contact the
appropriate individual at JBSA- Randolph that can discuss
this matter can potentially lead to issues with the
property owner not being able to develop his land or at
least, discuss options for his land.
EXISTING TOOLS
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
Report
The AICUZ Report provides land use compatibility
guidance to jurisdictions and property owners who
possess land located within the airfield safety zones. The
AICUZ recommends no development within the CZs due
to this area being at high risk for aircraft accident
potential. Development refers to all activities such as
stacking hay bales, recreational activities, and typical
buildings and structures. All these activities pose an
increased risk to the pilot should an aircraft mishap
occur, and vice versa — development in this area can pose
a safety hazard for the public in this area should a
mishap occur during a flying training operation.
Please see the next page.
5.9 Legislative
Initiatives
Legislative initiatives are federal, state, or local laws and
regulations that may have a direct or indirect effect on a
military installation's capability to conduct its current or
future mission. Legislative initiatives, if passed into law,
can also constrain development potential in areas
surrounding an installation.
-.,, rt
contain notice informing potential buyers that
military rt operations
Property near military installations, especially airfields,
are subject to non - standard conditions such as higher
ambient noise and vibrations, potentially higher risks for
aircraft hazards, or potentially increased sediment in the
air due to kick -up from high speed aircraft. With studies
and documents such as the Air Installation Compatible
Use Study (AICUZ) conducted by the Air Force,
]BSA- Randolph does its best to inform adjacent
communities of these conditions, provide
recommendations, and occasionally opines on
development for the safety of residents and military
personnel.
While the AICUZ study recommendations are developed
for the safety and comfort of residents, businesses
owners, and pilots, their implementation is at the
discretion of each affected jurisdiction. This voluntary
approach can lead to the development of incompatible
uses surrounding the base and its associated impact
zones, compromising the safety of residents and,
potentially, the viability of military operations. The
variation in implementation of study recommendations
results in a lack of disclosure of potential impacts from
military operations to potential property buyers through
the use of standardized real estate disclosure forms.
Non - disclosure of military operations is exacerbated
because many other disclosures are required, which can
mislead a prospective buyer into thinking that all
disclosures affecting the property's value or desirability
have been provided. Development within accident
potential zones puts residents and pilots at higher risk of
injury in the event of an aircraft accident and
development within noise impact zones could create
disturbances, disrupt quality of life, and result in noise
complaints to the base.
Existing
Texas Association of Realtors General
Information and Notice to a Buyer
(TAR -1506)
The Texas Association of Realtors (TAR) uses a general
information form when signing over a home to a buyer.
TAR 1506 does not contain language that informs buyers
that their property is within proximity of a military base;
however TAR 1506 specifies that properties around a
buyer's property are used for a variety of purposes,
including airports that could cause noise.
It is important to note that the TAR 1506 is for use only
by the voluntary members of the association. Not all
individuals licensed by the Texas Real Estate Commission
(TREC) are allowed to use this form. The form is a
derivative of the promulgated form produced by TREC
which is for use by all licensed real estate agents. The
TREC form is the direct language required by the
property code under section 5.008.
So while the existing tool for Realtor members is the
TAR form 1506, this is not necessarily available to all
individuals who participate in the sale of real estate.
d
Page 5,9-1
runway and 1.5 statute miles from the centerline of a
paved runway. The controlled compatible land use areas
surrounding JBSA -R and JBSA- Seguin, if they were to be
established, are illustrated in Figures 5 -9.1 and 5 -9.2,
respectively.
Page 5,9 � 3 1
The Airport Zoning Act authorizes the formation of a Joint
Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) to permit counties the
authority to regulate land use in the areas surrounding
public airports. The potential extent of controlled
compatible land use areas surrounding Stinson Municipal
Airport is illustrated in Figure 5 -9.3.
The primary goal of a JAZB is to reduce airport
obstructions by regulating incompatible land uses. There
is currently no JAZB in Bexar County or Guadalupe
County or zoning regulations for unincorporated areas
around JBSA -R.
Pace 5,9--5
5.10 Light
This factor refers to man -made lighting, e.g., street
lights, airfield lighting, and building lights, and glare, i.e.,
direct or reflected light, that disrupts vision or intrudes
upon nighttime activities where darkness is essential.
Light sources from commercial, industrial, recreational,
and residential uses at night can cause excessive
illumination, impacting the use of military night vision
devices and air operations. Conversely, high intensity
light sources generated from a military area, such as
ramp lighting, may have a negative impact on the
adjacent community.
outdoor retail and commercial activi ies that
require additional lighting, may impact flight
operations at .
Commercial and retail development occurs along many
major thoroughfares in the communities surrounding
]BSA- R. Commercial and retail developments often
require the most outdoor lighting of any urban land use
due to the nature of the businesses and associated
parking areas. The concern is commercial and retail
development could cause unnecessary glare and affect
vision of pilots. The two cities of particular concern are
Converse and Universal City, whose boundaries are on
the east and north of JBSA -R, respectively. Commercial
and retail development along major thoroughfares in
these cities produces light and glare. The glare from the
aggregation of vehicles and outdoor parking lot lighting
associated with proposed automobile dealerships in the
City of Converse is a major concern. However, lighting
from all cities in the JLUS Study Area can adversely
impact JBSA -R aviation missions.
City of Cibolo Unified Development Code
Article 7.2.3 of the City of Cibolo UDC includes
performance standards for Light & Glare. The purpose of
the standards is:
"to create criteria for outdoor lighting for non - residential
uses which will provide for nighttime safety, security and
utility while reducing light pollution, light trespass, and
conserving energy."
The standards primarily focus on nighttime light trespass
and the shielding of light sources, not the mitigation of
daytime glare impacts on pilots.
City of San Antonio Unified Development
Code Section 35- 339.04, Military Lighting
Overlay District
Section 35- 339.05 of the UCD is titled Military Lighting
Overlay Districts (MLOD). This overlay district
establishes lighting regulations for outdoor lighting that
impact military training. The MLOD authorizes lighting
regulations within five miles of a military installation
including ]BSA -R, JBSA- Lackland, and Camp
Bullis /Stanley.
The purpose of the MLOD is to reduce glare and
distractions that would impact nighttime training
activities that occur in the area near the installations.
Additionally, the MLOD establishes regulations for various
land uses including:
• Residential,
• Commercial,
• Gasoline filling stations,
• Parking lot and parking structures,
• Outdoor sign lighting,
• Street lighting, and
• Tower and structure lighting.
The ordinance prescribes the various types of lighting
fixtures —those that are unacceptable and acceptable—
including fully shielded or cutoff. Additionally, lumens
are specified and regulations relative to light trespassing
a horizontal plane.
E. Floodlight fixtures must be aimed so as to
prevent direct radiation of light into the open
sky at any angle above the horizontal plane as
shown in Exhibit 4 and verified using a tool such
as shown in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 are shown in Figure 5.10 -1 for the
purposes of this JLUS.
w ,
x
i ce
Level
This is an example of good compatibility planning as it
relates to controlling lighting around military installations
where nighttime training activities occur.
City of Live Oak
The City of Live Oak Zoning Regulations only reference
glare as a development standard for a specific use
permit. According to section 1.2 of Article XIX of the
Zoning Regulations:
In authorizing the location of any of the uses
listed as specific use permits, the city council
may impose such development standards and
safeguards as the conditions and location
indicate important to the welfare and protection
of adjacent property from excessive noise
vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, fumes, gas, odor,
explosion, glare, offensive view or other
undesirable or hazardous conditions.
While this is appropriate compatibility language in zoning
regulations, it only explicitly protects adjacent property.
This creates the potential to disregard impacts on military
airspace above the light source.
City of Schertz Unified Development
Code
The only applicable provision of the City of Schertz UDC
is as follows:
Any bright light shining onto an adjacent
property or street that would result in a safety
hazard is not permitted. Light trespass beyond
property boundaries or above the horizontal
plane shall be considered non - compliant.
The standards address the effects of nighttime lighting
and subsequent effects on neighboring properties and the
nighttime sky but do not address daytime glare impacts
on pilots. Such regulations for daytime glare impacts
include the mitigation of glare generated by some solar
energy conversion units on rooftops and other land uses
such as plastics used for covering greenhouses. These
uses can produce daytime glare and affect the pilot's
vision temporarily.
City of Selma Land Development
Regulations
The City of Selma refers to glare in Section 74 -155 of the
Land Development Regulations, specifically addressing
the nature and quantity of lighting as a consideration for
special permits. Special permits are used for signs such
as banners, streamers, and pennants erected for a
definite period of time. Devices which produce glare by
reflected natural sunlight or artificial light are prohibited
for special permits.
This helps to reduce a multitude of smaller objects that
could potentially harm aircraft operations from JBSA -R.
However, there is no further mention of glare control in
the Land Development Regulations that could prohibit
larger, more permanent, and more adverse sources of
glare.
The cities of Converse, Garden Ridge, Seguin, and
Universal City do not have any glare prevention policies
or regulations that benefit JBSA -R aviation missions.
Rooftop- or ground-mounted
without g can create glare.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels affixed to rooftops or
mounted to the ground or pole can reflect sunlight and
cause glare. Glare can cause acute blinding conditions
and other visual problems for pilots during training
missions and during takeoff and landings. Glare
produced by solar PV panels can also create a nuisance
to adjacent or affected property owners. Solar panels
with anti - reflective coating were uncommon for consumer
use until 2012, though anti - reflective treatments were
available.
Ordinances regulating glare from PV solar panels are not
in effect in any of the communities surrounding JBSA -R.
Any action taken to address glare from solar PV panels
has typically been through a Home Owner's Association,
which can lead to a "shotgun" pattern of enforcement
and not fully address or resolve the issue.
unconventional Directed light from unregulated and
rt
1", 11
pilots and cause temporary blinding.
Unique sources of light, including laser scopes from paint
ball ranges, can be hazardous to pilots and flight
operations at JBSA -R. The concentrated beam of light
emitted from lasers can, at a minimum, be temporarily
blinding or, in a worst case, cause retinal damage when
directed into someone's eyes. The range of these effects
can have serious impacts on pilots and the safety of
aircraft operations.
Existing
City of San Antonio Unified Development
Code
The City of San Antonio UDC allows Outdoor Laser Hide
and Seek Games by right in the Farm and Ranch (FR),
Mixed Light Industrial (MI -1), and Light Industrial (L)
Zoning Districts and the Edwards Recharge (ERZD)
Overlay District, Outdoor Laser Hide and Seek uses are
allowed with a Specific Use Permit in the C -3
(commercial) Zoning District.
Permission by right to use laser- related entertainment
outdoors could lead to incompatibility with
mission - critical activities. However the Military Lighting
Overlay District prohibits the use of laser sources of light
or any similar high intensity light when projected above
the horizontal plane. The Military Lighting Overlay
District is limited to a five -mile radius surrounding
JBSA -R. This means other locations within the JLUS
Study Area could potentially impact flight operations.
Section 35 -423 of the UDC describes the standards for a
specific use permit. There is no reference to effects on
military flight operations.
Universal City Zoning Ordinance
The Universal City Zoning Ordinance does not specifically
address outdoor lighting for outdoor recreation uses.
Outdoor sports and recreational uses are permitted by
right in the Commercial Services (C -3) and Highway
Commercial (C -5) Zoning Districts. Outdoor sports and
recreation uses are allowed by conditional use permit in
the C -1 and C -4 (commercial) Zoning Districts.
Conditional use permit requirements do not specifically
consider compatibility with JBSA -R operations which
could lead to potential oversight when outdoor recreation
facilities are permitted.
City of Schertz Unified Development
Code
The City of Schertz allows "outdoor commercial
amusement" uses by right within its General Business 2
(GB -2) and Light Manufacturing (M -1) Zoning Districts.
Outdoor commercial amusement is allowed by specific
use permit in the General Business (GB) district. No
conditional use permit findings specifically call out the
military compatibility of a project which could lead to
potential oversight when outdoor recreation facilities are
permitted.
However, UDC Section 21.5.9 Special Districts,
subsection A.2 requires that a development application
for a use not expressly recommended by the AICUZ be
forwarded to JBSA -R for review.
Outdoor commercial amusement is best categorized as a
recreational land use pursuant to the AICUZ
Recreational land uses are allowed in both APZs
distinguished between APZ I and II only by intensity.
Restricting the use of gathering areas is only
recommended.
Other cities near or adjacent to JBSA- Randolph do not
explicitly allow outdoor recreation uses within their codes
or prohibit any kind of unregulated and unconventional
light source.
glare, . general
environment unsuitable night training
operations. training
While night operations performed at JBSA -R are
insignificant, there is a concern about protecting the
night skies, a dark training environment, to position
JBSA -R for any potential future night missions. The City
of San Antonio and Bexar County have adopted lighting
ordinances to control lighting in the county. The
regulations were adopted in 2009 as a result of the
Camp Bullis JLUS due to the military mission
requirements of dark skies to execute realistic, nighttime
training in an environment similar to what is found in
many combat theaters worldwide.
When communities have differing requirements for
lighting controls near and around the base, it makes it
difficult to sustain a dark environment or a relatively low
ambient light. The inconsistent regulations in lighting
standards by the communities around JBSA -R can
potentially cause unintended light trespass and light
pollution in the area resulting in lost mission
opportunities for the base.
City of Cibolo Unified Development Code
The City of Cibolo has established light and glare
regulations in effort to minimize glare and reduce light
pollution and lighting trespass. The City's regulations for
lighting are as follows:
3. General Standards
a. General Standards for Lighting on Private
Property
1. No flashing light shall be permitted. Flickering
or intense sources of light shall be controlled or
shielded so as not to cause a nuisance across lot
lines.
2. Lighting shall be designed to function as a Full This is a good example of lighting controls as it
Cutoff Luminaire. Lighting which projects light references the Illuminating Engineering Society of
into the sky shall be prohibited. North America, the expert source on illumination and
3. Light sources or luminaries shall not be preservation of the night skies.
located within required buffer yards except
along pedestrian walkways. City of San Antonio Unified Development
Code
4. All luminaries shall be designed so that the
light source (bulb or lamp) is completely
shielded from direct view of an observer
standing a point five feet above grade on the lot
line abutting a transitional yard or at any
location on residentially zoned property. The
height of light standards in parking lots storage
areas shall be limited to 35 -feet, as measured
from existing grade to the height of the
luminaire. This requirement shall not be
applicable to those exempted uses described in
this section below.
Subject to Planning and Zoning Commission
review and City Council approval, requests for
taller light standards may be requested for uses
that have special lighting needs or for a use
where taller lights may be necessary for a public
health or safety concern. This requirement shall
not be applicable to light standards erected
along public rights -of -way by any public agency
or entity.
5. All luminaries shall be designed or positioned
so that the maximum illumination at property
lines will not exceed one (1.0) foot candle.
6. Lighting for canopies covering fueling stations
at automobile service stations and drive -thru
facilities shall not illuminate abutting properties
and the luminaries shall be designed so that the
light source (bulb or lamp) is completely
shielded from direct view of an observer
standing at the property line at a point five feet
above grade.
7. Because of their unique requirement for
nighttime visibility and their limited hours of
operations, ball diamonds, playing fields and
tennis courts are exempted from the general
standards of this section. Lighting for these
outdoor recreational uses shall be shielded to
minimize light and glare from spilling over onto
adjacent residential properties.
8. As part of the approval of a public project, the
City Council may vary from the requirements of
this section.
9. The illumination levels contained in the
Lighting Handbook, Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America, as amended from time
to time, shall be used as a guide for providing
adequate and safe illumination levels.
The City of San Antonio UDC has a Military Lighting
Overlay District that helps to protect pilots from outdoor
lighting impacts. The regulations apply to all outdoor
lighting within five (5) miles of the JBSA -R perimeter.
The specific purposes of the districts are as follows:
To reduce glare and potential distractions to night
time training exercises occurring within the area.
To balance the needs of the military, the City of
San Antonio, and property owners regarding
responsible development including outdoor lighting
within this area.
The following regulations apply in the Lighting Overlay
District:
Any luminaire in a new development that is
aimed, directed, or focused so as to cause direct
light from the luminaire to be directed toward an
adjacent military base, camp or installation is
prohibited. Such luminaire must be redirected
or its light output controlled to eliminate such
conditions.
For new development properties situated at or
above one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet in
elevation (above sea level), and which are
situated within one (1) mile from the perimeter
of the affected military installation, all lighting
shall be fully screened from the affected military
installation(s). Methods of screen can include,
but are not limited to, fencing and landscaping.
Specific regulations for commercial lighting include:
• All lighting fixtures installed on any
commercial property and which include or
exceed two foot - candles shall be fitted to
render them full cutoff (no light output
emitted above ninety (90) degrees at any
lateral angle around the fixture.)
• For lighting horizontal tasks such as
roadways, sidewalks, entrances and parking
areas, fixtures must meet "full cutoff"
criteria (no light output emitted above
ninety (90) degrees at any lateral angle
around the fixture).
• Intermittent lighting must be of the "motion
The hood or shield must mask the direct
sensor" type that stays on for a period of
horizontal surface of the light source. The
time not to exceed five (5) minutes and has
light must be aimed so as to ensure that the
a sensitivity setting that allows the
illumination is only pointing downward onto
luminaire to be activated only when motion
the ground surface or into the building. No
is detected on the site.
illumination may spill onto adjacent
property.
• All trespass lighting shall not exceed two
and one -half (2 %2) foot - candles measured at
the property line, except that residential
trespass lighting is regulated in subsection
b(5)A
• Floodlight fixtures must be aimed so as to
prevent direct radiation of light into the
open sky at any angle above the horizontal
plane as shown in Exhibit 4 and verified
using a tool such as shown in exhibit 5.
• With the exception of lighting which is
required for security and safety such as
parking lot illumination, businesses must
turn off outdoor lights emitting illumination
levels exceeding two (2) foot- candles (fc)
after 11:00 p.m.
• Lighting installed to illuminate construction
sites in order to secure or protect
equipment at night shall meet the
requirements of subsection b.(6)A.
The ordinance also regulates gas filling stations, parking
lot and parking structure lighting, outdoor sign lighting,
street lighting, tower and structure lighting, and
unmanned ATM lighting.
The broad scope of outdoor lighting regulations adopted
by San Antonio reduces potential light and glare issues
that affect JBSA -R.
City of Schertz Unified Development
Code
The City of Schertz adopted an outdoor lighting ordinance
to prevent light pollution and glare within the city.
Applicable outdoor lighting regulations include the
following:
• Outdoor lighting shall be designed to
provide the minimum lighting necessary to
ensure adequate safety, night vision, and
comfort, and not create or cause excessive
glare onto adjacent properties and public
street rights of way.
• Outdoor lighting must be hooded, shielded,
and /or aimed downward at at -least a
forty -five (450) angle.
• Any bright light shining onto an adjacent
property or street that would result in a
safety hazard is not permitted. Light
trespass beyond property boundaries or
above the horizontal plane shall be
considered non - compliant.
By requiring downward lighting, the City of Schertz
protects JBSA -R pilots from adverse light and glare
impacts. Applicants proposing new construction or
development must submit lighting outdoor lighting fixture
types for City review. This ensures that Schertz officials
can inspect all new outdoor lighting and ensure
compatibility with ]BSA-R.
It should be noted that these ordinances are
unenforceable within the extraterritorial jurisdictions
(ETJ), but that development within the ETJ will be
small -scale until infrastructure is provided by the
respective city. Once infrastructure is extended to an
ETJ, it can be annexed into the incorporated city and
outdoor lighting standards will apply.
Other City Codes
The cities of Converse, Garden Ridge, Live Oak, Seguin,
Selma, and Universal City do not regulate outdoor
lighting via a separate ordinance.
Table 5 -10.1 provides the outdoor lighting requirements
for all cities within the JLUS Study Area.
Table 5-10.1. Comparison of Lighting Regulations
City of Schertz Y
Nonresidential
use limited to
0.25 foot -
candles
measured at
property line
adjacent to
residential area
or at street ROW
line when
residential area
is separated by a
public street
ROW
• Hooded,
shielded, and /or
aimed
downward at a
45 degree angle
minimum
• Light trespass
beyond
property
boundaries or
above the
horizontal plane
is restricted
• Landscaping J
foliage lighting
limited to 150
watts output
and shielded
• Wall lighting
shall be hooded
or shielded to
prevent light
trespass beyond
the property
line
30 feet for
shielded
outdoor light
at a cutoff
angle that is
less than 90
degrees
15 feet for
shielded
outdoor light
at a cutoff
angle of 90
degrees or
more
• Street lights
installed prior
to UDC
adoption
• TxDOT lighting
fixtures and
requirements
in TxDOT
rights of way
• UDC -
conforming
signs and
associated
lighting
• Sports field
lighting
• Residential
covered porch
lighting
provided that
each external
light fixture
does not
exceed 150
watts
• Security lights
of any output
that are
controlled by a
motion sensor
switch
provided they
do not exceed
0.25
foot - candle at
the property
line and do not
remain
illuminated for
a duration
exceeding
10 -12 minutes
after activation
Streetlights
authorized by the
city for the health,
safety and welfare
of its citizens are
exempt
Sources: Cibolo UDC, 2013; Converse Code of Ordinances; Garden Ridge Zoning Ordinance, 2008; Live Oak Building Regulations
Ordinance, 1985; San Antonio UDC, 2005; Schertz UDC, 2010; Seguin UDC, 1989; Selma Zoning Ordinance, 2002; Universal City
Zoning Ordinance, 2007.
511 Noise and Vibration
®
how far sound travels and how loud it is. Certain
Threshold ofPain
weather events can change the consistency of the air and
r
either cause sound to travel further and be louder or
Sound that reaches unwanted levels is referred to as
reduce the distance traveled and the level at which the
noise. The central issue with noise is the impact, or
sound can be heard. Temperature and wind velocity are
perceived impact, on people, animals (wild and
prime examples of factors that can affect sound travel.
domestic), and general land use compatibility. Exposure
Sound tends to travel further in cold temperatures.
to high noise levels can have a significant impact on
Specific combinations of temperature and wind direction
human activity, health, and safety. The dB scale is used
can create atmospheric refraction. Atmospheric refraction
to quantify sound intensity. To understand the relevance
occurs when atmospheric conditions bend and /or focus
of decibels, a normal conversation often occurs at 60 dB,
sound waves towards some areas and away from others.
while an ambulance siren from 100 feet away is about
When describing noise impacts, it is common to look at
100 dB. Noise associated with military operations
the average noise levels over an entire average day.
(arrival /departure of military aircraft, firing of weapons,
etc.) may create noises in higher dB ranges.
Vibration is an oscillation or motion that alternates in
opposite directions and may occur as a result of an
impact, explosion, noise, mechanical operation, or other
change in the environment. Vibration may be caused by
military and / or civilian activities. Airborne vibration can
cause structural shaking and rattling of windows that can
annoy or concern property owners, and in some cases
cause structural damage.
It is important to understand that there is no single
perfect way of measuring sound, due to variations used
by different entities when conducting sound studies or
sound modeling. Sound is characterized by various
parameters that include the oscillation rate of sound
waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the
pressure level or energy content (amplitude). The sound
pressure level has become the most common descriptor
used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound
level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound
intensity. Because sound pressure can vary by over one
trillion times within the range of human hearing, a
logarithmic loudness scale, i.e. the dB scale, is used to
present sound intensity levels in a convenient format.
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies
within the entire spectrum, so noise measurements are
weighted more heavily within those frequencies of
maximum human sensitivity in a process called
"A- weighting" written as dBA. The human ear can detect
changes in sound levels of approximately 3 -dBA under
normal conditions. Changes of 1 to 3 -dBA are typically
noticeable under controlled conditions, while changes of
less than 1dBA are only discernible under controlled,
extremely quiet conditions.
A change of 5 -dBA is typically noticeable to the average
person in an outdoor environment. Figure 5 -11.1
summarizes typical A- weighted sound levels for a range
of indoor and outdoor activities.
Environmental noise fluctuates over time. While some
noise fluctuations are minor, others can be substantial.
These fluctuations include regular and random patterns,
how fast the noise fluctuates, and the amount of
variation. Weather patterns can have a strong effect on
Figure 5 -11 -1. Sound Levels Comparison in dB
Page 5,11-1
Threshold ofPain
r
Civil defense Siren 0 00 k)
F /A -18 departure (1,000 ft.)
f /A -18 Arrival (1,000 ft.)
r
Pile driver (0 ft.)
F- 14 D Departure (1,000 ft,)
Ambulance Siren 000 ft.)
r a
Power Lawn Mower (3 ft.)
! >
Motorcycle (25 ft.)
Diesel Truck, 40 mph (0 ft,)
f ®14 d Arrival (1,000 ft.)
Garbage disposal (3 ftj
a t
Car, 65 mph (25 ft.)
Vacuum Cleaner (3 ft)
i
Normal Converation,( ft.)
A/C Unit 0 00 ft.)
Light Traffic (100 ft.)
Bird Calls (distant)
Soft Whisper (5 k)
Just tAudibl
Threshold of Hearing
Page 5,11-1
1
} i t f iit t i i t t Si
Noise contours for JBSA -R and JBSA- Sequin were
modeled as part of the AICUZ study development for
each installation. The noise contours at each installation
were developed by analyzing the type and number of
aircraft, flight patterns utilized, variations in altitude,
power settings, and frequency of operations and
inputting the data into the latest NOISEMAP modeling
computer program. Noise contours for Stinson Municipal
Airport were developed as part of the Stinson Municipal
Airport Environmental Assessment. The noise contours
for JBSA -R and JBSA- Seguin from their respective AICUZ
studies were developed in Day -Night Average A- Weighted
Sound Level (DNL) five dB increments, ranging from
DNL 65 dB to DNL 80 dB. The Stinson Municipal Airport
noise contours were also developed in DNL five dB
increments, but range from DNL 60 dB to DNL 80+ dB.
To minimize the impacts from military aircraft noise in
communities surrounding the runways, the studies
contain recommended land use compatibility guidelines
for types of land uses considered incompatible within
each noise contour based on the level of noise and how
sensitive the land use is to noise. For example,
residential development, churches, and schools are more
sensitive to noise than industrial or commercial uses. At
noise levels between DNL 65 -69 dB, the only
incompatible land use is residential without noise level
reduction (NLR) materials in the housing construction.
Residential uses within the DNL 65 -69 dB contour are
discouraged and residential uses within the DNL 70 -74 dB
contour are strongly discouraged unless there is a
demonstrated community need and no viable alternative
location, and sound attenuation construction methods or
materials are used.
According to the 2008 AICUZ study for JBSA -R, there was
an estimated population of 2,622 people living within
noise contours ranging from DNL 65 dB to DNL 80+ dB
outside the boundaries of the installation. Within the
DNL 65 -69 dB contour, there was an estimated
2,385 people; within the DNL 70 -74 dB, there was an
estimated 226 people, within the DNL 75 -79 dB, there
was an estimated 11 people; and there were no people
living within the DNL 80+ dB contour. Residential uses
within the DNL 70+ dB contours are generally
discouraged, but are compatible within the DNL 65 -69 dB
contour when NLR measures are incorporated. Mobile
;arse 5. 11 -
homes are not compatible in any of the noise contours
due to their construction design. The AICUZ study
identified a breakdown of existing land uses within the
DNL 65+ dB noise contours outside of ]BSA -R's
boundaries: 2,648 acres of open space / agricultural /
low density, 285 acres of residential, 221 acres of
industrial, 83 acres of commercial, 65 acres of
recreational, and 17 acres of public / quasi - public. Each
of these categories is defined as follows:
Open space / agricultural / low density —
includes undeveloped land areas, agricultural
areas, grazing lands, and areas with residential
activity at densities less than or equal to one
dwelling unit per acre.
Residential — includes all types of residential
activity, such as single- and multi - family
residences and mobile homes, at a density greater
than one dwelling unit per acre.
Industrial — includes manufacturing,
warehousing, and other similar uses.
Commercial — includes offices, retail, restaurants
and other types of commercial establishments.
in Recreational — includes land areas designated
for recreational activity including parks, wilderness
areas and reservations, conservation areas, and
areas designated for trails, hikes, camping, etc.
Public / quasi-public — includes publicly owned
lands and /or land to which the public has access,
including military reservations and training
grounds, public buildings, schools, churches,
cemeteries, and hospitals.
It is unlikely that the acreages of these land use
categories has fluctuated much in the six years since the
AICUZ study, but is anticipated that there has been some
changes, so the current land uses may differ from those
in the AICUZ study. Figure 5 -11.2 provides an evaluation
of the existing land use within the JBSA -R noise contours.
As the figure shows, most of the land is used for
agriculture, though there are single family residences in
the DNL 65 and 70 dB contours. The majority of the
existing land uses would be compatible if they met
certain conditions, i.e. NLR measures for residential units.
An in depth assessment of individual properties would be
needed to determine if appropriate NLR measures exist
to make the development compatible within the
respective noise contours. There is one small 0.2 -acre
commercial / retail development on the south side of the
eastern runway (Runway 141-eft / 32Right).
Analysis of the future land uses for the communities
surrounding JBSA -R identified a large amount of
residential planned around the installation. While it is not
recommended to have residential in the noise contours, it
can be compatible if it is single - family residential and has
appropriate NLR measures.
Pugs 5.1.1-3
Per the future land uses, there are 152.6 acres of
planned unit development (PUD) and 8.3 acres of
single - family residential within the DNL 75 dB contour in
the City of Schertz that would be incompatible. Future
land use within the noise contours is shown on
Figure 5 -11.3.
Figure 5 -11.4 provides an evaluation of zoning districts in
the noise contours for the communities around JBSA -R.
The largest zoning categories are for rural residential and
planned unit development, which are conditionally
compatible if appropriate NLR measures are incorporated.
There are 85.9 acres of planned development
and14 acres of rural residential in the DNL 75 dB contour,
and a 0.4 -acre area of commercial / retail immediately
south of the eastern runway.
The AICUZ study for JBSA -R provides recommended
guidelines for land uses that are incompatible,
compatible, or conditionally compatible within each noise
contour. A review of the allowable uses within the zoning
districts of each jurisdiction under the noise contours
resulted in a list of which zoning districts are aligned with
the AICUZ recommendations. Table 5 -11.1 shows the
zoning districts located under the noise contours for each
community and whether or not the uses allowed in that
district are compatible, conditionally compatible, or
incompatible. The table lists which noise contour the
zoning district is under and whether it is incompatible,
compatible, or compatible when NLR methods are
incorporated.
City of Converse
City of Schertz
Page 5.11 -4
City of Universal City
Sources: Converse zoning map, 2010; San Antonio online zoning map; Schertz Current Zoning map, 2012; Universal City Zoning
Map, undated; DODI 4165.57, 2011.
NOTES:
1. For table purposes, assigned R -A zoning designation.
2. For evaluation purposes, PUB (tax exempt) zoning designation in both Bexar County and Guadalupe County was evaluated as
educational services
3. For evaluation purposes, OS zoning designation for Universal City was evaluated as undeveloped/ vacant
Page 5.11-6
Page ,11 -7
0 ": � ' 1
The 2000 AICUZ study for JBSA- Seguin estimated that
66 people were living within the DNL 65+ dB noise
contours outside the boundaries of JBSA- Seguin, 46 in
the DNL 65 -69 dB contour, 16 in the DNL 70 -75 dB
contour, four in the DNL 75 -80 dB contour, and none in
the DNL 80+ dB contour. The AICUZ study identified the
majority of the existing land use within the noise
contours outside the installation boundaries as open
space / agricultural / or low density (1,264 acres). The
AICUZ study also identified 90 acres of residential and
one acre of industrial. The definitions of these land uses
is the same as described in the AICUZ study for JBSA -R.
This acreage is likely to have changed within the past
14 years since the study was published, but further
assessment would be needed to identify current
acreages.
A look at the existing land use around JBSA- Seguin,
illustrated on Figure 5 -11.5, shows that most of the land
is currently compatible with the noise contours. There is
some single - family residential and a small amount of
commercial in the contours, which is mostly conditionally
compatible if appropriate NLR measures were
incorporated during construction. There are 6.5 acres of
single - family residential located next to ]BSA-Seguin
within the DNL 75 dB contour and 0.2 acres within the
DNL 80 dB contour, which are incompatible.
The future land use projected within JBSA- Sequin's noise
contours is either compatible or conditionally compatible.
As Figure 5 -11.6 shows, the conditionally compatible
lands are made up of single - family residential and
planned unit development.
Most of the land around JBSA- Seguin is in Guadalupe
County, which does not have zoning authority. There is a
small amount of land in the noise contours that is zoned
for single - family residential or PUD, which are both
conditionally compatible, as shown on Figure 5 -11.7.
Table 5 -11.2 lists the zoning districts for land located
under the noise contours for JBSA- Seguin and the NLR
measures that would be needed to achieve compatibility.
City of Seguin
PUD - Planned Unit
novalnnmant
Sources: Seguin Zoning Map, 2012; DODI 4165.57, 2011.
Page 5,11-9
Page 5.11 -15
Paae 5.11 -11
Stinson Municipal Airport Noise
Contours
Since Stinson Municipal Airport is a civilian airport, its
noise contours were developed with a different method
than the contours for JBSA -R and JBSA- Seguin. A
DNL 60 -65 dB contour was developed for Stinson
Municipal Airport to address potential noise impacts on
parks and historic sites. The DNL 60 dB contour extends
over a portion of the San Antonio Missions National
Historic Park. The majority of the DNL 65+ dB contours
do not extend outside the boundaries of the airport.
Figure 5 -11.8 shows the existing land use evaluation and
Figure 5 -11.9 shows the zoning compatibility within the
noise contours for Stinson Municipal Airport. There are
no incompatible lands existing or zoned for, but there are
some areas that would need NLR measures to be
compatible. Table 5 -11.3 lists property located within
modeled noise contours by zoning designation for Stinson
Municipal Airport. The table provides an evaluation of
the zoning compatibility relative to Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 150.
City of San Antonio
Sources: DOD Instruction 4165.57, May 2011; Air Installation Compatible Use Zone, Randolph Air Force Base, 2008; Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone, Seguin Auxiliary Airfield, 2000; Texas Department of Transportation, Airport Improvements for Stinson
Municipal Airport, Environmental Assessment, 2007; Converse Zoning Map, dated Nov 2010; Converse Zoning Ordinance, dated Apr
2006; Schertz Current Zoning map, dated Sep 2012; City of Schertz UDC, 2010; Schertz Municipal and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Boundaries map, dated Aug 2011.
Page 5.11 -_12
nnu ITA
Pare 5.11-13
Fags 5.1-14
�
AICUZ Studies for 3BSA -R and
3 BSA -Seg u i n
The AICUZ studies for the two installations provide an
assessment of the noise contours associated with aircraft
operations at each installation. Through the NOISEMAP
noise modeling program, a set of noise contours was
developed and applied around the runways to identify
land areas most affected by aircraft noise. The AICUZ
studies are developed to promote awareness of military
footprints to the communities and provide guidelines for
community planners to use to promote compatible land
uses between the communities and the military
installations. The AICUZ study contains a set of
compatibility guidelines, or recommended land uses,
within each of the noise contours, and identifies types of
land uses that would be most impacted by noise and
should not be developed in those areas if possible.
sound attenuation per the Federal Aviation
Administration / Department Of Defense
Some of the communities surrounding JBSA -R have
allowed residential uses within the DNL 65 -69 and
70 -74 dB noise contours without requiring sound
attenuation measures or NLR methods in their codes. As
a result, some of the homes built within these areas may
not have proper insulation or construction to reduce the
sound from aircraft operations to an acceptable level
inside the building, making them incompatible.
Incompatible uses pose both a health risk and a
disturbance to residents. In some cases, homes within
noise impact zones may not qualify for federal mortgage
insurance unless noise attenuation measures are
incorporated in the building construction.
Developers and builders have expressed concerns
regarding the lack of information on sound attenuation
measures and NLR material requirements. If sound
attenuation measures do not exist within the JBSA -R,
]BSA- Seguin, or Stinson Municipal Airport noise contours,
developers are unlikely to construct homes and other
noise sensitive buildings with NLR materials, which could
lead to more acres of incompatible use within noise
contours.
The variability in code requirements for sound
attenuation measures or NLR materials results in a
patch -work application between jurisdictions.
Additionally, communities that have implementation of
such measures or requirements may regulate to achieve
different standards for noise attenuation. This variability
further complicates builder and developer compliance.
Existing
Texas Local Government Code, Section
214.216 International Building Code
The Texas Local Government Code, Section 214.216
adopted the international building code as it existed on
May 1, 2003 for the municipalities in the State of Texas.
This code only applies to commercial buildings in a
municipality in which construction began on or after
January 1, 2006. This code authorizes local jurisdictions
to adopt local amendments.
Texas Local Government Code, Section
214.212 International Residential Code
The Texas Local Government Code, Section 214.212
adopted the International Residential Code as it existed
on May 1, 2001 for the municipalities in the State of
Texas. This code authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt
local amendments.
International Building Code, 2003
The 2003 International Building Codes requires that
walls, partitions, and floor /ceiling assemblies that
separate dwelling units from each other and from other
adjacent land uses must have a sound transmission class
of not less than 50 dB for airborne sound.
However, the code does not specify any information
about sound mitigation materials or other methods to
reduce the transmission of sound.
City of San Antonio Airport Hazard
Overlay District, Section 35 -331
The City of San Antonio has adopted an airport overlay
districts for certain areas influenced by aircraft and
military operations. The regulations for this City's Airport
Overlay District are found in the City's UDC, Division 4.
This overlay describes the various imaginary surfaces
associated with commercial and military airports. The
overlay prescribes controls for building and structure
heights in the areas in the vicinity of airports within the
city but does not establish controls for noise or sound
attenuation for noise sensitive land uses in the area.
City of San Antonio Military Sound
Attenuation Overlay Districts, Section
35- 339.05
Section 35- 339.05 of the City's UDC establishes Military
Sound Attenuation Overlay Districts that regulate land
uses that surround or are in the vicinity of military
airports and training areas. This overlay focuses on
identifying noise sensitive land uses including residential
uses, assisted living and nursing facilities, funeral homes,
and childcare facilities. Additionally, the ordinance
provides guidance for establishing a military sound
attenuation overlay district for the City. The criterion for
designation of a military sound attenuation overlay
district in the City of San Antonio is:
The area must be identified by the United States
military, joint land use study or adopted master
plan as being situated within a noise military
influence area.
The ordinance prescribes regulations to protect the
general welfare from noise generated by military
activities. The regulations apply to noise sensitive land
uses either as a stand -alone development or as part of a
larger development. Sound must be mitigated to
incorporate an exterior to interior noise level reduction of
25 decibels (dB). Additionally, the ordinance prescribes
measures for construction materials in that the materials
used in construction should comply with a tested or listed
sound transmission class (STC) of 40 for walls and
ceilings.
The ordinance also prescribes various STCs for windows
and doors ranging from a STC 30 to 40. The deviations
are determined by the percentage of the doors and
windows that comprise the total exterior wall area, e.g. if
the doors and windows comprise 30 percent of the
overall exterior wall area, then the required STC is 30. If
the doors and windows comprise more than 40 percent of
the overall exterior wall area, then the STC is 40.
This ordinance was developed for the Camp Bullis area as
a result of the Camp Bullis JLUS. This ordinance
currently does not apply to areas near JBSA -R.
City of Schertz Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone District, Section
21.5.9
The City of Schertz established an overlay district that
specifies certain proposed land uses within the JBSA -R's
airfield safety zones. It requires that any proposed
development must be coordinated with JBSA -R up to a
period of 60 days. After the 60 days if JBSA -R has not
responded, then the proposal will be disapproved.
This overlay district does not require sound attenuation in
building construction relative to the aircraft noise
associated with the JBSA -R mission.
Page ,5.11 -16
JBSA -R and SAT are both located in close proximity to
each other and within a large metropolitan area. On a
typical day when flying weather is optimal, aircraft
utilizing the two facilities operate within their own flight
paths. Certain events, such as inclement weather or
busier air traffic days may require some deviation from
these standard flight paths.
Commercial or civilian aircraft flying into or out of SAT
may be redirected to alternate approach or departure
courses in areas more commonly used by military
aircraft, or over areas that do not generally experience
aircraft flyover. This can cause atypical noise
disturbances to the communities below alternative flight
patterns. The comingling of commercial and military
flights may lead to an increased number of noise
complaints to JBSA -R, which were actually caused by
commercial or civilian aircraft operating via SAT.
�
JBSA -R Facebook Webpage
The JBSA -R Facebook webpage, located at
https: / /www.facebook.coml]BSARandolph ?ref =br tf, is a
tool used to notify the public of various mission changes
and happenings that are ongoing for the base and JBSA.
The drawback of this tool is that it only reaches the
number of individuals who have Facebook accounts and
who "like" the page. There are currently 7,399 likes for
this page.
Historically, this page has been used to notify the public
of various noise - related impacts associated with the
mission of ]BSA-R.
people which may generate a larger noise footprint and
increase noise complaints from the community
since many
in a flying mission may impact the amount of
aircraft noise they may hear.
The noise contours identified in the current JBSA -R
AICUZ study were modeled based on certain types and
numbers of aircraft and a specific frequency of flight
operations. Currently, JBSA -R is primarily a training base
and supports aircraft for pilot training, tanker /airlift jet
training, and advanced jet training. The noise contours
and recommended development compatibility restrictions
reflect these activities and aircraft characteristics.
Predicting how mission changes and /or changes in the
type of aircraft affect the noise levels around JBSA -R
would require updating the noise modeling and using the
different aircraft as a baseline. Without knowing the type
or number of aircraft, it would not be possible to
accurately produce updated noise contours.
There is a possibility that the Surveillance and
Reconnaissance Wing and associated mission from
Pensacola, Florida may be realigned to ]BSA-R. This
realignment may require different aircraft with differing
sound and vibration impacts. Similarly, there is also a
possibility of introducing unmanned aerial system (UAS)
flight operations and testing at JBSA- Seguin due to local,
existing conditions: a low population, minimal
development, and an abundance of open space.
Unmanned aerial system flight operations and testing
activities may pose a problem similar to the introduction
of new aircraft at JBSA -R, since the noise contours for
the airfield at JBSA- Seguin may not be sufficient for the
operational parameters associated with a UAS. The DOD
could also add a new mission to JBSA -R in the future that
is not currently considered.
Without being able to forecast the needs of future
missions, it is difficult to preemptively identify potential
updated noise contours. This also makes it difficult for
communities that address sound attenuation or limit
noise sensitive uses in noise contours to determine where
these regulations should be applied in the future if new
missions at JBSA -R or JBSA- Seguin add increased noise
to the area.
Existing l
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
Reports
depot JBSA-R may expand maintenance activities
and night operations r u
run-up exercises on test cells which may
generate an increase in noise complaints.
Locations for aircraft maintenance and engine run -ups at
JBSA -R have been established in areas where noise
impacts are minimized for people in surrounding
communities and on base. The aircraft engine
maintenance run -ups at JBSA -R occur between 6pm and
10pm or are otherwise restricted to performance in
sound - suppressing test cells; currently, no run -ups occur
during the nighttime (10pm to 7am). These tight
restrictions limit routine maintenance activities that must
be completed on aircraft to ensure the safety and
functionality. These also must be completed so airmen
can achieve the necessary skills when performing
mechanical and maintenance activities. With only four
hours to perform engine run -ups outdoors, most
maintenance must occur in the test cells, which requires
the removal and transport of the aircraft engine across
base to the facility. This hinders the maintenance
timeliness and limits the number of engines that can be
worked on and tested each day.
Depot work, including major repairs and modifications on
aircraft to increase flight activity, is another important
maintenance function performed at JBSA -R. There is a
desire to perform this work at night to reduce the
number of hours that aircraft are serviced during flying
hours. Performing large -scale maintenance work at night
could create a noise issue for surrounding communities.
Existing
Screening Analysis of Proposed Sound
Suppressor on West Ramp at Randolph
AFB
JBSA -R conducted a screening analysis of a proposed
construction of an A/F32A -18 Noise Suppressor on the
west ramp of JBSA -R ton determine noise impacts. The
suppressor would support outdoor T -38 Talon in -frame
engine maintenance run -ups. This activity would be in
addition to the activities that were captured in the 2008
AICUZ and the 2012, unpublished noise study by Air
Force Center for Engineering and Construction (AFCEC).
This activity would occur once -a -day with an estimate of
260 annual operational days.
The screening analysis indicated that the Noise
Suppressor would result in a less than 1 dB change in the
Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) contours that were
greater than or equal to 65 dB, relative to the noise
estimated in the 2012 unpublished study. While this
increase in noise is insignificant, the noise identified by
the 2012 AFCEC unpublished study is somewhat different
than that of the 2008 AICUZ. However, the noise
sensitive receptors would be minimally impacted by this
proposed action especially since the indoor noise levels
are 25 dB lower than the outdoor levels.
flight improvements are completed and
operations
]BSA-Seguin has made a significant effort to avoid
impacts on neighboring development. Normal
operational hours are from 7 am to 10 pm. JBSA- Seguin
has one runway, which was closed in 2011 for runway
improvement construction. Prior to the runway closure
flight training occurred approximately 245 days per year.
Takeoff patterns are routed to avoid flight over the City
of Seguin to the maximum extent practicable. Since the
runway has been closed for almost three years, no flights
have been arriving or departing in the area and noise has
not been an issue.
According to the 2000 AICUZ study conducted for
]BSA-Seguin, 66 people are exposed to noise levels of
65 dB DNL or higher and only four people are exposed to
noise greater than 75 dB. There may have been some
new development within the noise contours since then
that may make this number higher. Construction at the
airfield has been slow due to contractual issues. These
issues have recently been resolved and the
improvements to the runway are planned to be
completed soon, allowing the airfield to be actively used.
Resumption of flight activity may generate complaints,
since residents, particularly in noise impact zones, have
become accustomed to the quiet.
City of Seguin Zoning Ordinance
The City of Seguin last updated their zoning ordinance in
June 2012 but did not adopt the 2000 AICUZ guidelines
for the ]BSA-Seguin Airfield to protect the general public
from unnecessary impacts associated with the aviation
operations performed at JBSA- Seguin. These impacts
include safety concerns relative to the airfield CZs and
APZs and the noise generated for the JBSA- Seguin
airfield.
Vibration . .
Schertz and Universal City.
There is residential development located in close
proximity to the ends of the runways. Universal City is
located just north of JBSA -R and has residential
development very close to the northern ends of the
runway. There is also a small community of residential
development near the end of the eastern runway in the
City of Schertz.
Certain flight activities could generate vibration as
aircraft are taking off or landing that may impact
residents living in these areas. The aircraft flown at
JBSA -R are smaller, training aircraft, the potential for
vibration to occur from this types of aircraft are minimal.
However, this could be an issue to monitor if residential
development is proposed in Schertz near the runway in
the future.
5.12 Roadway Capacity
Roadway capacity relates to the ability of existing
freeways, highways, arterials, and other local roads to
provide adequate mobility and access between military
installations and their surrounding communities. As
urban development expands, roads once carrying limited
local traffic begin to function more as urban major
arterial roadways. These roads often become the main
transportation corridors for all traffic from residential to
commercial trucking, including access to military
installations. As transportation systems grow and
demand more capacity, these facilities become congested
and create delays for both military and non - military
automobile users.
JBSA -R is surrounded by a series of smaller communities
northeast of San Antonio and is not currently served by
the bus system operated by VIA Metropolitan Transit.
Some routes pass through the City of Converse
southwest of the installation and northwest of the
installation near Live Oak and Selma, but the system
does not directly serve JBSA -R employees and residents.
The lack of transit service reduces transportation options
for those who must rely on personal means of
transportation. The lack of transit contributes to roadway
congestion since JBSA -R creates thousands of vehicle
trips daily as a regional employment center with over
9,600 employees.
Sources: VIA system map, March 2013, JBSA Economic
Impact Report
VIA Service Area
The VIA Metropolitan Service Area covers approximately
1,226 square miles which is roughly 98 percent of
Bexar County. The VIA service area is provided through
various sources of revenue including a half -cent sales tax
from participating jurisdictions. The following
jurisdictions have elected to participate in the service
area by assessing a half -cent sales tax in their
community:
Alamo Heights
Balcones Heights
Castle Hills
China Grove
The City of Converse is the only community proximate to
JBSA -R that has elected to assess the sales tax to
provide this service to its residents. The route that
services the City is Route 21, Kirby /Converse.
Source: VIA Metropolitan Transit,
http://www.viainfo.net/OrganizationIFacts.aspx
It should be noted that JBSA -R is in the service area and
VIA previously operated a route on base, but because it
traveled "closed door" for security measures through the
City of Universal City the ridership was very low and the
route was later eliminated.
Van Pools
This program is provided by the Federal Transit Authority
under the Department of Transportation. A majority of
federal employees use this option for their transit needs.
This program provides a guaranteed ride home should an
emergency occur for one of the participants in the
program. A voucher system is used to provide
reimbursement to program participants.
VIA Metropolitan Transit is the local administrator of the
program for the San Antonio - Bexar County region. VIA
hosts the database for which van pools are created and
matches individuals to other individuals in the same living
and work area to ensure the van pool would be beneficial
for all participants and to serve its purpose of reducing
vehicular miles on roadways. The program began in
2006 and currently has 38 van pools going to JBSA -R.
This is an increase from 3 van pools in early 2010.
Source: VIA Metropolitan Transit,
http://www.viainfo.net/ServicelVanpoo/Main.aspx
Road network near JBSA-Randolph is congested
with frequent
use B k i h. local
Traffic delays are caused by the volume of commuters
transiting to and from JBSA -R and surrounding
communities. JBSA -R employs a workforce of over
9,600, and traffic congestion is exacerbated by the large
number of vehicles entering or departing during peak
Page 5.12 -,1
hours. This congestion threatens mission readiness of
JBSA -R. Inability to reach JBSA -R in a timely manner
can result in delays in mission deployment. Another
effect of congestion near JBSA -R is the increased travel
time for those in communities near the base. Road
extensions, expansions, and other level -of- service (LOS)
improvements have been programmed in the long range
transportation plan, but are underfunded and not
guaranteed.
Sources: TIP 2013 -2016 Roadway List, San Antonio -Bexar
County MPO Mobility 2035 Plan
Handbook on Alternative Work Schedules
The Office of Personnel Management has developed a
handbook to assist federal agencies in establishing and
administering alternative work schedules. These
alternative work schedules include Flexible Work
Schedules and Compressed Work Schedules. The intent
of these programs is to decrease costs to the federal
agency and realize an indirect benefit of decreasing
roadway congestion during normal business hours for
those eligible employees.
A Flexible Work Schedule allows a full -time or part -time
employee to determine his or her own schedule within
the limits set by the federal agency.
A Compressed Work Schedule allows a full -time or
part -time employee to accomplish their set time in a
timeframe less than the typical work week, such as
working four 10 -hour days instead of five 8 -hour days.
Source: Office of Personnel Management, Pay & Leave
Reference Materials, http:/ /www.opm.gov /policy -data-
o versigh t /pa y -1 ea ve/referen ce-
ma terials /handbooks /alterna ti ve- work - schedules/
Telecommuting Pilot Program at .joint
Base San Antonio - Randolph
A telecommuting pilot program was internally discussed
with JBSA -R and presented at an Association of Defense
Communities Conference in 2012. This program is
intended to allow eligible workers employed at JBSA -R
the opportunity to work remotely from home. The intent
of this effort was to decrease vehicular miles on
roadways, especially during peak morning and evening
hours, while maintaining the same level of productivity.
This would enable on -base, mission critical personnel
ease of mobility to and from work.
Source: Association of Defense Communities Conference,
2012, http://www.defensecommunities.orglwp-
content /uploads /2012/08 /Group - Presenation- Part -II. pdf
Richard Drive) and Interstate 35 in the city of
Schertz may result in increased local traffic.
The areas surrounding JBSA -R including the cities of
Cibolo, Converse, Garden Ridge, Schertz, and Selma
have experienced dramatic growth in population over the
last decade. Out of all the cities surrounding the base
with the highest percentages of population increases, the
City of Converse had the lowest percent increase at
58 percent, and the City of Selma experienced the most
growth with a 603 percent increase from 2000 to 2010.
This dramatic growth can create numerous opportunities
for the communities and the base; conversely, this rapid
growth can also cause potential constraints on
infrastructure including limiting roadway capacity.
Roadway capacity is already a regional issue further
discussed in Issue RC -7. This roadway congestion
coupled with continued development or potential
development in the region can exacerbate the roadway
capacity issues resulting in increased delays for
commuter traffic and diminished productivity for base
personnel who travel to and from the base daily.
stacking LOMA, " M", WA #11, My**% P11k*JL1_1X-"AZ1" am," W*MA*1%ti
halt thru-traffic on State Highway 218
(Pat Booker Road) causing periodic vehicle
near o:
Three main rail lines maintained by the Union Pacific
Railroad traverse the JBSA -R JLUS study area. Two of
the rail lines run along the northern boundary of the
City of Schertz and the third runs parallel to
Farm -to- Market (FM) -78, immediately north of JBSA -R.
While railroads have a major influence on the growth and
economic vitality of the region, they also cause traffic
conflicts at intersections with at -grade crossings. Trains
can cause traffic delays, safety concerns, and impede
access for emergency vehicles.
With the growth of industry including the natural gas
exploration and extraction industry and the influx of
people in the region, there has been an increase in
demand for the use of Union Pacific's rail infrastructure to
ship commodities and other resources into and out of the
San Antonio metropolitan area. The increased usage of
the Union Pacific infrastructure can exacerbate roadway
capacity issues in areas that already experience
congestion and stoppages of traffic due to railway
commerce.
Specifically, the intersection at Pat Booker Road and
FM -78 already experiences traffic stacking when railway
activity occurs. This railway activity has been known to
occur during peak hours creating delays and congestion
near the main gate at JBSA -R. These increased delays
and / or commuting times can negatively impact the
timeliness of base missions. Additionally, rail operations
may impede timely access to the base by emergency
personnel or other military equipment, which could pose
a safety concern and / or compromise base operations.
r; r=
Railroad Crossing Inventory
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Crossing located at
Pat Booker Road and FM -78 is identified on the UPRR's
inventory listing as Number 764352R. This number can
be entered into the railroad crossing inventory at the
following website, http: / /www.fra.dot.gov /Page /P0111 to
retrieve information specific to the crossing.
For the past several years, this crossing has a total of
ten daily train movements during daylight hours, 6 am to
6 pm. These hours include peak hours for travel times to
and from the base. This creates numerous opportunities
for traffic stacking and even potential security issues
relative to the main gate at JBSA -R due to the congestion
caused by traffic stacking.
Source: Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety
Analysis, Generate Crossing Inventory and Accident Reports,
http : / /Safetydata. fra. dot. gov/ officeofsafety 1publicsitelcrossin
g /crossing. aspx
Intelligent Transportation Systems
In 2010, the Department of Transportation released a
strategic plan for intelligent transportation systems for all
modes of transportation, i.e. cars, trucks, buses, and
trains. This plan links intelligent vehicles and
infrastructure together through wireless communication
to avoid potential hazards and accidents, to dispatch
emergency crews quicker, and to promote and provide
safety, mobility, and other environmental enhancements
to users of the roadways.
The wireless communication is applied either by
vehicle -to- vehicle or vehicle -to- infrastructure. These
communication methods come in the form of driver
advisories, warnings, and / or vehicle / infrastructure
controls.
Source: Department of Transportation, Intelligent
Transportation Systems, Fact Sheet,
http : / /www.its.dot.govlfactsheets /overview factsheet.htm
Thirty to 40 commercial deliveries / trucks
queue along Old Seguin Road to enter
]BSA-Randolph
congestion. impact local roadway
The South Gate to JBSA -R is accessed by Lower
Seguin Road at the southern border of the base. This
gate is the only access control point (ACP) for the
southern portion of the base and also serves as the
commercial gate. There is a high volume of traffic
traversing through this one entry point for commercial
vehicles, up to 30 or 40 trucks are forced to queue along
Old Seguin Road during certain times of the week. This
queuing can cause road maintenance and congestion
issues for the communities and the base. These
maintenance and congestion issues can result in costly
road repairs and time inefficiencies associated with
deliveries and mission critical operations for the vendors,
the community, and the base.
Existing
Defense Access Roads Program
The Defense Access Roads (DAR) Program enables the
military to contribute to roadway improvements for roads
in which military mission - specific activities are conducted
on. DAR provides funding assistance to the military
installation for projects that enhance access and mobility
for the military to ensure military readiness is the first
priority. The DAR programs provides funding for such
projects related to an increase in military population at a
base, the relocation or redesign of an access control point
or gate, or the deployment of a heavy, oversized military
vehicle.
regional Existing interstate infrastructure is at capacity,
which results in *,
impacts daily workforce commuters to and o
The San Antonio -Bexar County Metropolitan Area, which
includes JBSA -R and the surrounding cities, encompasses
over 1,200 square miles with a population of nearly two
million people, the majority of which reside in the city of
San Antonio. By 2035, the San Antonio -Bexar County
Metropolitan Area is estimated to have a population of
over two million people and 1.6 million commuters each
day. This region currently experiences high traffic
Page 5.12 -2
volumes on roads with limited capacity resulting in daily
regional congestion. This regional congestion is of
concern to 7BSA -R since a majority of military personnel
and civilian employees do not live on base or in adjacent
communities. The congestion results in long commute
hours, reduced transportation system efficiency, and in
some cases, lost productivity.
San Antonio -Bexar County Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Plan
(2013 -2016)
The San Antonio -Bexar County Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years
2013 -2016 identifies several projects intended to
improve and enhance the roadways resulting in access
and mobility improvements for the base and the regional
area. These projects are identified in Table 5.12 -1 which
provides information about the project including a
description of the project and its segment limits,
construction costs, the fiscal year for which the
construction is likely to begin, and the agency responsible
for project funding.
Some of these projects are major improvements such as
expanding segments of roadways from two lanes to four
lanes and developing a direct connector from one
highway to another major highway. Other projects are
designed to enhance quality life through the addition of
sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or safety improvements through
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) components.
Table 5.12-14 yarn Antonio- exar Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plarn Projects Relevant to the
3 5A -R Area
1477 -01 -040
0017 -10 -264
Kitty Hawk
0915 -12 -510
[► wZ119 =11.1
111S4I ONW1I11
0915 -00 -902
0915 -12 -907
VA
0915 -12 -492
VA
0915 -12 -493
VA
0915 -12 -512
VA
Source: San Antonio -Bexar County Transportation Improvement Plan (FY 2013 -2016)
FY 2014 / Lone Star Rail
District
$910,000
FY 2013 / San Antonio
$267,000
FY 2013 / AACOG
$267,000
FY 2014 / AACOG
$267,000
FY 2015 / AACOG
$267,000
Pape 5.12 -5
Please see the next page.
5.13 Safety
Military installations often engage in activities or contain
facilities that, due to public safety concerns, require
special consideration by local jurisdictions when
evaluating compatibility. It is important to regulate land
use near military airfields in order to minimize damage
from potential aircraft accidents and to reduce air
navigation hazards. Safety zones are areas where
development should be restricted due to the potential
higher risks for public safety in these areas. Issues to
consider include aircraft accident potential zones,
weapons firing range safety zones, and explosive safety
zones.
There are existing « uses and proposed
Airfields have designated safety zones composed of clear
zones (CZ) and accident potential zones (APZ) that
extend out from the runway takeoff and departure zones.
Development is a concern in these areas because this is
where statistically aircraft accidents are more likely to
occur. When incompatible development occurs in these
areas, the safety risk for the general public and the pilot
increases significantly.
rt
There are numerous existing land use categories that are
incompatible with the recommendations as presented in
the AICUZ study for )BSA -R. In the northern runway CZs
there are currently 8.8 acres of commercial / retail,
9.1 acres of single - family residential, and 3.5 acres of
multi - family residential that are incompatible. Within the
northern APZs I, there are 117.3 acres of single - family
residential and 20.5 acres of multi - family residential that
are incompatible. There are 18.7 acres of multi - family
residential within the northern APZs II that are currently
incompatible. The current land use evaluation is
illustrated on Figure 5 -13.1A
The City of Schertz has 11.1 acres of commercial land
and 45.5 acres of single - family residential land located
within the CZs of southern ends of the runways that are
incompatible with the AICUZ study recommendations.
There are 18.3 acres of single - family residential use in
the southern APZ I that are incompatible. The City of
Schertz allows two dwelling units in its single family
residential land use category. While this density is
recommended in APZ II; it is not recommended for the
CZ or APZ I. Figure 5 -13.18 illustrates existing land use
evaluation within the southern CZs.
These existing land uses are incompatible in this area
because they exceed the recommended density or
intensity expressed as floor area ratio (FAR). Both cities
have an unspecified floor area ratio - the ratio of building
gross floor area relative to the lot size for commercial
development. The AICUZ study also recommends no
residential uses in the CZ or in APZ I.
Comprehensive Plans contains future land uses which are
the vision for growth in the future. Despite the AICUZ
study recommendations, there is an increase in the
amount of incompatible land within the CZs and APZs I
based on these future land uses -28.5 acres of
commercial and 10.9 acres of single - family residential
land in the northern CZs, which are incompatible. Within
the APZs I, there are 5.2 acres of mobile home /
manufactured housing and 159.2 acres of single - family
residential that is incompatible. These future land uses
are shown on Figure 5- 13.2A. The future land use for the
APZ I located in the City of Schertz shows the majority of
future land uses as light industrial and park.
Figure 5 -13.2B provides an evaluation of future land uses
in the southern runway safety zones. Within the
southern CZs, there are 52.3 acres of planned unit
development, 18.5 acres of light industrial, 12.8 acres of
commercial / retail, and 6.2 acres of single - family
residential that are incompatible. In the APZs I, there
are 599.6 acres of planned development and 36.5 acres
of single - family residential that are incompatible.
Residential use is not compatible within APZ I, so if a
planned development district includes residential uses it
would not be compatible.
Zoning is the regulatory implementation of the future
land use. Despite the AICUZ study recommendations,
there are incompatibly -zoned lands for residential in the
CZs and APZ I for both northern and southern portions of
the runways. In the northern CZs, there are 20.9 acres
zoned commercial and 10.9 acres zoned single - family
residential, which are incompatible. in the northern APZs
I, there are 8.3 acres of mobile home / manufactured
housing, 21.1 acres of multi - family residential, 33 acres
of public / institutional, and 155.5 acres of single - family
residential zoned land, which are incompatible. There is
10.8 acres of multi - family residential zoned land
incompatible in the northern APZs II. This evaluation is
shown on Figure 5- 13.3A.
Figure 5 -13.3B shows the evaluation of zoning within the
southern runway safety zones. There are 78.1 acres of
rural residential, 12.5 acres of commercial / retail, and
1.8 acres of light industrial zoned land within the CZs,
which are incompatible. The APZs I contain 166.4 acres
of planned development, 15.6 acres of rural residential,
and three acres of single - family residential land, which is
incompatible. There are 20.8 acres in the APZs II zoned
as commercial / retail, which is incompatible.
Purge 5,13-1
Page 5,13-2
Page 3. 13-3
Page 5,13-5
Page 5,13-6
Page 5. 13- 7
DOD Instruction 4165.57 Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones
The DOD Instruction 4165.57 (DODI 4165.57) Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones is a DOD instruction
that provides guidance to military and community
planners about data related to aircraft operations
including flight tracks and utilization and noise modeling
for the various aircraft at an installation. This particular
DODI was recently updated in 2011, thus was used for
the purposes of planning guidance and assessment in this
]LUS. The DODI 4165.57 provides more current
recommendations and specifications for planning land
uses in the accident potential zones and the noise
contours of an airfield. Table 5 -13.1 identifies the
compatible and incompatible land uses in the CZs and
APIs for the ]BSA- Randolph airfield from the DODI. It is
important to note that the communities surrounding the
base have not incorporated this tabular data nor the data
from the 2008 Randolph AICUZ Report into their UDCs or
zoning ordinances in effort to provide transparency and
educate the development community.
JBSA- Randolph Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Report
The 2008 ]BSA- Randolph AICUZ report recommends land
uses that were compatible and identified land uses that
were incompatible with the safety zones. These
recommendations are to protect the general public,
pilots, and military equipment should an airplane accident
occur. While the communities refer to the table and the
AICUZ report to make a general assessment of
compatibility when a development action is proposed in
these areas, the table is not public knowledge for the
development community to reference when preparing
plans and the 2008 ]BSA- Randolph AICUZ Report is
dated.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
212.004
The Chapter 212.004 of the Texas Local Government
Code (LGC) authorizes a property owner to subdivide
their land into minimum five -acre lots as long as there is
access to a public street and no major additional
improvements are made to the property, which requires
public services. This is important to note here when
considering adjusting the densities for the safety zones.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter
232
The Chapter 232 of the Texas LGC also authorizes a
property owner within a county to subdivide their land
into minimum 10 -acre lots as long as there is no public
right -of -ways being dedicated. In addition, LGC Chapter
232.015(f) enables this subdivision to occur without
having to have access to a public street.
EMIIIIIIIIINIENEMIMMEMEMEM
22
Textile mill products; manufacturing
N
N
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.56
23
Apparel and other finished products made
N
N
N
from fabrics, leather, and similar materials;
manufacturing
24
Lumber and wood products (except
N
Y
Y
Max. FAR
furniture); manufacturing
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II
25
Furniture and fixtures; manufacturing
N
Y''
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0,56 in APZ II
26
Paper & allied products; manufacturing
N
Y
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II
27
Printing, publishing, and allied industries
N
Y
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II;
28
Chemicals and allied products; manufacturing
N
N
N
29
Petroleum refining and related industries
N
N
30
Manufacturing3
31
Rubber and misc. plastic products,
N
N
N
manufacturing
32
Stone, clay and glass products manufacturing
N
N
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.56
33
Primary metal industries
N
N+
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0,56'
34
Fabricated metal products; manufacturing
N
N
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.56
35
Professional, scientific, and controlling
IN
N
N
instruments; photographic and optical goods;
watches and clocks manufacturing
39
Miscellaneous manufacturing
N
Y
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II
40
Transportation, Communications and
'... UtiiitieS3,4
41
Railroad,; rapid rail transit and street railroad
N '
Y6
Y
Max. FAR
transportation
0.28 in APZ I ,
0.56 in APZ II
42
Motor vehicle transportation
N
Y6
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II
43
Aircraft transportation
N
Y6
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I''
0.56 in APZ II
44
Marine craft transportation
N
Y6
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II
45
Highway & street; right -of -way
Ys
Y6'
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II'
46
Automobile parking
N
Y6
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II
Purge 5,13 -9
48
Utilities?
N
Y6
Y6
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I
0.56 in APZ II
48.5
Solid waste disposal (landfills, incinerators,
N
N
N
etc.)
49
Other transportation communications and
N
Y6
y
See note 6
utilities
below
50
Trade
51
Wholesale trade
N
Y'
Y
Max. FAR
0.28 in APZ I!
0.56 in APZ II
52
Retail trade - building materials, hardware and
N
Y
Y
See note 8
farm equipment
below
53
Retail trader including shopping centers,
N
N,
Y
Max. FAR in
discount clubs, home improvement stores,
APZ II is 0,16+
electronics superstores, etc.
54
Retail trade -food
N
N
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.24
55
Retail trade - automotive, marine craft, aircraft
N '
Y
Y
Max. FAR
and accessories
0.14 in APZ I
0.28 in APZ II
56
Retail trade - apparel and accessories
N
N
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.28
57
Retail trade- furniture, home furnishings and
N
N
Y
Max. FAR in
equipment
APZ 11 is 0.28
58
Retail trade - eating and drinking
N
N
N
establishments
59
Other retail trade
N !
N
Y
Max, FAR in
APZ II is 0.16+
60
Services'®
61
Finance, insurance and real estate services
N '
N'
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.22
62
Personal services
N
N
Y
Office uses
only.
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.22
62.4
Cemeteries
N
Y11
Y11
63
Business services (credit reporting; mail,
N
Y
Y
Max. FAR in
stenographic, reproduction, advertising)
APZ II is 0.22
617
Warehousing and storage services12
N
Y
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ Iis1.0
APZ II is 2.0
64
Repair services +
N
Y
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ I' is 0.11
APZ II is 0.22'
65
Professional services
N
N
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.22
65.1
Hospitals, nursing homes
N
N'
N
65.1
Other medical facilities
N
N
N
69
Miscellaneous services N
69.1
Religious activities N
70
Cultural, Entertainment and Recreational
71
Cultural activities (including churches) N
71.2
Nature exhibits N
72
Public assembly N
72.1
Auditoriums, concert halls N
72.11
Outdoor music shell, amphitheaters N
72.2
Outdoor sports arenas, spectator sports N
73
Amusements - fairgrounds, miniature golf, N
Y13
driving ranges, amusement parks, etc.
74
Recreational activities (including golf courses, !, N
riding stables, water recreation)
75
Resorts and group camps; N
76
Parks N
80
Resources Production and Extraction
81
Agriculture (except livestock) Y
81.5,
Livestock farming and N
81.7
animal breeding
82
Agricultural related activities N
83 Forestry activities16 N
I
Y13
y14,15
A
Y
Max. FAR in
APZ II is 0.22
N
N
Y13
N
N
N
N
Y
Y13
Max. FAR in
APZ I is 0.11
APZ II is 0.22
N
Y13
Max. FAR in
APZ I is 0.11
APZ II is 0.22
Y11
Max.: FAR in
APZ I is 0.11
APZ II is 0.22+
y14
Y14,15
Y Max. FAR in
APZ I is 0.28
APZ II is
0.56, no
activity that
produces
smoke, glare,
or involves
explosives
Page S. 13-11 1
SLUCM - Standard Land Use Coding Manual, U.S. Department of Transportation
Y (Yes) - Land uses and related structures are normally compatible without restriction
N (No) - Land uses and related structures are not normally compatible and should be prohibited.
Yx - Yes with restrictions. The land uses and related structures are generally compatible. However, see notes indicated by the
superscript.
Nx - No with exceptions. The land uses and related structures are generally incompatible. However, see notes indicated by the
superscript.
FAR - Floor Area Ratio. A floor area ratio is the ratio between the square feet of floor area of the building and the gross site
area. It is customarily used to measure non - residential intensities.
Du /Ac - Dwelling Units an Acre. This is customarily used to measure residential densities.
1. A "Yes" or a "No" designation for compatible land use is to be used only for general comparison. Within each, uses exist where
further evaluation may be needed in each category as to whether it is clearly compatible, normally compatible, or not compatible
due to the variation of densities of people and structures. In order to assist air installations and local governments, general
suggestions as to FARs are provided as a guide to density in some categories. In general, land use restrictions that limit
occupants, including employees, of commercial, service, or industrial buildings or structures to 25 an acre in APZ I and 50 an acre
in APZ II are considered to be low density. Outside events should normally be limited to assemblies of not more than 25 people
an acre in APZ I, and maximum assemblies of 50 people an acre in APZ II. Recommended FARs are calculated using standard
parking generation rates for various land uses, vehicle occupancy rates, and desired density in APZ I and II. For APZ I, the
formula is FAR = 25 people an acre /(Average Vehicle Occupancy x Average Parking Rate x (43560/1000)). The formula for APZ II
is FAR = 50 /(Average Vehicle Occupancy x Average Parking Rate x (43560/1000)).
2. The suggested maximum density for detached single family housing is two Du /Ac. In a planned unit development (PUD) of
single family detached units where clustered housing development results in large open areas, this density could possibly be
increased slightly provided the amount of surface area covered by structures does not exceed 20 percent of the PUD total area.
PUD encourages clustered development that leaves large open areas.
3. Other factors to be considered: Labor intensity, structural coverage, explosive characteristics, air - pollution, electronic
interference with aircraft, height of structures, and potential glare to pilots.
4. No structures (except airfield lighting and navigational aids necessary for the safe operation of the airfield when there are no
other siting options), buildings, or above - ground utility and communications lines should normally be located in Clear Zone areas
on or off the air installation. The Clear Zone is subject to the most severe restrictions.
5. Rights -of -way for fenced highways, without sidewalks or bicycle trails, are allowed.
Source: DOD Instruction 4165.57, Air Installations Compatibl
Review of Communities UDCs and Zoning
Ordinances
The following is a review of zoning for land within the
JBSA -R safety zones. Table 5 -13.2 identifies the zoning
district, regulated densities, and AICUZ evaluation with
e Use Zones, 2011.
the safety zones of the airfield. Some of the uses within
these areas may be considered pre- existing
(grandfathered) or non - conforming depending on their
location within noise contours as addressed in
Section 5 -11, Noise and Vibration.
Incompatible in CZ and APZ I.
Conditionally compatible in
APZ II if only 1 or 2 du / ac is
allowed
Incompatible in CZ
Conditionally compatible in
APZ I and II; Shopping malls
are incompatible in CZs and
APZs
Page 5.13-1..3
R -A - Single - Family-
21,780 SF min lot size
2 du / ac
Incompatible in CZ and APZ I.
Residential /Agricultural
Conditionally compatible in
APZ II
R -2 - Single - Family
8,400 SF min lot size
Not specified
Incompatible in CZ and APZ I.
Residential -2
Conditionally compatible in
APZ II if only 1 or 2 du / ac is
allowed
NS - Neighborhood
10,000 SF min lot size
Not specified
Incompatible in CZ;
Services
Conditionally compatible in
GB - General Business
APZs depending on specific use
GB -2 - General
and FAR requirements
Business-II
M -1 - Manufacture Light
PUB - Public Use District
itinued)
PDD - Planned
Development standards
Not specified
Incompatible in CZ and APZ I
Development
for each PDD shall be set
Conditionally Compatible in
forth in an ordinance
APZ II
granting the PDD.
R -1 - Single - Family
5,600 to 6,000 SF min lot
-8 du /ac
Not applicable to CZ and APZ I
Dwelling
size
Incompatible in APZ II
A -R - Agricultural- Ranch
43,560 SF min lot size
1 du /ac
Not applicable to CZ and APZ I
Compatible in APZ II only
P - Public Use
6,000 to 7,500 SF min lot
j Not specified
Not applicable to CZ and APZ I
size
Conditionally compatible in
APZ II
C -2 - Commercial 2
10,000 to 12,000 SF min
Not specified
Conditionally compatible in
lot size
APZ II —uses that attract large
numbers of people are
incompatible
LI - Light Industrial
6,000 to 7,500 SF min lot
Not specified
Not applicable to CZ and APZ I
size
Conditionally compatible in
APZ II
ty
R -1 - Large Lot
7,500 SF min lot size
3 du / ac
Incompatible
Residential
R -2 - Low Density
6,500 SF min lot size
5 du / ac
Incompatible
Residential
R -3 - Medium
6,000 SF min lot size
7 du / ac
Incompatible
Residential
R -4 - High Density
3,500 SF min lot size
12 du / ac
Incompatible
Residential
R-OT - "Old Town"
4,000 SF min lot size
16 du / ac
Incompatible
Residential
n-s - wuunnm|ly
Residential
m*-2- Mobile Home
pam
o-z - me|uhuvmuvu
Services
c'z - xetan
c-a - commerc|a|
Service
c-4-General
Commercial
| o/s - ovensvace
Source: Converse Zoning Ordinance, o/
Universal City Zoning Ordinance, 2oo7
8,000 SF min lot size
zndu/ac
,.snnsp min lot size
4du/mc
Unspecified
Not specified
| No development
| Not specified
06; Schertz UDC, 2010; San Antonio UDC, 2009; Selma
�����
A portion of existing development
The City of Seguin's Comprehensive Plan identifies the
southeast portion of the city located east of Geronimo
Creek and west of the ]BSA-Seguin as the Randolph
District (referred to as `Randolph Air Force Auxiliary
Base'). The Randolph District is within the City's ETJ, but
not part of the City's incorporated area.
The unincorporated land within the Randolph District is
not zoned for specific uses because Texas counties have
limited land use authority. Subdivision regulations allow
for various land uses in unincorporated areas, e.g.,
residential, both single - family and manufactured homes,
surface mining, and agricultural.
The concern associated with uncontrolled land uses in
and around the JBSA- Seguin airfield is that incompatible
development could occur in the mission critical areas of
the airfield. Incompatible development in or around the
airfield safety zones could result in encroachment and
affect the mission. If increased encroachment occurs,
then JBSA -R could lose opportunities to receive new
additional missions.
It is important to note that the safety zones associated
with JBSA- Seguin extend into the city's eastern boundary
and include zoned, incorporated areas. The following is a
review of these areas.
Table 5 -13.3 identifies the zoning districts and land uses
found in the JBSA- Seguin airfield safety zones. The table
also includes a compatibility evaluation of the zoning and
land use densities against the recommendations of the
AICUZ report for the safety zones of the JBSA- Seguin
Auxiliary Airfield.
Table 5 -13.3 UDC Z; wnin Density and AICUZ Evaluation for Property in JBSA -Se vin Safety Zone
A -R - Agricultural
Ranch
PUD - Planned Unit
Development
Source: Seguin UDC, 1989
Figure 5 -13.4 provides an evaluation of parcels within the
]BSA-Seguin airfield safety zones. As illustrated in the
figure, there are 2.5 acres of commercial and 14.4 acres
of single - family residential land in the CZs of
]BSA-Seguin that are incompatible because the AICUZ
recommends no development within CZ to protect the
investment of both the public and private landowner and
the overall welfare of the public from aircraft accidents in
this area.
In APZ I, there are also commercial and single family
residential uses. Commercial is conditionally compatible
in APZ I to protect the public from accidents. As
indicated in the DODI 1465.57 for commercial uses, the
recommended FAR is between 0.14 and 0.16 in APZ I.
Although single family residential is also not
recommended in APZ I, there are 41.4 acres in this zone
Incompatible in CZ and APZ I Conditionally
compatible in APZ II
Incompatible in CZ and APZ I Conditionally
compatible in APZ II
In APZ II, fewer restrictions are applied to land uses
because the potential for aircraft accidents decrease in
this area. Land uses found in APZ II such as commercial
and open space will have fewer restrictions imposed on
them. The FAR for commercial and industrial uses varies
depending upon the type of use. There are 29.4 acres of
incompatible single - family residential in the APIs II.
Figure 5 -13.5 illustrates land uses in the ]BSA-Seguin
runway safety zones per the Seguin Master Plan. There
are 69.9 acres of land designated as planned unit
development in the airfield CZs. This area should be
restricted from development. There are 9.3 acres
designated single - family residential in the CZ. This figure
also illustrates the incompatible 170.5 acres of single -
family residential and 141.7 acres of planned unit
development in APZ I.
Page 5-13- 17
Page 5. 13-18
The concern with planned unit development in this area is
related to the potential inclusion of residential uses and
intensity of proposed commercial uses since the
development standards for planned unit development are
determined on a case -by -case basis.
Figure 5 -13.6 illustrates the evaluation of zoning against
the recommended guidelines in the AICUZ study. There
are 1.3 acres zoned planned unit development and
0.2 acres zoned single - family residential use in the CZs.
There are 32.8 acres zoned public / institutional,
19.2 acres zoned as planned unit development, and
17.7 acres zoned single family residential located in APZ I
that are considered incompatible.
Zoned uses within APZ II are all conditionally compatible
based on the use type. Aircraft accidents can still occur
in this area, so land uses that encourage large numbers
of people and / or attract birds and other wildlife should
be discouraged to protect the general welfare of the
public and the military investment.
Municipal Airport is nonconforming due to
buildings or structures located in runway
protection
Unlike safety zones associated with military airports,
municipal airports and their associated runway protection
zones (RPZs) are regulated by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). While only seven percent of
JBSA -R military operations occur at Stinson Municipal
Airport, the need to protect the public and military
investment in this facility is still a concern for JBSA -R and
participating JLUS partners with a focus on preventing
further encroachment into the mission critical RPZs and
protection of the public from the potential of military
aircraft accidents.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport
Improvement Program Sponsor Guide -
Section 550 - Runway Protection Zones
The FAA Improvement Program Sponsor Guide provides
information regarding compatible land use in the RPZ and
recommendations for RPZ land use management. The
following is an excerpt from the Sponsor Guide:
Compatible land use within the RPZ is generally
restricted to such land uses as agricultural, golf
course, and similar uses that do not involve
congregations of people or construction of
buildings or other improvements that may be
obstructions.
"The following land use criteria apply within the
RPZ: (a) While it is desirable to clear all objects
from the RPZ, some uses are permitted,
provided they do not attract wildlife, are outside
the Runway Object Free Areas (OFA), and do not
interfere with navigational aids. Automobile
parking facilities, although discouraged, may be
permitted, provided the parking facilities and
any associated appurtenances, in addition to
meeting all of the preceding conditions, are
located outside of the object free area
extension. (B) Land uses prohibited from the
RPZ are: residences and places of public
assembly. (Churches, schools, hospitals, office
buildings, shopping centers, and other uses with
similar concentrations of persons typify places of
public assembly.)"
In cases where the land is already developed
and it would be too expensive to acquire the
existing development, this policy is a
recommendation to the landowner (i.e. it is a
notice to the landowner that the FAA considers
such uses incompatible).
"Where it is determined to be impractical for the
airport owner to acquire and plan the land uses
within the entire RPZ, the RPZ land use
standards have recommendation status for that
portion of the RPZ not controlled by the airport
owner. "
Where such land is vacant, it is rarely
impractical to acquire the land in the RPZ. Even
if the cost of the land seems to be prohibitive
the airport owner is expected to exercise
sufficient control through zoning or easements
to prevent prohibited land uses.
Figure 5 -13.7 illustrates the evaluation of parcels against
the FAA recommended land uses for RPZs. There are
currently 4.1 acres of single - family residential, 1.1 acres
of multi - family residential, 6.4 acres of commercial, and
1.3 acres of industrial land uses located in the RPZs that
are incompatible per the standards of the FAA program.
Figure 5 -13.8 illustrates the evaluation of the
comprehensive plan- designated future land uses and
their compatibility with the RPZs. There are 3.3 acres of
single - family residential, 7.6 acres of commercial, and
6.7 acres of public / institutional, and 1.8 acres of mixed
use future land uses incompatible with the RPZs for
Stinson Municipal Airport.
Figure 5 -13.9 illustrates the evaluation of the zoned land
uses and their compatibility with the RPZs. There are
19.5 acres zoned for single - family residential in the RPZs.
Residential uses are incompatible in the RPZs per
recommendations in the FAA Sponsor Guide. There are
10.4 acres of light industrial, one acre of multi - family
residential, and 4.7 acres of commercially zoned land
which are incompatible in the RPZs.
Page 5.13-20
Page S. 3-21
Page 5. 13-22
Paae 5.13-23
Collisions with birds on the ground or in the air, as well
as with wildlife on the ground, are dangerous for pilots,
people on the ground, and aircraft operations in general.
The primary concern at JBSA -R and JBSA- Seguin is bird
activity, more so than ground -based wildlife, interfering
with air operations. A number of variables factor into
determining whether a specific land use will result in Bird
Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) issues. Therefore, the
location relative to air operations and the unique
development aspects of each land use must be assessed
on a case -by -case basis. It is important to note that the
BASH issue may be directly related to a component of the
primary property use (i.e., stormwater retention ponds in
a residential development) or to amenities associated
with a land use (i.e., water hazards on a golf course).
Some land uses have a higher probability of attracting
birds. These uses include, but are not limited to,
agriculture, conservation lands, landfills, lakes and
ponds, open space, public / semi - public, rural residential,
and vacant / undeveloped. Within approach and
departure flight tracks and in close proximity to JBSA -R
and JBSA- Seguin, there are bird attractants that could
impact aircraft operations at the airfield.
The FAA recommends a distance of five miles between
the farthest edge of an airport's air operations area and
any hazardous wildlife attractant that may cause wildlife
movement across or into the approach or departure
airspace. An air operations area is defined as any area of
an airport used or intended to be used for landing,
takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft, including
such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or
intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of
aircraft in addition to its associated runway, taxiways, or
apron.
Landfills, golf courses, tree lines, agricultural uses,
wetlands, water features, and areas that accumulate
standing water during and after periods of rain are some
of the features that have been identified as wildlife
attractants, since the food sources, tall vegetation, large
grassy areas, or open water are attractive to birds. Bird
strikes can cause increased risks for accidents, result in
costly repairs, put pilot safety at risk, and affect military
missions.
During fiscal year (FY) 2012 and 2013, a total of 165 bird
strikes were recorded with aircraft from JBSA -R. Some
of the strikes were minor and did not result in damage.
In FY 2012, bird strikes resulted in $709,000 worth of
damage or labor costs to repair aircraft. The total costs
for FY 2013 are not yet available, but the costs for
00
Z is u
FY12 wFY13
Figure 5 -13.11 illustrates the FAA - recommended
five -mile BASH relevancy area and locations of existing
BASH concerns. One of the greatest concerns for bird
threats while flying at low altitude comes from vultures
and soaring raptors near the airfield. A soaring raptor
area is located north / northwest of JBSA -R on the
perimeter of the five -mile BASH relevancy area. One
landfill is located northeast of JBSA -R within the BASH
relevancy area, and another is located southwest of
JBSA -R, outside the BASH relevancy area. The City of
Converse is contemplating construction of a golf course
southwest of the JBSA -R airfield that could be a BASH
concern. A soaring raptor area, adjacent to JBSA- Seguin
Auxiliary Airfield, is shown on Figure 5- 13.12.
The jurisdictions surrounding JBSA -R and JBSA- Seguin
have not developed policies or land use regulations that
address the issue of bird attractants around airfields.
Existing uses that are bird attractants are not likely to
change, but proactive management of potential uses that
are likely to attract birds for the future would improve
operational safety of JBSA -R aircraft operations.
01=
Federal Aviation Administration Advisory
Circular No.150/5200 -33B, 2007
The FAA Advisory Circular Number 150/5200 -33B
addresses hazardous wildlife attractants on or near
airports. It was developed to provide guidance on
specific land uses that have higher potential to attract
hazardous wildlife on or near public -use airports and
recommended for use by public -use airport operators,
local planners, and developers near airports to reduce or
identify bird and wildlife hazards to minimize the risks of
strikes with aircraft.
Page 5.13-25
12th Flying Training Wing Bird / Wildlife
Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Plan, 2012
The most recent BASH plan for JBSA -R was released in
2012. The purpose of the plan is to establish procedures
and responsibilities for pilots and personnel to minimize
the risk for bird strikes. It covers JBSA -R, ]BSA-Seguin,
and other areas where 12th Flying Training Wing aircraft
operate on a regular basis. The plan recommends threat
analyses for specific times of day and runway operations
to manage and decrease BASH risks. Threat analyses
include a review of `specific periods in which hazards
have historically occurred and /or can be expected to
occur." Threat analyses also include review and
investigation of pilot reports for dense vulture activity.
There are several operations identified that guide the
BASH plan to ensure pilot safety and minimize BASH
risks. These operations include:
1. Procedures to eliminate or reduce environmental
conditions that attract birds / wildlife to ]BSA-R;
2. Procedures for reporting hazardous bird / wildlife
activity and altering flying operations;
3. Provisions to disseminate information to assigned
or transient aircrews for specific hazards and
procedures for avoidance;
4. Procedures to disperse birds / wildlife on the
airfield; and
5. Establishment of a Bird Hazard Working Group.
This plan is effective for managing bird hazards on and
near the airfields by Air Force personnel, but it does not
address or include participation from local jurisdictions.
The plan is developed for the Air Force to use internally
and is not made public unless specifically requested by an
entity to use for bird management purposes.
be incompatible per DOD AICUZ instructions.
During the property acquisition action to establish
Randolph Air Force Base (AFB) in the 1930s, the concept
of runway safety zones did not exist. In the 1970s,
implementation of the AICUZ program focused more
attention to safety surrounding military airfields. Due to
the runway lengths and Air Force guidance, the Air Force
acquired additional property outside Randolph AFB within
the newly created CZ areas. The guidance states that
"the only real property interests to be acquired by the
Air Force are those necessary to prevent incompatible
land use in the Clear Zone [because] the overall risk for
aircraft accidents in the Clear Zone is so high."
]BSA- Seguin Auxiliary Airfield was established in 1941
with three operational runways. Though only a single
runway is currently in use, the history of property
acquisition to implement the Air Force guidance within CZ
areas is limited.
When the CZs were established for both JBSA -R and
JBSA- Seguin, a waiver process authorized the zones at
each installation to deviate from guidance requiring
3,000 -foot long by 3,000 -foot wide CZ dimensions.
While the width of the CZs within the boundaries of each
installation is the standard 3,000 feet, the waiver
established both airfields' CZ width to 2,000 feet for land
outside of their boundaries, and is noted in Air Force
Handbook (AFH) 32 -7084. Thus, the CZs for the
runways at JBSA -R and JBSA- Seguin are 2,000 feet wide
(3,000 feet wide for areas inside the installation
boundaries) by 3,000 feet long.
Air Force guidance notes that "the DOD component shall
consider the acquisition of necessary real property
interests when local development regulations do not
provide sufficient protection for aircraft operations (e.g.,
preventing incompatible development or airspace
obstructions)." The guidance also states "Ownership in
fee or of an appropriate restrictive use easement within
the Clear Zone is preferred, unless State and local
government development regulations will clearly have
long -term effectiveness or acquisition is not practicable."
Recent guidance by the Air Education Training Command
recommended incorporation of the standardized CZ areas
(3,000 feet wide by 3,000 feet long) for JBSA -R and
JBSA- Seguin. The standard CZ areas associated with
JBSA -R include approximately 215 acres currently owned
by municipal or private interests in the cities of Converse,
Schertz, and Universal City. In the area that would
include expanded CZs on the southern ends of the
runways, the land is primarily agricultural or
undeveloped, but there are a few single - family residential
homes in the City of Schertz. This land is also zoned
residential / agricultural or office / professional, so it has
the potential for incompatible development in the future.
The undeveloped land in the City of Converse is currently
zoned commercial, which would also be incompatible.
Land that within the northern expanded CZs includes
development that is incompatible within a CZ. These
properties include commercial / retail, single- and
multi - family residential land uses. If the CZs are
expanded to the standard size, then these existing
developments will be incompatible. The standard CZ
areas associated with Seguin Auxiliary Airfield are wholly
located in unincorporated Guadalupe County. The
majority of the land within the expanded standard CZs is
currently agricultural or vacant, but there is a small
amount of residential development also in the CZs, which
would be incompatible.
Unified Facilities Criteria 3- 260 -01 -
Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design
The DOD Unified Facilities Criteria 3- 260 -01 establishes
standard dimensions for CZs and APZs. The standard
dimensions for a Class B runway like the ones at JBSA -R
and JBSA- Seguin is 3,000 feet wide by 3,000 feet long,
starting from the end of the runway. This document
allows for the CZs of an airfield to deviate from the
standard length for land outside of the installation
boundaries if approved by the Air Force.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
Study for Randolph Air Force Base,
Texas, April 2008
The AICUZ study includes dimensions and recommended
land uses for aircraft safety zones. The CZs in the AICUZ
are established at the reduced dimensions. If the CZs
are modified then a revised AICUZ study will need to be
completed to address the new dimensions and provide
guidance to the communities north and south of the
runways.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
Study for Seguin Auxiliary Airfield, 2000
The AICUZ study includes dimensions and recommended
land uses for aircraft safety zones. The CZs in the AICUZ
are established at the reduced dimensions. If the CZs
are modified then a revised AICUZ study will need to be
completed to address the new dimensions and provide
guidance to the communities north and south of the
runways.
City of Schertz Zoning Districts
The City of Schertz has an AICUZ Zoning District in its
zoning ordinance. This district uses guidelines
established in the Randolph AICUZ to determine
appropriate land uses within an AICUZ area, including the
CZs. The current ordinance states that it adheres to the
AICUZ guidelines and the current AICUZ addresses the
reduced CZs. If the CZs are expanded to the standard
dimensions, then the city's zoning district may need to be
modified to be consistent with the revised CZ.
Universal City Zoning Ordinance
Universal City's zoning ordinance includes a Randolph
Compatible Use Zoning Overlay AICUZ district. This
overlay aligns with the Randolph AICUZ and land within it
is subject to the requirements of the AICUZ. The current
ordinance states that it adheres to the AICUZ guidelines
and the current AICUZ addresses the reduced CZs. If the
CZs are expanded to the standard dimensions, then the
city's zoning district may need to be modified to be
consistent with the revised CZ.
San Antonio International
equipment
redundancy
The San Antonio International Airport (SAT) Terminal
Radar Approach Control Facilities operate the San
Antonio Airport Surveillance Radar, which is the primary
radar system in the area to support the Class C airspace
associated with SAT. The Class C airspace overlaps the
approach for JBSA -R and is used to manage and
deconflict inbound flights for both SAT commercial or
private aircraft and JBSA -R military aircraft.
Due to its age and condition of the Airport Surveillance
Radar (ASR), it must be temporarily deactivated for
regular service and maintenance from time to time.
During deactivation, the radar service is unavailable
below 6,000 feet mean sea level within a 40 nautical mile
radius. Shutdowns for routine maintenance are normally
not an issue since they are scheduled and airfields can
plan accordingly, but unexpected glitches or failures can
affect the equipment and cause serious problems for the
local airfields, including those for military uses.
During a radar shutdown, there is no backup system or
emergency plan for the area. Without functioning radar,
operational aircraft must rely on visual flight rules and
larger separation distances to ensure adequate safety.
This creates delays for commercial service at SAT,
reduces the frequency of military training and readiness
for ]BSA-R, and potentially increases safety risks for
aircraft in flight or landing due to the reliance on visual
flight rules and airspace congestion. Scheduled
shutdowns will only take place if the weather is
appropriate for visual flight rules.
FAA NextGen Implementation Plan
The Federal Aviation Administration, in response to the
2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, has
implemented the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen). The intent of NextGen is to enhance
safety, reduce delays and fuel emissions, and reduce
other environmental impacts associated with air travel.
The FAA is partnering with air carriers to collect
automatic dependent surveillance- broadcast (ADS -B)
data to support early communication. This coupled with
new air traffic control technologies including automation
tools and adjustments to airspace boundaries will assist
in providing greater flexibility and management of the
national airspace system (NAS), especially as UAS make
their way into the NAS.
San Antonio International Airport Master
Plan
The San Antonio International Airport Master Plan has
indicated that the ASR is used by air traffic controllers to
identify aircraft positions and provide control instructions
for aircraft arriving and departing from SAT. The ASR is
located off the SAT site at 1571 Blue Crest Lane. The
plan did not identify the ASR as an issue to be addressed
in the near future. However this plan did identify the
main air traffic control tower (ATCT) as an issue and the
desire to relocate it is being discussed. The plan stated
that a feasibility study should be conducted to determine
the relocation of the ATCT.
�.
WT
such as recreational activities—camping, off-
both Clear Z_
Universal City.
The City of Universal City informed the JLUS process that
in the last two to three years there have been several
occasions of recreational activities that have been
occurring in the northern CZs of the JBSA - Randolph
Airfield.
As the aforementioned issues have discussed the
importance of maintaining the CZs as an area free from
development and any kind of activity is paramount, these
kinds of activities can cause an encroachment risk to the
]BSA-Randolph mission and pose a safety concern to
those residents and visitors who are using the land for
such activities. The City could not enforce any
regulations until signage or other notification method had
been implemented to notify potential trespassers and / or
recreationalists that the area was part of a military
operational area.
City of Universal City Signage
The City of Universal City has developed and posted
appropriate signage near the perimeter of this area to
inform potential trespassers and / or recreational ists the
concern associated with conducting activities in this area.
This has allowed the City to enforce and prosecute
trespassers of this area, which in turn keeps the area
clear of congregations of people.
This tool has solved the issue for the City and the
military. This issue should be considered addressed with
the existing tools and no further assessment is needed.
1 i i 4 fti fF"M3'^"Rr Y can � MO � � 4f { �
r i
]BSA- Randolph identified the issue of a private company
operating in a critical area for aviation for the
]BSA- Randolph mission. The concern is there are several
vehicles that operate and park within the critical ILS area
(glide slope critical area) for Runway 14L as illustrated in
Figures 5.13 -13a and 5.13 -13b. Figure 5.13 -13a shows
the glide slope area needed for the ILS communication to
be unobstructed. The figure also illustrates trucks and
other vehicles parked in this critical area of the
Runway 14L of JBSA- Randolph.
Glide Slope Critical Area
11,
r>
"This is a fan - shaped area that extends from the
gliideslope antenna 1,300 feet toward the approach end
of the runway or to the end of the runway, whichever is
greater. This ILS area covers an area that is 30 degrees
on either side of a line drawn through the glideslope
antenna and parallel to the runway centerline."
For safe landing operations in poor weather conditions,
the ILS must be able to transmit a reliable signal. A
signal that is affected by obstructions in its transmission
path could potentially cause an aircraft mishap on final
approach. This is especially important in this area, since
this aircraft approach path is designed for aircraft arriving
from the north of ]BSA- Randolph, directly over the
populated areas of Selma, Schertz, and Universal City.
Because of this safety risk, Air Force regulations require
that non - stationary objects, like vehicles, remain outside
of the signal area to ensure that it is protected.
i -'ape S. 13-29
Paae= 5.13-31
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13 -204V3
The AFI13 -204V3 from September 2010 provides
guidance and establishes criteria for AF airfield operations
flight. Specifically for this issue, the section that provides
guidance is Section 7.23, Precision Approach Critical
Areas. The following is excerpted from the AFI.
7.23.6.1.2. If the footprint of the selected
criteria contains a stationary object (e.g. fence,
building), ensure the unit has a current flight
inspection report on file conducted since the
object was in place. If interference is not
detected, no further action is required. If
interference is detected, the object must be
removed or the signal will not be valid under
specified weather conditions.
7.23.6.1.3. If the footprint of the selected
criteria contains a non - stationary object(s), one
or more of the following actions must be taken:
7.23.6.1.3.1. Establish procedural guidance to
control /prohibit operations in the movement
area when required to protect the signal for
aircraft on final.
7.23.6.1.3.2. At locations where
perimeter /access roads penetrate the critical
area, install stop lights (or an equivalent device)
to prevent intrusion of vehicles not in direct
radio contact with the tower, when inbound
aircraft on the approach require a protected
signal.
7.23.6.1.3.3. Use alternate approach capability
(e.g., PAR) when feasible and restrict use of the
ILSIMMLS when weather conditions dictate
protection of critical areas.
While this provides guidance to the AF, there are no tools
that assist the communities in addressing this issue other
than the recommended land uses in the AICUZ report.
With that said, the AICUZ recommendations are
guidelines; they are not regulatory in nature.
5.14 Vertical Obstructions
Vertical obstructions comprise buildings, trees,
structures, equipment, or other features of varying
heights that encroach into the navigable airspace used
for military operations. Generally, the height and
distance of the object from the nearest airfield or heliport
are the two primary factors for an object to be
considered a vertical obstruction. These objects, when
located at a certain height or in a specific location, can
present a safety hazard to both the public and military
personnel and potentially impact military readiness.
The objects of greatest concern are those closest to an
airfield. However, objects reaching heights of 100 feet or
more can compromise low -level flight operations by
limiting the areas where such operations can occur.
These objects can include a range of obstructive features
from man -made, such as telephone poles and power
lines, to natural, such as tall trees and other land
features.
w
PJAWIXV
building heights in conjunction with FAA
Imaginary Surfaces height recommendations.
Certain areas surrounding airfields have restricted height
limits due to the imaginary surfaces associated with an
airfield to enable safe aviation operations. Specific areas
on each side of the runway centerline are affected by the
transitional imaginary surface and areas directly adjacent
to a runway are affected by the approach - departure
clearance surface. Both the transitional and
approach- departure clearance surfaces are sloped from
the primary area. The primary area width is 2,000 feet,
or 1,000 feet on either side of the runway centerline.
The transitional surface slopes out and up from the sides
of the primary surface at a ratio of 7:1 (seven horizontal
feet for every one vertical foot) and continues to a height
of 150 feet. The approach- departure clearance surface
extends out and up from the ends of the runway at a
ratio of 50:1 and continues to a height of 500 feet. For
reference, the CZ length measures 3,000 feet and the
approach- departure clearance surface reaches an
elevation of 60 feet at the end of the CZ / start of APZ I.
Land located within the approach- departure clearance
surface areas outside the base are zoned for uses that
could potentially exceed these slope heights. Heights
that are exceeded near the active airfield and within the
imaginary surfaces pose a greater risk to the safety of
the general public, the pilot, and aircraft when
performing flight training missions.
The majority of communities within the study area
include building height restrictions in their zoning
regulations. Table 5 -14.1 provides an overview of the
zoning and associated heights in the surrounding
communities affected by the base. The table also
provides guidance on whether additional review may or
may not be required and where this requirement is
unknown.
Table 5-14.1. Evaluation of Community Zoning Specified Building Heights
City of San Antonio
City pf San Antonio
�����
mF-2s-Multi-Family
c's- General Commercial
|- Light Industrial
oo-smg|e-famov - urbanoevebpment
uo'Mum'rumi|v- Urban Development
oo Major Node - Urban Development
no-smu|e-mmov- Rural Development
n+sino|e-ram||v- Farm and Ranch
pm'xocommercia| - parmanuxancx
Mr-as- mu|u-pam||v
45 feet
Unknown
mF-40 - mum-pam||v
60 feet
Unknown
o-z.s - omce
z'z- General Industrial
1-2 - Heavy Industrial
MI-1 - mixed Light Industrial
o'z -o[nce
25 feet
m
mc- Neighborhood Commercial
C-1 - Light Commercial
o'a Commercial
c-2P - Commercial-Pedestrian
uo Minvrmvge - Urban Development
RD Majnrmoue - Rural Development
RD Minor Node - Rural Development
mz'2 - mmeu Heavy Industrial |
150 feet |
Unknown
City of Seguin ZL - Zero Lot Line
R -1 - Single- Family Residential
MF -1 - Multi- Family Dwelling
TH -1 - Townhouse Residential
DP -1 - Duplex (low density)
DP -2 - Duplex (medium density)
MHS - Manufactured Home Subdivision
M -R - Manufactured Home and Residential
A -R - Agricultural Ranch
MF -2 - Multi- Family Dwelling
MF -3 - Multi- Family Dwelling (High Density)
C - Commercial
O -P - Office Professional
R - Retail
MHP - Manufactured Home Park
P - Public
PUD - Planned Unit Development
I - Industrial
LI - Light Industrial
M - Mixed Use
30 feet
45 feet
Not Applicable
In- Process of Phasing Out
Y
I
OS - Open Space Not Applicable N
Sources: Converse Zoning Ordinance, 2006; Schertz UDC, 2010; San Antonio UDC, 2009; Seguin UDC, 1989; Universal City Zoning
Ordinance, 2007.
Figure 5 -14.1 illustrates the future land uses as
prescribed by the data from the various cities
surrounding the base. There are three areas of concern in
the cities of Converse and Schertz.
The City of Converse zoned commercial and planned unit
development (PUD) districts adjacent to the base on the
southwest side of 14R/32L runway. Uses within this
commercial district are permitted up to 90 feet in height,
which may exceed the controlling elevations for the
transitional surface near the airfield.
The City of Schertz has commercial future land uses
located southeast of the 14L/32R runway and areas
northeast of the same runway. The City of Schertz
permits by right a height of 120 feet in their general
business (commercial uses) district. This height at its
maximum would most likely create a vertical obstruction
in this area adjacent to the runway.
Figure 5 -14.2 illustrates the zoning in the transitional
surface areas around the runways. There are two areas
of concern relative to the zoning in this area. The City of
Converse has zoned 64 acres for commercial uses located
off runway 14R/32L, southwest of the base. Per the
City's zoning ordinance, the commercial district has
permitted heights up to 90 feet, which could present a
vertical obstruction for the airfield.
The City of Schertz has also zoned 15.6 acres in the
commercial district located off both southern ends of both
runways within the city limits and 9.6 acres in the light
industrial district off the southwestern corner of runway
14R/32L
Page 5.T4 -5
It is important to note that in the figures, the
approach- departure clearance surface has also been
identified. A case -by -case assessment of potential
vertical obstructions in this area is recommended based
on the 50:1 slope.
Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration National Geodetic Survey, Imaginary
Surfaces for Obstruction Evaluation Part 77 Object
Identification Surfaces, undated; Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Study, Randolph Air Force Base,
2008; Converse zoning map, 2010; Schertz Current
Zoning map, 2012.
The existing airport elevation for JBSA -R is 762 feet
above mean sea level (MSL). The airport elevation for
]BSA- Seguin is 525 feet MSL and the elevation for
Stinson Municipal Airport is 777 feet MSL. Ground
elevation is a concern when siting wireless
communication towers and other such structures due to
the potential for a vertical obstruction near an active
airfield. Site elevations can pose an additional threat to
navigable airspace when it has not been factored into the
development and / or there are no controls by the
communities for consideration of the site elevation.
Table 5 -14.2 provides information about the communities
and the regulated heights associated with their zoning
ordinances. The table also identifies where additional
review may be needed by a community to determine
compatibility based on regulated height, site elevation,
and location within imaginary surfaces.
Though local zoning ordinances do not consider
adjustments for site elevations that are higher than the
existing airfield elevation at JBSA Randolph for wireless
communication tower permits, telecom contractors
coordinate directly with the FAA regarding height
restrictions and lighting and a statement from
JBSA- Randolph must be provided that the proposed
communication use will not interfere with flight
operations prior to approaching local municipalities to
install or upgrade cell towers.
- and Review Evaluation
City of Live Oak Satellite Antenna
Permitted in all zoned districts
8 feet above the
N
maximum height
limitation applicable
for the zoning district
Satellite Receive
Permitted in all zoned districts
8 feet above the
N
Only Antenna
maximum height
limitation applicable
for the zoning district
Satellite Antennas
Special Exception Required for
10 feet in height above
N
Greater than 1
Residential Zoning Districts; All
the base of their
meter in diameter
Other Zoning Districts
mount
FC - Full
Permitted zoning district:
Special Permit:
y
Commercial
B -1 - Office and Professional
monopole up to 120
Antenna Facilities
B -2 - Neighborhood Services
feet; otherwise
(excluding amateur
unspecific / permitted
radio, TV, and
B -3 - General Business
within all Stealth
satellite receive-
I -1 - Light Industrial
Facility levels
only antennas)
I -2 - Medium Industrial
UR - Undeveloped
Permitted zoning district:
Special Permit:
y
Residential
R -1 - Single Family Residential
monopole up to 120
Antenna Facilities
R -2A and B - Garden Home
feet; otherwise
(excluding amateur
unspecific / permitted
radio, TV, and
R -3 - Two Family Residential
within all Stealth
satellite receive-
R -4 - Town Houses Residential
Facility levels
only antennas)
R -5 - Apartment / Multi Family
Residential
R -6 - Mobile Home
PD - Pre Development,
residential, provided that the
district is not a part of a
recorded subdivision; is a part
of a recorded subdivision, but
has not had a building permit
issued for a residential
structure; and not located within
the calculated limits of the
developed residential (DR)
threshold
DR - Developed
Permitted zoning district:
Unspecific / permitted
N
Residential
R -1 - Single Family Residential
within Stealth Facility
Antenna Facilities
R -2A and B - Garden Home
level 1; Special
(excluding amateur
Exception required for
radio, TV, and
R -3 - Two Family Residential
Stealth Facility levels
satellite receive-
R -4 - Town Houses Residential
2, 3, and 4; no
only antennas)
R -5 - Apartment / Multi Family
monopoles permitted
Residential
R -6 - Mobile Home
PD - Pre Development,
residential, provided that the
zoning district is a recorded
subdivision that has had at least
one building permit for a
residential structure
y
City of Live Oak Wireless Corridors
Property within and 150 feet on
Unspecific / permitted
Facilities (excluding
either side of a freeway or
within Stealth Facility
(continued) amateur radio, TV,
major / minor arterial roadway
levels 1, 2, and 3;
and satellite
right -of -way, as indicated on the
Special Exception
receive -only
city's thoroughfare plan
required for Stealth
antennas)
Facility level 4 and
monopole up to 120
feet
Page ,14 -1
City of Schertz
�����
Wireless Undeveloped Residential
May not extend more m
Communication (noraonuausu»u|v|gons,um
maner�t above the
Tower generally including: n-z _
top roof line vrthe
Single-Family nesmenua|'z/ n-2
building (*1 feet total)
- Single-Family nesmenua|-o/
n-s- Two-Family Residential;
R-4 - Apartment/ Multi-Family
Residential; x'o-Single-Family
Residential 'o; n,/ - Single-
Family Residential -7; u-A-
Single-Family-Residential /
Agriculture; Gn- Garden Home
Residential; Mns-
Manufactured Home
Subdivision; Mnp -
Ma^utactorednnmepam;anu
residential Planned
Development)
Full Commercial
May not extend more w@
(me - op - office/ Professional;
than * feet above the
NS - me|ohbv,xvvd sem|os;
top roof line of the
General Business; GB-2 -
building urzznfeet
seneru|ausmess'z; m'z - ught
tmu|
Manufacturing; m'z - nruvv
Manufacturing; and non-
residential Planned
Development)
City of Schertz
(continued)
City of Selma
Amateur Radio
Antenna, TV
Antenna, Satellite
Receive -Only
Antenna
Wireless
Telecommunication
Facility
Wireless Corridor
(Property within, and 150 feet
either side of, the right -of -way
of a freeway or a principal
arterial roadway, as indicated on
the Master Thoroughfare
Plan.)
Developed Residential
(recorded subdivisions,
generally including: R -1 -
Single- Family Residential -1; R -2
- Single - Family Residential -2;
R -3 - Two - Family Residential;
R -4 - Apartment / Multi - Family
Residential; R -6 - Single - Family
Residential -6; R -7 - Single -
Family Residential -7; R -A -
Single- Family - Residential /
Agriculture; GH - Garden Home
Residential; MHS -
Manufactured Home
Subdivision; MHP -
Manufactured Home Park; and
residential Planned
Development)
R -1 - Single - Family Residential -
1; R -2 - Single- Family
Residential -2; R -3 - Two - Family
Residential; R -4 - Apartment /
Multi - Family Residential; R -6 -
Single- Family Residential -6; R-
7 - Single - Family Residential -7;
R -A - Single - Family- Residential
/ Agriculture; GH - Garden
Home Residential; MHS -
Manufactured Home
Subdivision; MHP -
Manufactured Home Park; and
residential Planned Development
By Specific Use Permit
LI - Light Industrial
May not extend more
than 6 feet above the
top roof line of the
building
May not extend more
than 6 feet above the
top roof line of the
building (41 feet total)
May not extend more
than 8 feet above the
top roof line of the
building (43 feet total)
No Height Restriction
IN
in
Y
Notes:
@Tower heights of up to 120 feet in the City of Schertz would not exceed imaginary surface limitations outside of specific
imaginary surfaces (transitional and approach - departure clearance).
*Seguin Commercial Communication Tower regulation does not apply to towers less than 65 feet in height used primarily for
amateur and citizens' band radio; attached to, placed upon, or constructed on top of a building provided the tower does not exceed
65 feet or the height of the building upon which the tower is constructed, whichever is less; on property owned, leased or held by
the City of Seguin; or used by a public utility or government entity or agency for public purposes.
^Universal City Commercial Communication Tower regulation does not apply to towers less than 65 feet in height used primarily
for amateur and citizens' band radio antennae or on property owned, leased or held by the City of Universal City.
Sources: Converse Zoning Ordinance, 2006; Schertz UDC, 2010; San Antonio UDC, 2009; Seguin UDC, 1989; Selma Zoning
Ordinance, 2002; Universal City Zoning Ordinance, 2007; Cibolo UDC, 2013; Garden Ridge Zoning Ordinance, 2008; Live Oak
Zoning Ordinance, 1981.
There is a concern about congested airspace in the
vicinity of JBSA -R and its supporting airfields relative to
the erection of new vertical structures such as wireless
towers in the area. The communities do not have
provisions for collocating towers or operators. Every new
tower that is erected without consideration for collocation
or alternative sites adds to the already congested
airspace.
Based on a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77
evaluation conducted in October 2013, there were
509 obstruction evaluations (OEs) identified within a six
nautical mile (NM) radius of JBSA -R, 564 OEs identified
within a six NM radius of Stinson Municipal Airport, and
161 OEs identified within a six NM radius of JBSA- Seguin.
Of the more than 1,200 OEs identified, the majority met
FAA height requirements and were deemed to not be
obstructions to navigable airspace.
However, there were several OEs determined to exceed
the limits of the FAR Part 77 regulations which clearly
obstruct navigable airspace associated with the JBSA -R
mission. Figure 5 -14.3 identifies five OEs near the
JBSA -R airfield. Figure 5 -14.4 identifies the one OE that
exceeds the FAR regulations for ]BSA-Seguin, and
Figure 5 -14.5 identifies the 15 OEs that exceed the
FAR Part 77 regulations for Stinson Municipal Airfield.
The primary mission at JBSA- Randolph is to conduct joint
and allied introductory and pilot instructor training. This
training is the most important mission at JBSA -R, since it
is the only training that teaches Air Force pilots how to fly
and provide flight instruction simultaneously. Continued
navigable airspace is paramount to the JBSA -R mission
and its sustainability.
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Subpart C stipulates
height restrictions conforming to an established
imaginary surface to prevent obstructions from affecting
navigable airspace. Section 77.17 identifies the height at
which an object may be considered an obstruction at a
designated distance. Additional details on Section 77.17
can be found in Chapter 4 under Federal Aviation Act.
Section 9.1.3.3. The City may require operators
to share space on existing towers before
allowing the construction of additional wireless
towers.
City of Live Oak, Zoning Ordinance,
Appendix A, Article XXIV Wireless
Antennas and Antenna Facilities,
Section 10 Special Exception
The City of Live Oak has established specific regulations
for the collocation of wireless communication towers.
The City also encourages collocation by requiring the
operator to show reason why collocation would not be
feasible and to demonstrate that coordination with
existing tower owners and operators that collocation
would not be feasible. An applicant must meet the
following to be considered a special exception:
v. Whether the applicant has made an effort
to co- locate the facilities proposed for this
antenna facility on existing antenna
facilities in the same general area. Identify
the location of these existing sites, and
describe in detail these efforts and explain
in detail why these existing sites were not
feasible.
vi. Attach all studies or tests performed which
demonstrate why the existing sites will not
provide sufficient signal coverage.
vii. Provide written documentation from
existing sites' owners and /or operators
which confirm the statements provided.
viii. Indicate whether the existing sites
allow /promote co- location and, if not,
describe why not.
ix. Whether co- location will be allowed to
other telecommunications providers at the
requested site. If they are not allowed,
state every reason and the basis of each
reason.
Page 5.14 -11
Purge 5.14-12
Page 5.14 -13
City of San Antonio, Unified Development
Code Section 35 -385 - Radio, Television
Antennas, and Wireless Communication
Systems
The City of San Antonio encourages collocation of
wireless communication towers in non - residential zoning
districts and in public rights -of way:
Wireless communication systems shall be a use
permitted by right in nonresidential zoning
districts, if:
(e) (1) [other requirements are met that are set
forth in the UDC]
(e) (2) The antenna support structures must be
constructed to support a minimum of two (2)
antenna arrays from two (2) separate wireless
communication system providers or users.
(f) (3) Co- Location. All antenna support
structures must be constructed to support a
minimum of two (2) wireless communication
system antenna arrays from two (2) separate
wireless communication system providers or
users. Antenna support structures erected on
CPS Energy electrical substations shall not be
subject to construction standards that require
design and construction to support two (2) or
more antenna array.
City of Schertz, Unified Development
Code, Section 21.8.6
Telecommunications Antennas
The City of Schertz regulates the collocation of wireless
telecommunications towers. The following excerpts from
the City's UDC prescribe collocation of wireless
telecommunications:
A.4. encourage co- location on both new and
existing antenna facilities;
C. 1. Telecommunications Antennas
Subject to the second sentence of this
paragraph, telecommunications antennas shall
be placed on City towers or other City facilities
designated from time to time by the City if the
City determines that an appropriate City tower
or other City facility is in the required signal
area and that there is available antenna space
on such City tower or other City facility. If the
City makes such determinations but the
applicant prefers to locate its
telecommunications antenna(s) on another
tower or facility, the applicant must provide an
engineering study reasonably acceptable to the
City Manager or his /her designee that the
City- designated location is not in the appropriate
signal location or that there is insufficient
antenna space at the City- designated location
The City Manager may, in his /her sole
discretion, waive the requirements of this
section, and this section shall not prohibit an
applicant from placing its telecommunications
antenna(s) on its own commercial facilities or
offices in the City.
C. 5. Antenna Facility Capacity. All new Antenna
Facilities must be structurally designed to allow
for at least two (2) carriers.
City of Seguin, Zoning Ordinance, Section
37 - Communication Towers
The City of Seguin promotes shared use of
communication towers as stated in their zoning
ordinance:
E. Shared Use. In order to promote shared
use, applicants for a Specific Use Permit for
Commercial Communication Towers shall
advertise for a two (2) week period a request for
information to obtain from potential lessors. In
addition, the applicant shall demonstrate that
existing communication towers or other
available support structures within the service
area cannot accommodate the proposed
communication facility. Factors to be considered
include structural capacity, RF interference,
geographic service area requirements, and cost
(i.e. the cost of sharing exceeds the cost of a
new tower.)
City of Universal City, Zoning Ordinance,
Article IX. - Commercial Communication
Towers
The City of Universal City not only regulates the locations
of commercial communication towers, but encourages
coordination with )BSA -R by requiring applicants to
obtain a statement from the base indicating that the
proposed tower will not interfere with flight operations.
The following regulations from the City's Zoning
Ordinance state the requirements when a conditional use
permit is required for towers:
2. Applications for the conditional use permit, if
required, shall be accompanied by the following:
• Service area maps or network maps;
• Master plan for all related facilities to
include the city and all adjoining land
within one - quarter (�/4) mile of the city
limits;
• List of other telecommunications
facilities within a one -mile radius of
proposal site;
• Construction drawings;
• The manufacturer's recommended
installations, if any;
• A scaled site plan indicating the location
of all proposed construction,
easements, existing and proposed
utilities, and property lines;
• Certification by a structural and civil
engineer registered by the State of
Texas that the proposed installation
complies with all relevant federal, state
and local statutes and codes;
• A statement that the proposed
communication use will not interfere
with any existing electromagnetic
communication activities or the extent
of any potential interference;
• Statement of approval by the Federal
Aviation Administration;
• A statement from Randolph Air Force
Base that the proposed communication
use will not interfere with flight
operations.
Section 4 -5 -95. Shared Use. In order to
promote shared use, applicants for a conditional
use permit for Commercial Communication
Towers shall advertise for a two -week period a
request for information to obtain from potential
lessors an interest for collocation. In addition,
the applicant shall demonstrate that existing
communication towers or other available support
structures within the service area cannot
accommodate the proposed communication
facility.
Sources: FAR Part 77; ]BSA- Randolph 2011 Master Plan;
City of Cibolo UDC, 2013; City of Converse Zoning
Ordinance, 2006; City of Garden Ridge Zoning Ordinance,
2008; City of Live Oak Zoning Ordinance, 1981; City of
San Antonio UDC, 2009; City of Schertz UDC, 2010; City
of Seguin UDC, 1989; City of Selma Zoning Ordinance,
2002; City of Universal City Zoning Ordinance, 2007.
Above ground utility .
]BSA-Randolph runway r, w
departure
. ,
Electric utilities in the study area are provided by
CPS Energy, the power utility owned by the City of
San Antonio, and the Guadalupe Valley Electric
Cooperative, which services the majority of Guadalupe
County. The provision of power to the communities
within the study area requires miles of transmission lines,
most of which are above ground and suspended on either
solid or latticed utility poles. The location of utility poles
and the lines suspended between them, especially
unmarked lines in approach and departure paths, creates
a major safety issue during aviation operations,
especially the flight operations where the aircraft are
flying at slower speeds and lower altitudes such as
landings and takeoffs. This can jeopardize the safety of
the pilots and the general public.
Sources: cpsenergy. com, 2013;
cpsenergy. com /files /transmission_line_ structures. pdf;
gvec.org, 2013
T
0
City of San Antonio, Unified Development
Code, Section 35 -336 - Utility
Conversion Districts
The City of San Antonio encourages the undergrounding,
redesign, and relocation of utilities and their structures
where feasible and through the use of Utility Conversion
Districts. The excerpt from the City UDC is an example
of this:
Within the city there are numerous corridors in
which the transmission of electricity,
telecommunications, cable television and other
technologies (collectively referred to as utilities
or facilities within this division) has been
facilitated through the use of aboveground poles
in public rights -of -way and easements.
Under grounding or relocation of these facilities
can provide a safer environment for the public.
Under grounding, relocation or redesign of these
facilities can enhance the surrounding
development by improving the visual
appearance and appeal of the city's visitor
attractions, scenic views and urban corridors,
cultural and historical resources, public
gathering places and other major public
facilities. The under grounding, relocation or
redesign of these facilities can also promote
economic development and revitalization in
surrounding areas, increase the value of
commercial properties and residential
neighborhoods, and improve the quality of life
for all San Antonians. The establishment of
utility conversion districts requires mechanisms
to identify and designate the specific corridors
and areas to be modified, to determine the
nature of the improvements to be required in
each such corridor or area, to require the
various utility companies to implement these
projects as parts of public works or civic
improvement projects directed by city council
and to require property owners and utility
customers to modify their property as necessary
to receive utility services from underground,
relocated or redesigned distribution systems.
i -'age .14 -1
(a) Applicability. To be established as a utility
conversion district, a corridor or area must meet
either one (1) of the following criteria:
The proposed utility conversion district
includes the area of another public
works or civic improvement project
which is already planned and for which
reasonable assurance of funding has
been secured. If the existing public
works or civic improvement project
does not already require some
relocation of existing aboveground
utilities in the area, then it must be of
such unique and city wide significance,
as determined by city council, to justify
consideration to achieve the purposes
of this subdivision. This related project
does not need to be sponsored or
financed by the city, but it must be the
project of a governmental entity; or
A utility conversion district is proposed
by a petition of the property owners in
the area. The petition must be signed
by the owners of at least two - thirds
(213) of the total number of lots or
separate tracts of land in the area of
the proposed district, and the property
of these owners must encompass at
least two - thirds (213) of the total land
area of the proposed district, excluding
the area of streets, alleys and other
public rights -of -way and of any other
land owned by the city. Petitioners shall
use the city petition form for utility
conversion districts to ensure that the
project proposed is technically feasible
and worthwhile and that all of the
affected property owners are
considered in the calculation of the
signature requirement.
(d) Implementation of District Improvements.
(1) Conversion of Overhead to
Underground Operations. If the
ordinance establishing a particular
utility conversion district requires the
conversion of overhead utilities to
underground operation, then every
public utility which has poles, overhead
lines and associated aboveground
facilities in the affected area of the
district shall remove it poles, overhead
lines and associated facilities in the
area as required by the ordinance
establishing the district, subject to
other applicable city ordinances and
franchise agreements. Thereafter, no
new utility poles, overhead lines or
associated facilities shall be permitted
in the affected district area.
(2) Rerouting of Overhead Utility Lines.
If the ordinance establishing a
particular utility conversion district
requires the relocation of overhead
utilities from one route to another, then
every public utility which has poles,
overhead lines and associated
aboveground facilities along the route
which is to be vacated shall remove its
poles, overhead lines and associated
facilities from that route, and shall
install such new facilities as it considers
necessary along the alternate route, as
required by the ordinance establishing
the district. Thereafter, no new utility
poles, overhead lines or associated
facilities shall be permitted in the
district along the route which is
vacated. The ordinance establishing the
district may also require that utility
lines shall not be extended overhead
from elsewhere within the district or
within a specified area of the district to
serve adjacent property along that
route or along a specified part of that
route. Prior to placement, the location
of all new poles, anchors and guy lines
along any new route shall be approved
by the director of public works.
(3) Replacement of Facilities. If the
ordinance establishing a particular
utility conversion district requires the
replacement of existing poles, overhead
lines and associated aboveground
facilities with those of an improved
design, then every public utility which
has poles, overhead lines and
associated facilities in the affected area
of the district shall remove those which
do not conform to the improved design
standard and shall replace them with
poles, lines and associated facilities
which meet the improved standard, as
required by the ordinance establishing
the district. Thereafter, no new utility
poles, overhead lines or associated
facilities shall be permitted in the
affected district areas which do not
meet the improved design standard.
Prior to placement, the location, route
and design of the new poles (including
anchors and guy lines), overhead lines
and associated facilities shall be
approved by the director of public
works.
(4) Regulations Applicable Only to New
Development. If a requirement of the
ordinance establishing a particular
utility conversion district applies only to
new development, then the existing
utility poles, overhead lines and
associated facilities in the affected
district area may continue in use and
may be replaced as necessary.
However, no additional poles shall be
installed and no additional lines shall be
extended on existing poles in the
affected district area except in
conformance with the district
requirements.
City of Schertz, Unified Development
Code, Section 21.15.4 - Utilities
The City of Schertz requires underground utilities from
the property line to the structure served; however, the
regulations allow for above ground utility poles in
accordance with the City's requirements. This does not
entirely address the issue of above ground poles
obstructing airspace and the regulations do not require
coordination with the JBSA -R.
The following is the excerpt from the City's UDC
regarding utilities:
Sec. 21.15.4 Utilities
All utilities, including, but not limited to,
electrical wiring, natural gas, telephone, cable,
internet and security systems, shall be located in
the front yard, shall be installed underground
and shall be maintained in accordance with all
applicable City codes and regulations for such
systems. Any utilities required to be placed
above ground must be placed on steel poles
meeting the requirements of the City and the
applicable utility provider. The City Manager or
his /her designee may waive the requirements of
this section to allow wooden poles where he /she
finds that unique conditions supporting such
waiver exist within the development or along
rights -of -ways.
/Verge .14 -.17
Please see the next page.
5.15 Water Quality and
Beyond the immediate impacts of limited water supplies,
there are secondary economic impacts. The estimated
Quantity
potential lost income due to lost production is calculated
at $5 billion per year in 2020 and $8.9 billion per year in
Water quality / quantity concerns include the assurance
2060. Unmet water needs will potentially result in
that adequate water supplies of good quality are
19,948 fewer jobs than expected in 2020 and 76,736 by
available for use by the installation and surrounding
2060. Water availability is a regional concern and future
communities as the area develops. Water supply for
issues will be exaggerated over the next 50 years due to
agricultural and industrial use is also considered.
an increased water demand and the challenges of water
availability.
Sources: Texas Water Development Board. Texas
Aquifers, 2009 Water Management Plan update for the
MMMEM
San Antonio Water System; Texas Water Development
Board, 2013; South Central Texas Regional Water Plan,
2011
water supply „c future supplies
constrained by various demands. Current d
.�
are major concerns.
Edwards Aquifer is the sole source of potable water for
the greater San Antonio area, including JBSA -R and the
surrounding communities. The demand for water has
increased as growth has proliferated in the region and
there are increasing concerns about the regional
economies, such as agriculture and endangered species
that depend on the aquifer. A regional study prepared
for South Central Texas in 2010 determined that
55.6 percent of the 705,661 acre -feet of water obtained
from underground sources was from Edwards Aquifer.
Demands on the aquifer for municipal, agricultural, and
industrial uses, combined with meteorological conditions,
drive the level of the aquifer down such that the flows of
the springs are decreased and minimal during summer
months. With a projected increase in future population
and an associated increase in demand for water in the
region, a need to regulate the aquifer emerged. Senate
Bill 3 of the 80th Texas Legislature limits the permitted
annual withdrawal of water from Edwards Aquifer and
specifies that the Edwards Aquifer Authority should
implement and enforce water management practices,
procedures, and methods to ensure that continuous
minimum spring flows are maintained. Given the limited
supply of water within the aquifer, the amount of annual
rainfall /amount of annual recharge, and the potential
future growth in the greater San Antonio area, there are
rational concerns about the future availability of water
from Edwards Aquifer.
In 2010, water supply needs were recorded at
174,234 acre - feet /year; by 2060, the water need is
projected to increase to 436,750 acre - feet /year. In 2010
these water supply needs consisted primarily of municipal
(55 percent) and irrigated agricultural needs
(39 percent). By the year 2060, the water needs are
projected to be dominated to an even greater extent
(68 percent) by municipal water users.
t`
To address this concern, the state, region, JBSA, and
many cities have developed Water Management Plans or
Water Conservation Plans that address anticipated future
water demands and needs and the sources from which
these demands and needs will be adequately met.
Texas State Water Fund Amendment,
Proposition 6 (2013)
The Texas State Water Fund Amendment, Proposition 6,
also referred to as the Texas Rainy Day Fund
Amendment, was approved on the November 5, 2013
ballot in Texas as a legislatively- referred constitutional
amendment. The measure allows for the creation of a
State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) and
the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas
(SWIRFT) to assist in the financing of priority projects in
the state water plan.
The Texas Water Development Board was tasked with
adopting a state water plan that addresses the
development, management and conservation of water
resources and details a plan of action if and when
drought conditions occur. The plan's purpose is to ensure
that Texas does not face a water shortage that would be
detrimental to its residents, economy, growth and natural
resources. One of the plan's recommendations was for
the legislature to develop a long -term, affordable, and
sustainable method to provide financial assistance for the
implementation of the plan.
The Water Development Board, the agency that oversees
the fund, allocates 10 percent of the funds for rural
political subdivisions and agricultural water conservation
and 20 percent for general water conservation and reuse.
Items that the money may be put towards include:
low- interest loans, credit enhancement agreements,
deferral of interest obligations, and funding for
government entities that develop and manage water
supplies.
Both regional planning groups and the state must
prioritize projects when they are needed, project viability,
sustainability, and cost - effectiveness. The highest priority
must be given to projects that serve a large population,
promote regionalization, and have a large local
contribution.
Source:
http : / /ballotpedia.org /Texas State_Water Fund Amend
ment,_Proposition_6 (2013)
Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan
The State Water Management Plan presents information
regarding recommended conservation and other types of
water management strategies to meet the state's needs
in drought conditions, the cost of strategies and
estimates the state's financial assistance necessary to
implement the strategies. The plan also outlines the
economic losses likely to occur if the water supply needs
cannot be met. The JLUS Study Area is within the South
Central Texas Water Planning Area (Region Q.
The South Central Texas Planning Group recommended a
variety of water management strategies to meet water
supply needs with groundwater, reuse, new major
reservoirs, and conservation comprising the primary
management strategies. Implementing all the
recommended water management strategies would result
in 765,738 acre -feet of additional water supplies in 2060
at a total capital cost of $7.6 billion.
Conservation strategies account for 11 percent of the
total amount of water that would be provided by the
region's recommended water management strategies.
Water conservation was recommended in general for all
municipal and non - municipal water user groups. In
instances where the municipal water conservation goals
could be achieved through anticipated use of low -flow
plumbing fixtures, additional conservation measures were
not recommended.
Source: Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan
2011 South Central Texas Regional
Water Management Plan
Pursuant to Regional and State Water Planning Guidelines
(Texas Administrative Code, Title 31, Part 10, Chapters
357 and 358), the South Central Texas Planning Group
developed the 2011 South Central Texas Regional Water
Plan which was integrated into the 2012 State Water
Plan. The Regional Water Plan is updated in a five -year
cycle. The findings of the Regional Water Management
plan are incorporated in the Water for Texas 2012 State
Water Plan.
Source: 2011 Regional Water Plan, South Central Texas
Regional Water Planning Area, San Antonio River
Authority
Edwards Aquifer Authority
The Edwards Aquifer Authority is a regulatory agency
established by the 73rd Legislature in May 1993 with the
passage of the Edwards Aquifer Authority Act to preserve
and protect the groundwater resource. The agency is
managed by a board of directors including
representatives from Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe
Counties and teams of professionals who collaborate daily
to manage, enhance, and protect the aquifer.
The Aquifer Authority has regulatory jurisdiction in
Bexar County and portions of Comal and Guadalupe
Counties. The Authority authorizes a total of
572,000 acre -feet of groundwater withdrawals each year,
which are used for municipal, industrial, and irrigation
purposes. This total withdrawal amount is determined by
calculating historical use combined with a goal to protect
springflows and endangered species at Comal and
San Marcos springs.
Source: Edwards Aquifer Authority website
Critical Period Management Plan for
Edwards Aquifer Use at .joint Base San
Antonio
JBSA entered into formal consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to address the potential
impacts on endangered species from the continued use of
water from the Edwards Aquifer by ]BSA. A "Biological
Opinion" (BO), was issued that commits ]BSA to rigorous
water conservation efforts mandated through the Critical
Period Management Plan for Edwards Aquifer Use at Joint
Base San Antonio.
The Plan provides instruction for the implementation of
sound drought management practices to ensure quality
of life and economic sustainability for both JBSA and the
greater San Antonio area.
Alerts to drought management actions occur through the
weekly bulletin, marquee messages, newspaper articles,
and commander's access channel announcements. The
Plan is updated annually and remains in effect until
superseded.
Source: Critical Period Management Plan for Edwards
Aquifer Use at Joint Base San Antonio, July 2013
City of Converse Capital Improvement
Plan
The City of Converse Capital Improvement Plan
addresses water infrastructure and availability in the city.
This plan focuses on strategies to address increased
future demand as the city experiences growth and
development. Proposed strategies include obtaining
additional acre -feet of water from the Carrizo Aquifer,
production improvements to the existing storage and
distribution system, and assessing water impact fees.
Source: City of Converse Capital Improvement Plan
City of Garden Ridge Water Master Plan
The City of Garden Ridge has implemented a Water
Master Plan to manage their water supply, since it is
limited to groundwater obtained from four wells drilled
into Edwards and Trinity Aquifers. The Master Plan
identifies improvements that enable the water system to
comply with criteria established by the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality for public water systems,
upgrades to the system infrastructure to provide for the
health and safety of the water system customers, and
projected future water demands for the city.
The City has implemented water conservation efforts for
coping with limited availability and drought, applying a
higher adjusted fee rate for water use during these
times.
Source: City of Garden Ridge Water Master Plan
City of San Antonio Water System Water
Management Plan
The San Antonio Water System is the largest drinking
water and sewage utility in Bexar County, Texas, USA.
The Water System, owned by the City of San Antonio,
draws water from the Edwards Aquifer to service its
customers in all 8 counties of the Greater San Antonio
metropolitan area.
The San Antonio Water System updated the Water
Management Plan in 2012 which continues to strike a
productive balance between water conservation and new
supplies. By implementing the plan, San Antonio Water
System customers will incrementally save more than
16,500 acre -feet of water per year by 2020 through
refocused conservation efforts, and acquire
112,500 acre -feet of additional supplies by 2026. This
effort will meet the growing demands of 20,000 new
residents per year.
Strategies to meet future water demand include water
demand reduction, groundwater desalination, expansion
of the Carrizo Aquifer supply, additional Edwards Aquifer
rights, bringing water in from other state sources, and
development of a new pipeline to move water from the
desalinization plant and the Carrizo Aquifer to the high
growth areas in western San Antonio.
Source: San Antonio Water System website
Inter -local Agreement between the Cities
of Schertz and Converse
The City of Schertz does not have a water master plan to
address limited water supply or contingency plans for
times of drought when water use is restricted. In 2012,
Schertz entered into an agreement with the City of
Converse to sell 500 acre -feet of water from their
existing stock, originating from the Carrizo Aquifer.
While the Carrizo Aquifer does not have as stringent use
restrictions as Edwards Aquifer, there is evidence that all
aquifers are being depleted and the amount of water that
can be pumped out of aquifers is likely to be limited in
the future.
Source: City of Schertz Water Department
Inter -local Agreement between Cities of
San Antonio, Schertz, and Seguin
The Cities of San Antonio, Schertz, and Seguin entered
into an agreement in 2011 between the Schertz- Seguin
Local Government Corporation (owned by the cities of
Schertz and Seguin) and the San Antonio Water System
(SAWS). The agreement calls for SAWS to use the Local
Government Corporation water transmission lines to
bring Carrizo Aquifer water in Gonzales County to
Southeast San Antonio. The agreement allows Schertz
and Seguin to lease extra water line capacity and extra
water since the water lines are oversized to meet the
water needs for Schertz and Seguin for decades.
Source: City of Schertz website
The City of Converse may face additional storm
Ater runoff from the SA- andolph runway if
additional paving is installed.
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1972, all operators of
small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
must submit an application for a storm water permit and
an associated Storm Water Management Plan. The City
of Converse operates an MS4 and prepared a Stormwater
Management Plan in 2008. This plan identifies how
Converse will reduce the discharge of pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable, protect water quality, and
satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the
Clean Water Act. One source of stormwater runoff within
the city is JBSA -R runways that discharge into the city's
boundaries. Impervious surfaces such as roads, roofs,
and runways are sources of runoff, since the stormwater
cannot infiltrate it flows to a location where it can
infiltrate, e.g. pervious surface or a piped storm drain. If
these are unavailable, the water will likely accumulate
and cause flooding.
The JBSA -R General Plan acknowledges that there are a
variety of surface water sources that can absorb and
channel stormwater runoff from developed portions of
the base. These include Woman Hollering Creek,
Cibolo Creek, and ponds along the southwest perimeter
of the golf course. There is also a system of underground
conduit and open ditches that carry stormwater flow to
discharge areas. Yet, in an infrastructure assessment,
the storm drainage system was rated 'red' meaning that
the system is vulnerable to malfunctions or failures due
to age and requires major repair, upgrade, or
replacement. This is potentially an issue if new
impervious runway paving is installed since malfunctions
in the stormwater infrastructure, especially near
runways, can create runoff into the City of Converse,
whose stormwater management plan does not account
for runoff from the base. Additional runoff into Converse
from JBSA -R can place additional stress on Converse's
stormwater infrastructure.
Sources: City of Converse Stormwater Management Plan;
Randolph General Plan 2011
JBSA- Randolph Storm Drainage System
JBSA maintains a storm drainage system comprising
open ditches and underground conduit to manage
stormwater onsite. Storm water from the cantonment
area is directed to Outfall #3, North Outfall, and South
Outfall. Storm water collected from the western portion
of the base is directed to four ponds located on the
southwest edge of the golf course. These ponds
discharge through Outfall #3 into Woman Hollering Creek
and eventually into Cibolo Creek. Storm water from the
northeastern portion of the base is discharged through
the North Outfall located in the northeast portion of the
base. Storm water from the eastern portion of the base is
discharged through the South Outfall located on the east
side of the base near the riding stables. The North and
South Outfalls discharge into Cibolo Creek. Storm water
discharge and sampling and analysis are regulated by the
facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit.
Source: JBSA- Randolph General Plan 2011