Watsonville City Council
October 24, 2023

2-31
Additional Representative Aircraft of the B-II Family
Similar to the B-II aircraft family, no single type of B-I Small aircraft conducts more than 500 annual operations at the Airport.

As shown in Table 2-20, Beechcraft 58 Baron, Cessna 340, and Cessna Citation Jet 1 account for more than 300 annual operations of B-I aircraft. Operations were also conducted by the following aircraft types: Beechcraft King Air 100, Beechcraft 60, Cessna Citation M2, Cessna 414, Cessna Citation Mustang, Diamond DA-62, Piper PA-31 Navajo, and Embraer Phenom 100. The images below are representative of the B-I Small family of aircraft.

Table 2-20: B-I Small Aircraft 2020 Annual Operations by Type Aircraft Type Annual Operations (2020)
Cessna Citation Jet 1 (C525) 177
Beechcraft Baron 58 (BE58) 114
Cessna 340 (C340) 100
Cessna 414 (C414) 17
Cessna Citation M2 (C25M) 12
Cessna Mustang (C10) 10
Other B-I Small (less than 10 annual operations) 19
Total B-I Small 449
Source: 2020 MIS Database (January-November)
Cessna Citation Jet 2 Beechcraft King Air C90 GTX
Embraer Phenom 300 Cessna 550 Citation II

2-32
Additional Representative Aircraft of the B-I Small Family There were several aircraft larger than B-II that operate at WVI but no single aircraft or grouping had at least 500 operations to be designated as the critical aircraft. These aircraft include Cessna Citation X, Bombardier Challenger 300, Bombardier Challenger 600, Boeing DC-10, Gulfstream 280, Gulfstream 2, Gulfstream 4, Gulfstream 5, Learjet 75, and Piaggio P-180.

Many of these aircraft were operated by charter operations such as NetJets or FlexJet.

Based on the criteria described in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Runway 02-20 has an RDC of B/II/4000 and Runway 09-27 has an RDC of B/I/VIS (Small).

Cessna 340 Beechcraft 58 Baron

3-1
3 Facility Requirements
The purpose of this chapter is to identify Watsonville Municipal Airport’s (WVI or the Airport) facility development needs over the 20-year planning window. The needs are determined by comparing WVI’s existing facilities presented in Chapter 1:

Inventory of Existing Conditions with the projected aviation-related activity levels presented in Chapter 2: Aviation Forecasts. This chapter identifies the improvements that will be necessary to meet user demand and/or design standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The demand, capacity, design standards and overall airport facility requirements were evaluated using guidance sourced from several FAA publications:
o Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay o AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design1
o AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design o AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids o AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings
o AC 150/5340-5C, Segmented Circle Airport Marker System o AC 150/5340-18G, Standards for Airport Sign Systems
o AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, o AC 150/5070-6B, Change 2: Airport Master Plans
o Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 113, Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning o Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace o Order 8260.3, United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) o Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) It is important to note that the needs and issues identified in this analysis are a part of a phased plan that is subject to changing guidance, policies, and interpretation. For example, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design was last updated in 2012 and a new version (-13B) was in draft at the time this MPU analysis was completed and has since been published. As such, some of the facility standards described in this analysis may change in the near term based on this guidance and new requirements may become applicable during the 20-year planning window. Resolutions for all of the items described in this chapter cannot and do not need to be implemented immediately. It will be important for WVI to discuss the latest FAA guidance as implementation planning is initiated to confirm the recommendations made in this MPU are applicable at the time of implementation.

Additionally, there is a heightened level of uncertainty associated with long-range demand forecasting due to the unprecedented circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, planning activity levels (PALs) may be used to represent future levels of operational activity at which certain airport facilities would be necessary for this MPU. The use of PAL “triggers” allows for planning that is tied to future activity levels as they occur rather than improvements being planned for arbitrary milestone years (short-, medium- and long-term). Some types of airport improvements such as aircraft storage 1 An updated version of AC-150/5300-13 (-13B) was published in March 2022. The design requirements of the draft AC are reviewed in this chapter to ensure that the Airport remains compliant with proposed draft FAA design standards after the cancelation of the existing guidance (-13A), which was still in effect at the time of writing.

3-2
facilities are more dependent on activity levels than others. Therefore, these projects can be programmed using PALs rather than milestone years. Project phasing is discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.

3.1 Airfield Demand and Capacity Assessment
WVI’s airfield capacity requirements were based on objectives outlined below:
o Confirm the airfield provides sufficient capacity throughout the 20-year planning window. o Confirm that access to runways, taxiways, and aprons sufficient to meet operational demands, requirements, and FAA design standards throughout the 20-year planning window.

Airfield capacity refers to the maximum number of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) an airfield can accommodate in a specified amount of time (i.e. hourly or annually) assuming there is always demand for the runway. As demand approaches capacity, traffic congestion and the average amount of delay per aircraft can increase.

An assessment of the airfield’s capacity was performed utilizing the methodologies described in FAA AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay to evaluate WVI’s ability to handle current and projected levels of aircraft activity. This assessment is used in long-range planning to identify and justify capacity-related airfield improvements that may be needed over the planning horizon. Definitions of hourly and annual capacity utilized by the FAA are as follows:
o Hourly Capacity – the maximum number of aircraft operations the airfield can safely accommodate under continuous demand in a one-hour period
o Annual Service Volume (ASV) – the maximum number of aircraft operations that an airfield can safely accommodate in a one-year period without excessive delay.

Airfield capacity calculations take key operational factors and WVI-specific assumptions into consideration. Consistent with the guidance provided in FAA AC 150/5060-5, these are described in the following subsections.

Aircraft Fleet Mix
Due to varying performance characteristics between different types of aircraft, an airport’s fleet mix can have a significant impact on an airfield’s capacity. While not necessarily applicable to WVI, the FAA mandates that greater lateral spacing is needed between aircraft to avoid wake turbulence when larger, heavier aircraft operate at an airfield, reducing the hourly and annual capacity of the airfield. The Airport’s aircraft fleet mix index helps determine the size of the typical aircraft operating at the airfield and the frequency of their operations. The following are the four classifications of aircraft fleet mix specific to conducting airfield capacity calculations:
o Class A – 12,500 lbs. or less, single engine
o Class B – 12,500 lbs. or less, multi-engine
o Class C – 12,500 to 300,000 lbs.
o Class D – over 300,000 lbs.

The mix index is calculated for each runway-use configuration by adding the percentage of Class C aircraft to three-times the percentage of Class D aircraft (C+3D). Flight plan information was collected from the ADS-B database to identify specific

3-3
aircraft types that operate at WVI. 2 At WVI, operations of Class C aircraft accounted for 1.2 percent of the Airport’s total operations during the data recording period. ADS-B data indicated that Class D aircraft accounted for less than 0.1 percent of total operations. It is assumed that Class D aircraft will not operate at WVI during the forecast period. Therefore, according to the FAA AC 150/5060-5, during visual flight rule (VFR) and instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions at WVI, the aircraft fleet mix index is 1.5.

Runway-Use Configurations
The overall capacity of an airfield is directly related to the number and orientation of the runways available during various operating conditions. An airfield may have multiple operating configurations depending on weather/wind conditions, time of day, and/or types of approach procedures available. If an airport has two or more runways, then the runways can be considered dependent or independent of each other. Dependent runways are configured in such a way that aircraft must wait for traffic to complete operations on the other runway before continuing their own operations. Dependent runways usually consist of intersecting or closely paralleled runways (less than 700 feet separation for VFR operations/less than 4,300 feet for IFR operations). An independent runway is one that is not affected by operations on other runways during normal airport operation. Independent runways are usually parallel runways that have adequate lateral separation. As WVI’s two runways intersect, they are considered dependent runways.

At WVI, the Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) issue precludes the use of Runway 27 for departures at all times, which limits the overall capacity of the airfield and restricts hourly capacity when the wind is blowing from the west. However, as discussed in Section 3.5, Runway 2-20 provides 98 percent crosswind coverage, so the restrictions of Runway 27 have a limited impact on the airport’s ASV. Table 3-1 summarizes the runway configuration and usage at WVI based on historical activity.

Table 3-1: Runway Use Configuration and Utilization
Runway End Average Utilization
02 20 09 27
10% 83% 3% 4%
* Note: Runway 27 not available for departures due to RVZ requirements Source: AAP, Inc.

Aircraft Activity Peaking Characteristics
As mentioned in Chapter 2: Aviation Forecasts, aircraft activity fluctuates throughout different times of the year. Given this, it is important to determine the level of aircraft activity that is forecast to occur on the peak month’s average day (PMAD) during the planning period. Facilities should be designed to accommodate traffic during peak times while not overbuilding the Airport for what is necessary on an average day.
2 ADS-B data for WVI were gathered by Maritime Information Systems (MIS)

3-4
Table 3-2 presents the historic peaking characteristics based on 2020 data and the forecast peaking characteristics for 2040 based on the information discussed in Section 2.7.

Table 3-2: WVI Peaking Characteristics
Year Total
Operations
Peak Month
Operations
Peak Month
Average Day
(PMAD)
Peak Hour
2020 50,500 5,555 185 28
2040 89,900 9,889 330 49
Source: Kimley-Horn
Airfield Capacity Summary
FAA AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay outlines several methodologies that are available to calculate airfield capacity. For purposes of this MPU, the accepted calculations published in FAA AC 150/5060-5 were utilized to estimate airfield capacity based on runway configuration and aircraft fleet mix. The analysis considered the characteristics of WVI and applied certain assumptions to determine the existing and planned airfield capacity of the Airport. These assumptions include:
o No scheduled commercial service
o Landings generally equal take-offs during peak periods o Simultaneous operations 3 on Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 are not conducted Based on these assumptions, WVI’s current airfield configuration is calculated to be able to accommodate 98 aircraft operations per hour during VFR operations and 59 operations per hour during IFR operations, resulting in an ASV of 230,000 operations. 4 As noted, hourly operations are expected to peak at 49 operations by 2040, meaning that the capacity of the existing airfield configuration (98 operations per hour) is sufficient to accommodate future demand. Additionally, annual operations at WVI are projected to reach 89,900 by 2040, which equates to approximately 39 percent of total annual capacity or ASV. The FAA recommends that airports begin planning for improvements to make capacity improvements when activity levels reach 60 to 75 percent of the annual capacity. Given this, it is anticipated that WVI will have adequate airfield capacity to meet demand and will not need to plan for nor make improvements to increase airfield capacity during the planning period.

It should be noted, as Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 are intersecting and simultaneous operations are not to be conducted, the closure of either runway would not impact the airfield capacity. There are no planned significant airfield changes (i.e., different runway configuration), therefore, the airfield capacity is expected to remain the same throughout the 20-year planning window.

3.2 FAA Aircraft and Airfield Classifications
Airport master plans aim to achieve compliance with all FAA design and safety standards related to airfield facilities including airfield dimensions, separation distances, protection zones, and clearance requirements. Design standards work to balance 3 Simultaneous operations mean that aircraft can operate on both runways at the same time. 4 FAA AC 150/5060-5 does not consider external factors to airfield capacity such as airspace, and wind conditions. As such, the actual capacity of WVI may be lower than what is determined using the AC.

3-5
interests at airports including safe operations, increased capacity and efficiency, economic viability, and environmental protection. Additionally, design standards support consistent quality and configuration of airfield facilities between airports. As such, any deviations from these standards require a separate review and approval process that is discussed in later sections of this report.

Design standards, as identified in the FAA AC150/5300-13A, Airport Design describe these criteria that apply to runways, taxiways, and other related airfield infrastructure to provide clearance for aircraft from hazards on and surrounding the Airport.

These design standards are dependent on the following classifications that apply to:
• The airport - Airport Reference Code (ARC)
• Each individual runway (Runway Design Code [RDC])
• Both the approach and departure procedures (Approach Reference Code [APRC] and Departure Reference Code [DPRC])
• The taxiway system (Taxiway Design Group [TDG])
Although AC 150/5300-13A contains an overview of the above classifications and most other aspects of airfield design, there are several additional FAA publications that address specific parts of airport design, providing more specific requirements for airport planners and operators to refer to when adding or modifying facilities.

RDCs are used to establish the design standards that each individual runway should adhere. RDCs have three components:
the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), the Aircraft Design Group (ADG), and the runway’s visibility minimums. The AAC is based on an aircraft’s approach speed and is depicted as a letter between A through E. The ADG, meanwhile classifies aircraft based on wingspan and tail height and is depicted using Roman numerals between I and VI. Runway visibility minimums are communicated in feet of Runway Visual Range (RVR). The categories of the AAC, ADG, and visibility minimums are summarized in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Runway Design Code Specifications
Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) Aircraft Design Group (ADG) Visibility Minimums Category Speed Group Wingspan Size Tail Height RVR
(ft)
Flight Visibility Categories
(statute miles)
A < 91 knots I < 49’ < 20’ Visual Visual approaches only B 91 to 120 knots II 49’ to < 79’ 20’ - < 30’ 5000 >1 sm C 121 to 140 knots III 79’ to < 118’ 30’ - < 45’ 4000 < 1 sm - ¾ sm D 141 to 165 knots IV 118’ to < 171’ 45’ - < 60’ 2400 < ¾ sm - ½ sm E 166 knots or more V 171’ to < 214’ 60’ - < 66’ 1600 < ½ sm - 1/4 sm - - VI 214’ to < 262’ 66’ - <80’ 1200 < 1/4 sm
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A
Runway 2-20 has visibility minimums that are equal to a 4000 RVR (7/8 mile) and therefore has an RDC of B-II-4000. Runway 9-27 meanwhile, only allows visual approaches, which results in an RVR designation of VIS and a corresponding RDC of BPage 858 of 1168 3-6
I(S)-VIS. 5 As mentioned in Chapter 2, the representative aircraft of the B-II family is the Beechcraft King Air 350, while the representative aircraft of the B-I Small family is the Cessna 340.

The ARC is defined as an airport’s highest RDC, minus the visibility minimums (i.e. B-II). The ARC is used for planning only and does not restrict the types of aircraft that can operate from the airport. As discussed above, the existing and planned critical aircraft at WVI during the planning timeframe is the Beechcraft King Air 350, which has an AAC-ADG designation of BII. Therefore, the ARC at WVI is designated as B-II. However, larger, more demanding aircraft may safely operate at WVI during the planning timeframe but are not expected to regularly use the airfield.

APRCs and DPRCs describe the current operational capabilities of a runway and adjacent taxiways where no special operating procedures are necessary, as opposed to the RDC, which considers planned development. Like the RDC, the APRC is composed of three components: AAC, ADG, and visibility minimums. The APRC indicates which classes of aircraft can operate on parallel taxiways while aircraft land during specific meteorological conditions and identifies several design criteria including runway lighting and marking requirements, threshold siting criteria, obstacle free zones, and FAA obstacle identification surfaces. As the APRC is dependent on the approach visibility minimums, the APRC differs between each runway end. The APRC for each runway end is described below. o Runway 2: B-II-4000
o Runway 20: B-II-VIS
o Runway 9: B-I(S)-VIS
o Runway 27: B-I(S)-VIS
The DPRC represent the class of aircraft that are allowed to take off from a runway while any aircraft are present on adjacent taxiways under particular meteorological conditions with no special operational procedures in place. The DPRC is similar to the APRC but is only composed of the AAC and the ADG. The DPRC for Runway 2-20 is B-II, while the DPRC for Runway 9- 27 B-I(S).

The TDG is the design standard for taxiways and establishes the classification of aircraft based on distance between the outer main gear and the distance between the main gear and the cockpit. These measurements are used because taxiways are designed for ‘cockpit over centerline’ taxiing, meaning that longer and larger aircraft will need wider taxiways to turn. Figure 3-1 presents the dimensions of the Taxiway Design Group classifications as described in FAA AC 150/5300-13A. It is important to note that an updated draft of AC-150/5300-13 (-13B) was made available in July 2020 for public comment. This analysis reviewed the design requirements of the draft AC are reviewed in this chapter to ensure that the Airport remains compliant with proposed draft FAA design standards after the cancelation of the existing guidance (-13A).

Not all taxiways on an airport may necessarily need to be designed to the same critical aircraft standards. For example, taxiways or taxilanes leading to hangar areas capable of accommodating only smaller aircraft may be designed to smaller standards whereas the main parallel taxiway, which supports all aircraft types, should be designed to the larger aircraft 5 (S): Small Aircraft

3-7
standards. Based on the critical aircraft of Runway 2-20, the Beechcraft King Air 350, the TDG of the parallel taxiway (Taxiway A) is TDG-2. 6 The TDG of Taxiway C, the parallel taxiway of Runway 9-27, is TDG-1A based on the critical aircraft being the Cessna 340.

Figure 3-1: FAA Taxiway Design Group Classifications
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A
6 For draft AC-150/5300-13B, the Beechcraft King Air 350 will be a TDG-2A.

3-8
Table 3-4 summarizes the existing and projected design classifications of WVI as defined by FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design.

Table 3-4: FAA Airfield Classification Summary
Design Classification Type
WVI Existing & Planned Classification
Runway 2 Runway 20 Runway 9 Runway 27
Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II
Runway Design Code (RDC) B-II-4000 B-I(S)-VIS
Approach Reference Code (APRC) B-II-4000 B-II-VIS B-I(S)-VIS B-I(S)-VIS Departure Reference Code (DPRC) B-II B-I
Taxiway Design Group (TDG) (Parallel
Taxiway) 2 1A
Sources: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Kimley-Horn

3.3 FAA Runway Design Standards
As mentioned, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, describes the dimensions and separation criteria for runways, taxiways, and other airport facilities to provide adequate clearance between aircraft. This section describes the runway design requirements that are set forth in the Advisory Circular as they pertain to WVI. As these requirements are unique for each runway, they are determined by the RDC.

Figure 3-2 illustrates the approximate shape and location of several of the runway design standards in relation to one another.

Figure 3-2: Runway Design Standards
Source: Kimley-Horn

3-9
The Runway Safety Area (RSA) is a “defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.” The RSA must be cleared of all objects except for those needed in the area due to their function such as runway lights and signage. Objects that must remain in the RSA must be constructed on frangible mounts, allowing the object to breakaway and minimize aircraft damage in the event of a collision or mishap.

Runway 2-20’s RSA is 150 feet wide and extends 300 feet beyond the approach departure ends of the runway. The RSA for Runway 2-20 is clear within these dimensions and meets the current standards for the B-II-4000 RDC. The RSA of Runway 9- 27 is 120 feet wide and extends 240 feet beyond each end of the runway and is clear within these dimensions which meets RDC B-I(S)-VIS standards.

The Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) is centered around the runway centerline, it provides enhanced safety for aircraft operations by requiring clearing of all above-ground objects that protrude above the RSA edge elevation, except for objects that need to be located in the ROFA to facilitate aircraft navigation and ground maneuvering. Similar to the RSA, all objects in the ROFA must be constructed on frangible mounts.

The Runway 2-20 ROFA is 500 feet wide and extends 300 feet beyond the ends of the runway, and is clear of any objects, meeting the dimensional standards for the B-II-4000 RDC.

As of May 2021, the Airport perimeter fence and several bushes, trees, and shrubs along Airport Boulevard are located within the ROFA, 205 feet from the Runway 27 approach end. This is 35 feet less than what is required for RDC B-I(S)-VIS. The Airport is currently reviewing options to remove the obstructions. Other than the fence and foliage, Runway 9-27’s ROFA is 250 feet wide, extends 240 feet beyond the end of the Runway 9 end, and is clear of any objects.

The Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) is defined by the FAA as the volume of airspace centered above the runway centerline that extends 200 feet beyond each runway end that precludes taxiing or parked airplanes and object penetrations, except for frangible NAVAIDS and airfield signage, similar to the ROFA. The width of the ROFZ is determined by the visibility minimums, and the approach speed (50 knots and above) and size of aircraft using the runway.

Both Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 have ROFZs that are 250 feet wide and extend 200 feet beyond each end of the runway.

Both ROFZs are clear of any obstacles within these dimensions which means the ROFZs meet the dimensional standards.

The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is a trapezoidal area that is centered on the runway centerline and begins 200 feet beyond the runway end. The RPZ is a compatible land use measure that is intended to protect people and property on the ground in the event of an undershoot. It is recommended that airports maintain positive control over RPZs through fee simple land acquisition, avigation easement, or use restrictions or agreements. This ensures that RPZ areas are cleared of incompatible land uses and activities. Runways with displaced thresholds and declared distances may require the application of separate approach and departure RPZs. RPZ dimensions vary depending on the approach minimums of the runway, which may necessitate different dimensions for the approach and departure RPZs. Figure 3-3 depicts the existing approach and departure RPZs at WVI. As a visual runway, the approach and departure RPZs of Runway 9-27 occupy the same area. Yellow shading represents the land within the existing RPZs that is not owned by the Airport.

3-10
Figure 3-3: Existing RPZs
Sources: Google Earth, 2020, Kimley-Horn
Runway 2-20
The standard approach RPZ dimensions for a B-II-4000 runway such as Runway 2 is 1,700 feet long, 1,000 feet wide at its inner boundary and 1,510 feet wide at its outer boundary. The standard dimensions of Runway 2’s departure RPZ measure 1,000 feet long with an inner width of 500 feet and an outer width of 700 feet. While these are dimensions meet FAA standards, several obstacles limit the actual area dedicated for airport use. The existing objects in the Runway 2 approach RPZ include the Airport perimeter Road, California Highway 1, Airport Boulevard, Larkin Valley Road, and two homes. The Runway 2 departure RPZ contains trees along the Airport perimeter and a small stretch of Larkin Valley Road (southbound Buena Vista Drive). As the Airport does not have complete control of the land on which these objects sit, the RPZs are considered deficient compared to FAA standards. These objects limit the inner width of the unobstructed approach RPZ to 792 feet, the outer width to 715 feet, and the length of the approach RPZ to 832 feet. The departure RPZ has an unobstructed length of 955 feet, an inner width of 500 feet, and an outer width of 610 feet, 90 feet less than what is required by the FAA.

Due to the 590-foot displaced threshold at the approach end of Runway 20, the approach and departure RPZs are required to be in separate locations. The standard dimensions of both the approach and departure RPZs are 1,000 feet in length with an inner width of 500 feet and an outer width of 700 feet. The departure RPZ begins 590 beyond the beginning of the approach RPZ and extends into the nearby Unincorporated Community of Freedom, over which the Airport does not have positive control. Objects in the Runway 20 approach and departure RPZs include Calabasas Road and 41 residential structures. The approach RPZ is cleared for the first 832 feet. The inner width of the cleared approach RPZ meets standards but the outer

3-11
width is limited to 650 feet due to Buena Vista Drive. The departure RPZ, meanwhile, has an unobstructed length of 286 feet, an inner width of 500 feet and an outer width of 559 feet. Table 3-5 presents the types and number of objects in the approach and departure RPZs of Runway 2-20. It is recommended that the Airport gains positive control of the entire RPZs and ideally, would clear them of all objects per FAA recommendations.

Table 3-5: Objects in Runway 2-20 RPZs
Object Type Runway 2 Runway 20
Approach Departure Approach Departure
Structures/Residences 2 0 2 41
Public Roads/Highways 5 1 1 1
Private/Dirt Roads 1 1 0 1
Total Objects Within RPZ 8 2 3 43
Area outside of Airport Property Line (Acres) 27.5 7.7
Source: Kimley-Horn
Runway 9-27
As Runway 9-27 does not have displaced thresholds and has a visual approach, the approach and departure RPZs at each end of the runway have the same starting location and dimensions. The RPZs are 1,000 feet long with an inner width of 250 feet and an outer width of 450 feet. Objects in the Runway 9 RPZ include Manfre Road and 20 residential structures and outbuildings. The Runway 9 RPZ has an unobstructed length of 276 feet, an inner width of 250 feet, and an outer width of 300 feet. The Runway 27 RPZ extends across Airport Boulevard into the nearby commercial and residential area. As such, there are more than 35 structures in the RPZ for Runway 27. The Runway 27 RPZ is cleared for the first 48 feet and is only 260 feet wide at its outer width, 190 feet less than standard due to Airport Boulevard. It is recommended that the Airport regains positive control of the RPZ and would ideally clear the RPZ of structures and other obstacles per FAA guidance. Table 3-6 presents the number and types of objects in the RPZs of Runway 9-27.

Table 3-6: Objects in Runway 9-27 RPZs
Object Type Runway 9 Runway 27
Approach/Departure Approach/Departure
Structures/Residences 20 36
Public Roads/Highways 1 3
Private/Dirt Roads 2 0
Total Objects Within RPZ 23 39
Area outside of Airport Property Line (Acres) 3.4 6.3
Source: Kimley-Horn

3-12
The FAA defines several separation standards that are measured from the centerline of the runway and are established to ensure safety of airport users during aircraft operations. The following separation standards are applicable to WVI:
o Runway Centerline to Aircraft Holding Position
o Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline o Runway Centerline to Aircraft Parking Area
RDC B-II-4000 design standards require 200 feet of separation from the runway centerline to aircraft holding positions, 240 feet from the runway centerline to a parallel taxiway or taxilane centerline, and 250 feet from the runway centerline to the aircraft parking area. The current separations from the Runway 2-20 centerline to the aircraft holding position, parallel taxiway centerline, and the aircraft parking area are 200 feet, 300 feet, and 375 feet, respectively. Therefore, Runway 2-20 meets current FAA runway separation standards for all of these separate standards.

The current separation standards require a B-I(S)-VIS runway to be separated by 125 feet from the runway centerline to the aircraft holding position, 150 feet from the runway centerline to the parallel taxiway centerline, and 125 feet from the runway centerline to the aircraft parking area. Runway 9-27’s centerline is separated from the aircraft holding position by 125 feet and the aircraft parking area is separated by 217 feet. Taxiway C, the parallel taxiway to Runway 9-27, is separated from the runway centerline by 200 feet east of Taxiway A and 300 feet from the runway west of Taxiway A. These separation distances meet current FAA design standards.

Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 present the existing performance of Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27, respectively, in comparison to the corresponding FAA standards for each of the design requirements listed above. As noted, neither of the runways have paved shoulders or blast pads. Although AC 150/5300-13A lists dimensional standards for these items, the FAA does not require these items at airports supporting ADG-II or smaller aircraft types. Therefore, the deficiencies for these items are not applicable and are marked as “N/A”.

3-13
Table 3-7: Summary of Runway 2-20 FAA Design Standards
Design Criteria
Runway 2-20
Existing Conditions B-II-4000
Standards
Deficiencies
02 20
Runway Protection:

RSA Length (Beyond runway end) 300’ 300’ 300’ None
RSA Width 150’ 150’ None
ROFA Length (Beyond runway end) 300’ 300’ 300’ None
ROFA Width 500’ 500’ None
ROFZ Length (Beyond runway end) 200’ 200’ None
ROFZ Width 250’ 250’ None
Approach RPZ Length* 832’ 833’ 1,700’/1,000’ 868’/167’
Approach RPZ Inner Width* 792’ 500’ 1,000’/500’ 208’/None Approach RPZ Outer Width* 715’ 650’ 1,510’/700’ 795’/50’ Approach RPZ Area (Acres)** 21.4 13.3 48.978/13.77 27.58/0.47 Departure RPZ Length* 955’ 286’ 1,000’ 45’/714’
Departure RPZ Inner Width* 500’ 500’ 500’ None
Departure RPZ Outer Width* 610’ 559’ 700’ 90’/141’
Departure RPZ Area (Acres)** 13.31 6.37 13.77 0.46/7.4
Runway Separation:

Aircraft Holding Position 200’ 200’ None
Aircraft Parking Edge 375’ 250’ None
Parallel Taxiway Centerline 300’ 240’ None
*Note: Existing RPZ dimensions represent unobstructed land controlled by Airport. All RPZs must be designed to FAA standards and are recommended to be controlled and cleared of any unnecessary obstacles. **Note: Existing RPZ areas represent land owned and controlled by Airport.

Sources: Kimley-Horn, FAA AC 150/5300-13A

3-14
Table 3-8: Summary of Runway 9-27 FAA Design Standards
Design Criteria
Runway 9-27 Existing
Conditions B-I(S)-VIS
Standards
Deficiencies
09 27
Runway Protection:

RSA Length 240’ 240’ None
RSA Width 120’ 120’ None
ROFA Length 240’ 205’ 240’ 240’
ROFA Width 250’ 250’ None
ROFZ Length 200’ 200’ None
ROFZ Width 250’ 250’ None
Approach RPZ Length* 276’ 48’ 1,000’ 276’
Approach RPZ Inner Width* 250' 250' 250' 250'
Approach RPZ Outer Width* 300’ 260’ 450’ 300’
Approach RPZ Area (Acres)** 4.43 1.56 8.035 4.43
Departure RPZ Length* 276’ 48’ 1,000’ 276’
Departure RPZ Inner Width* 250' 250' 250' 250'
Departure RPZ Outer Width* 300’ 260’ 450’ 300’
Departure RPZ Area (Acres)** 4.43 1.56 8.035 4.43
Runway Separation:

Aircraft Holding Position 125’ 125’ None
Aircraft Parking Edge 217’ 125’ None
Parallel Taxiway Centerline 200/300’*** 150’ None
*Note: Existing RPZ dimensions represent unobstructed land controlled by Airport. All RPZs must be designed to FAA standards and are recommended to be controlled and cleared of any unnecessary obstacles **Note: Existing RPZ areas represent land owned and controlled by Airport. ***Note: Taxiway C is separated from Runway 9-27 by 300’ west of Taxiway A and 200’ east of Taxiway A Sources: Kimley-Horn, FAA AC 150/5300-13A

3-15
The FAA has established runway visibility zone (RVZ) or “line-of-sight” requirements that are intended to allow departing and arriving aircraft to see and verify the location and actions of other aircraft and vehicles that may be operating on active runways.

This is particularly important at airports with intersecting runways and no air traffic control tower (ATCT) such as WVI. The area within the RVZ should be cleared of permanent objects and terrain should be graded to allow unobstructed view between runways. The RVZ is created by drawing imaginary lines between designated points on each runway, determined by the length of each runway beyond the intersection point. It should be noted that if the runway length is changed then the dimensions of the RVZ will also change.

Per FAA standards as described in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Section 305 Line of Sight Requirements, the existing RVZ between Runways 02-20 and 09-27 is depicted in Figure 3-4. Within this area, any point five feet above the runway centerline must be mutually visible with any other point five feet above the centerline of the crossing runway and inside of the RVZ. As shown, the RVZ transects the north tie down ramp with parked aircraft and the “J” and “K” T-Hangar buildings, which block visibility between the two runways within the RVZ. After the MPU analysis was completed, the Airport Design AC was updated to -13B which included slight changes to the RVZ calculation. These changes and applicability to WVI are documented in Appendix D.

The existing nonstandard conditions of the RVZ have been acknowledged by the FAA and the Airport and are considered a safety concern. As such, the FAA has required the Airport to issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) prohibiting the use of Runway 27 for departures. The airport administration applied for a Modification to Standards (MOS) in 2018 to install signage and issue a NOTAM that restricted Runway 27 departures for the first 800-feet with the additional commitment to investigate additional options prior to a renewal of the MOS. The FAA did not provide the MOS for the RVZ condition, thus the NOTAM prohibiting the use of Runway 27 for departures is still in place.

During the stakeholder engagement process, pilots indicated that the departure restriction associated with the RVZ limits operational capabilities of the Airport, particularly when the wind is blowing from the west. It is recommended that the Airport bring the RVZ into compliance with FAA standards, whether the obstructing items are removed, or Runway 9-27 is reconfigured.

Alternative solutions of how to address this issue will be discussed in Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis.

3-16
Figure 3-4: Existing Runway Visibility Zone

3-17

3.4 Runway Analysis
This section summarizes the following requirements, standards, and recommendations for Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27. o Runway Orientation
o Runway Length
o Runway Width
o Runway Pavement Strength
o Runway Lighting, Markings, and Instrumentation
Ideally, a runway is oriented with the prevailing wind direction, as taking off and landing into the wind enhances aircraft performance. The FAA recommends that the primary runway have at least 95 percent wind coverage, which means that 95 percent of the time, the wind at an airport is within acceptable crosswind limitations for aircraft to operate safely. If 95 percent coverage cannot be met by the primary runway, a crosswind runway may be needed to safely accommodate aircraft operating in these conditions. If a crosswind runway is not feasible for an airport, the primary runway could be widened to accommodate aircraft in higher crosswind conditions. The FAA sets the following standard speeds to determine maximum acceptable crosswind components for different types of aircraft.
o 10.5 knots (12 mph) for small single-engine and light-twin aircraft o 13 knots (15 mph) for the larger and heavier turboprop and medium jet type aircraft o 16 knots (18.4 mph) for the larger corporate/military jet and narrow-body commercial type aircraft Larger aircraft have a higher tolerance for crosswind than smaller aircraft due to their size, weight, and operational speed.

When crosswinds exceed the allowable tolerance for the aircraft categories using the airport, the availability of a crosswind runway is highly desirable. Without one, arriving aircraft may need to divert to an alternate airport or wait for the wind conditions to change. Below the 95 percent threshold, FAA funding assistance for the development of a crosswind runway may be justifiable.

ADS-B data obtained from MIS indicates that the majority of aircraft operating at WVI fall under the ADG-I Small Aircraft classification, while larger ADG II and ADG III aircraft use the Airport intermittently. Considering this and the FAA-provided wind data, the calculations of crosswind coverage provided by Runways 02-20 and 09-27 are presented for the 10.5, 13 and 16 knot crosswind components in Table 3-9.

3-18
Table 3-9: Crosswind Coverage
Weather
Classification Runway
Percent of Wind Coverage

10.5 Knots 13 Knots 16 Knots 20 Knots
All Weather
02-20 99.60% 99.84% 99.98% 100%
09-27 98.42% 99.14% 99.74% 99.93%
Combined 99.88% 99.97% 100% 100%
IFR
02-20 99.76% 99.92% 99.98% 100%
09-27 98.39% 98.96% 99.57% 99.86%
Combined 99.86% 99.96% 99.99% 100%
VFR
02-20 99.46% 99.79% 99.97% 100%
09-27 98.21% 99.09% 99.77% 99.95
Combined 99.87% 99.97% 100% 100%
Sources: FAA Wind Analysis / Wind Rose Generator, NOAA Weather Station at Watsonville Municipal Airport, 2010-2019 As noted above, the FAA sets the threshold for crosswind runway funding eligibility threshold at 95 percent. If an airport cannot achieve this minimum threshold with their primary runway, FAA policy states that a crosswind runway will be eligible to receive AIP funding for construction and upkeep. Conversely, airports that can provide adequate crosswind coverage using only the primary runway will not be eligible for federal funds to develop or maintain a crosswind runway. The above calculations indicate that Runway 2-20 provides acceptable crosswind coverage more than 98 percent of the time no matter the conditions. Therefore, the existing layout of the Airport exceeds the 95 percent eligibility threshold set by the FAA. Runway 9-27 was also found to provide adequate wind coverage, meaning that, in the event of the closure of Runway 2-20, the Airport could still provide adequate crosswind coverage for all aircraft types assuming Runway 9-27 was maintained in a good condition for aircraft operations.

During the stakeholder engagement process, pilots indicated that Runway 2-20 can be impeded during the late spring and early summer due to coastal fog and low stratus clouds limiting visibility and during which aircraft require Runway 27 for landings. As such, this analysis considered a number of other conditions including day, night, and seasonal conditions to determine if there was a specific time of the year when Runway 2-20 does not provide consistent safe landing conditions for aircraft based on FAA’s 95 percent coverage standard. However, all of these analyses resulted in wind coverage percentages of more than 98 percent. 7
FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook, notes “Per FAA policy, the Airport District Office (ADO) can only fund a single runway at an airport unless the ADO has made a specific determination that one or more crosswind or secondary runways are justified. The requirements, justification, and eligibility for runways are listed in Table G-1.” A secondary runway is defined as a runway providing capacity when the primary runway is at more than 60 percent of its annual capacity or when the ADO makes a specific determination that the runway is required for operation of the airfield. 7 The FAA Wind Analysis Tool used in this MPU does not consider approach visibility or sky conditions when calculating runway wind coverage. Per FAA requirements, only IFR and VFR weather conditions were examined.

3-19
Given the FAA’s above stated policy and the wind coverage provided by Runway 2-20, the FAA’s participation in funding future enhancements or maintenance of this runway is likely to be limited based on current FAA definition of crosswind runways. This MPU does not recommend the closure of Runway 9-27 based on the wind coverage analysis, as Runway 9-27 provides other benefits to pilots such as redundancy for airport users during emergencies or coastal fog conditions that are prevalent at WVI and when Runway 2-20 is undergoing maintenance. However, future pavement maintenance would likely be required to be paid for by local sources.

As such, it is recommended the Airport engage in the nationwide policy discussion regarding the future eligibility of crosswind runways as well as discuss the applicability of the definition of a “secondary” runway to Runway 9-27 with the ADO.

Runway End Designation
The runway end designation is a whole number, rounded to the nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth along the runway centerline when viewed from the direction of the approach. Due to the changing magnetic declination of the earth, runway end designations are subject to change over time. The magnetic declination recorded at WVI is 12.99 degrees east and is changing by 0.08 degrees west per year (NOAA, 2021). As such, it is estimated the runway designators will change from 02 to 03, from 20 to 21, from 09 to 10, and from 27 to 28 in approximately 50 years.

FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design provides planning guidance for determining runway length needs. The FAA states that the objective of an airport’s primary runway is to “provide a runway length for all airplanes that will regularly use it without causing operational weight restrictions.” For FAA funding purposes the definition of “regular use” is 500 annual operations by either the critical aircraft or family grouping of aircraft with similar operational characteristics.

Factors that affect needed runway length include average maximum daily temperature, airport elevation, runway gradient, and wet or dry runway conditions. FAA AC 150/5325-4B contains several charts of “Runway Length Curves” that can be used to determine recommended runway length for families of aircraft having similar characteristics. The runway length requirement results are categorized for small aircraft weighing less than or equal to 12,500 pounds, aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds, and large aircraft weighing more than 60,000 pounds.

Runway 2-20
As mentioned in Chapter 2: Aviation Forecasts the current critical aircraft for Runway 2-20 is a Beech King Air 350 (BE350), a B-II aircraft with a Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 15,000 pounds. Therefore, this analysis used the charts for aircraft weights between 12,500 pounds and 60,000 pounds to determine the needed runway length for Runway 2-20. These charts are subdivided into two separate categories that compose 75 percent of aircraft within that fleet category, and 100 percent of aircraft within that category. Recommended runway lengths within the 75 percent and 100 percent subcategories are contingent upon aircraft weight and are therefore assigned separate runway length curves for 60 percent of useful load and 100 percent of useful load. Recommended runway lengths are calculated based on these runway length curves and utilizing inputs from the Airport’s the elevation and temperature. Adjustments are then made for runway gradient (for takeoff only) and wet or dry runway conditions (for turbojet landings only) to produce four distinct recommended lengths that are presented in

3-20
Table 3-10. Based on the aircraft types that operate at WVI and typical stage lengths, the recommended runway length should accommodate 100 percent of the aircraft fleet at 60 percent useful load.

Table 3-10: Runway 2-20 Length Requirements
Airport Data
Airport Elevation 163 feet MSL
Average daily maximum temperature
of hottest month 74°F
Runway 2-20 effective gradient 0.4%
Runway Lengths for Runway 2-20 Design
Percentage of fleet and useful load
factor Adjusted for Gradient
Adjusted for turbojet
landing in wet or slippery
conditions
75% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,730’ 5,267’
75% of fleet at 90% useful load 5,950’ 5,800’
100% of fleet at 60% useful load 5,120’ 5,716’
100% of fleet at 90% useful load 7,250’ 8,165’
Source: FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design Based on this evaluation, the minimum recommended length for Runway 2-20 is 5,120 feet which accounts for an adjustment due to the gradient. This is 619 feet longer than the existing Runway 2-20 pavement length of 4,501 feet and would require an extension to the runway to achieve this length. Additionally, the 2010 California Aviation System Plan (CASP) recommended runway lengths at Regional General Aviation airports such as WVI be long enough to accommodate 100 percent of the aircraft fleet at 60 percent of useful load, the same as the MPU recommendation. The CASP also results in a recommended runway length of 5,120’ feet, which is consistent with the recommendations of FAA AC 150/5325-4B. Previous planning studies including the 2008 Airport Master Plan and the 2013 FAA-Approved Airport Layout (ALP) depicted an ultimate paved runway length of 5,182 feet. It should be noted the FAA has indicated that the distances recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B can be used for airport planning purposes only. An individual critical aircraft type will need to be identified as a regular user to justify a minimum length if the Airport wishes to complete an extension.

Runway 9-27
The critical aircraft for Runway 9-27 is the Cessna 340, a B-I(S) aircraft with an MTOW of 5,990 pounds. Given this, the runway length requirement for Runway 9-27 was determined using the runway length curves for the category of small aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. This small aircraft category is subdivided between small aircraft with less than 10 passenger seats and small aircraft with more than 10 seats. Runway length recommendations for small aircraft with less than 10 seats compose either 95 percent or 100 percent of the fleet of similar aircraft. The 95 percent category applies to airports that are intended to serve small or medium size population communities with a diversity of usage and a greater potential for increased aviation activities. The 100 percent category includes airports primarily intended to serve communities located on the fringe of a metropolitan area or a relatively large population remote from a metropolitan area. Runway length recommendations for small aircraft with more than 10 seats are presented in a single runway-length curve chart that covers 100% of the fleet of these type of aircraft. AC 150/5325-4B identifies several representative aircraft for this aircraft fleet. ADSPage 873 of 1168 3-21
B data indicated that these representative aircraft do not frequently operate at WVI and are not expected to regularly use the Airport during the planning timeframe. As such, it is not recommended that Runway 9-27 be designed to accommodate 100 percent of small aircraft with more than 10 passenger seats.

The runway length requirement for Runway 9-27 was calculated from these three runway length curve charts and the Airport’s elevation and temperature data in a similar fashion as Runway 2-20. However, small aircraft runway length recommendations presented in FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design include predetermined corrections for runway gradient and wet or slippery conditions, thus, they do not require further adjustment. The resulting runway lengths are presented in Table 3-11. Given the location and operational characteristics of WVI, it is recommended that the length of Runway 9-27 be sufficient to accommodate 100 percent of the small aircraft fleet with less than 10 passenger seats.

Table 3-11: Runway 9-27 Length Requirements
Airport Data
Airport Elevation 163 feet MSL
Average daily maximum temperature of
hottest month 74°F
Runway 9-27 effective gradient 0.9%
Runway Lengths for Runway 9-27 Design
Percentage of fleet and useful load
factor
Recommended Runway
Length
Small Airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats
95% of fleet 2,950’
100% of fleet 3,490’
Small Airplanes with more than 10 seats 3,920’
Source: FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design
Based on this evaluation, the minimum recommended length for Runway 9-27 is 3,490 feet. Runway 9-27 exceeds the recommended length by 508 feet and is considered sufficient to meet Airport needs.

The FAA design standard for runway width is determined by the AAC and ADG of the aircraft anticipated to use the runway on a regular basis and the approach visibility minimums of the runway, as defined in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design. The existing width of Runway 2-20 is 149 feet, which exceeds the minimum design standard of 75 feet for an RDC B-II-4000 runway. Runway 9-27 is currently 98 feet wide, which exceeds the 60-foot minimum required width for an RDC B-I(S)-VIS runway.

While no reduction in runway width is suggested, it is important to note that the design standards can be used by the FAA to indicate eligibility for projects that rehabilitate or involve any change to the runway. While the FAA would not require a reduction in runway width, the FAA may not fully participate in funding any projects associated with the full width of the runway and may limit participation only to the portion of the runway deemed required to meet the standard based on the RDCs.

3-22
Pavement strength rating is related to the operating weight of aircraft anticipated to operate at an airport, the landing gear type and geometry, and the volume of annual aircraft operations, by type. Pavement strength requirements do not represent the maximum aircraft weight limit a runway can accommodate. Aircraft weighing more than the certified strength can operate on the runways on an infrequent basis, however, frequent activity by heavier aircraft can reduce the useful life of the pavement.

According to the latest FAA Form 5010-1 Airport Master Record, Runway 2-20 has an existing pavement design strength of 81,000 pounds for single-wheel configuration, 96,000 pounds for dual-wheel configuration, and 167,000 for dual tandemwheel configuration and is in excellent condition. As mentioned previously, Runway 2-20’s critical aircraft is the B-II family of aircraft with the Beechcraft King Air 350 representing the most demanding aircraft in the group. The King Air 350 has a dual wheel configuration and MTOW of 15,000 pounds. While B-II aircraft are not expected to operate at MTOW due to the runway’s length, the pavement strength is considered sufficient for all aircraft that regularly operate at WVI. Also, according to the latest FAA Form 5010-1, Runway 9-27 has a pavement design strength of 45,000 pounds for single wheel configuration and 65,000 pounds for dual-wheel configuration. As Runway 9-27 has a B-I(S) RDC, it is expected that all aircraft that regularly use the runway will have a MTOW of 12,500 pounds or less. As such, the current pavement strength is considered sufficient to accommodate existing and projected demand.

Pavement condition is important to providing a safe operating environment for aircraft. For an airport, this can be expressed as a Pavement Condition Index (PCI), where 100 refers to pavement in perfect condition and zero refers to pavement that is completely unusable. The PCI were updated in 2021 through an update to the Pavement Maintenance / Management Plan8 for each area of pavement, as shown in Figure 3-5 and discussed in more detail in Section 1.7.1. A large portion of the airfield has a PCI above the 55, or rating of good. The north tie down ramp and apron around T-hangars M through Z scored the lowest PCI with a rating in the 20’s. The MPU will incorporate the findings of the Pavement Management Plan into the subsequent implementation and phasing plan.
8 April 2022 Pavement Evaluation Study – Pavement Maintenance/Management Plan (PMMP)

3 -23
Figure 3-5: 2021 Pavement Condition Index

3-24
Runway lighting, marking and instrumentation allows for the safe operation of aircraft during nighttime hours and low visibility conditions. FAA-required airfield lighting standards are described in FAA AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, while airport marking standards are addressed in FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings.

Other airport navigational aids and lighting systems are discussed in further detail in Section 3.7.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Runway 2-20 is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) and Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) on the approach end of Runway 2. Runway 2-20 is painted with non-precision runway markings that are reported by the Airport to be in good condition on the Runway 2 and Runway 20 approach ends, respectively. Runway 9- 27 does not have a lighting system or REILs. Runway 9-27 is painted with basic runway markings that are in good condition.

Runway 2-20 and Runway 9 are outfitted with 2-light Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs), a type of Visual Glideslope Indicator (VGSI) system with a three-degree glide path that provide additional guidance to pilots approaching the Airport.

Runway 27 has no additional visual aids for approaching aircraft.

The current non-precision runway markings and MIRL on Runway 2-20 meet the necessary design standards for a nonprecision instrument (NPI) runway as described by the FAA Advisory Circulars. The REIL lighting system on Runway 2 satisfies both FAA and CASP requirements for approach lighting. The REILs were flight checked in 2018 by the FAA to ensure they were installed and operating properly. Pilots have also requested the installation of a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF) is further enhance visibility. To provide enhanced visibility of the runway environment during IMC, FAA AC 150/5340-30J recommends a MALSF and could be considered for installation at WVI following discussions with the FAA on eligibility.

The visual runway markings painted on Runway 9-27 meet the standards in FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings. While it is not required by the FAA, installation of a low- or medium intensity runway lighting system (MIRLs) on Runway 9-27 is recommended to improve the safety of aircraft using the runway during nighttime visual flight operations. The lighting systems and pavement markings at WVI will require maintenance and replacement during the planning period but are considered adequate for the Airport’s activity and service level.

Airport staff reported some aircraft take off and land in the grass infield area adjacent to Runway 27, which is not marked or graded as an aircraft operating area. This presents a potential safety area to these aircraft and aircraft and people on the ground as sufficient separation is not provided. Additionally, during the stakeholder involvement process, stakeholders expressed an interest in constructing a turf runway on the airfield for use by turf runway capable aircraft.

Turf runways provide several benefits for vintage, experimental, and conventional landing gear (“taildragger”) aircraft, namely, unpaved surfaces provide better high-speed stability and cause less tire wear than paved runways. Turf runways are almost exclusively used by small aircraft (less than 12,500 lbs.) as larger aircraft can sink into soft surfaces. A turf runway would also be beneficial to pilots and students who wish to practice soft field operations, whether practicing for backcountry flying or for potential emergency landings.

Airport stakeholders have suggested the turf runway could be constructed as an Alternate Operating Area (AOA) under the premise that these areas would not have to meet the full design and separation standards of a normal runway. The FAA has provided little previous guidance on AOAs and has indicated that a national policy on this issue is forthcoming. 9 As such, a 9 FAA A N M Regional Guidance Memorandum: 2019-01 – Considerations for Alternate Operating Areas (2019) identified evaluation criteria for AOAs and outlined relevant considerations and factors. However, the memorandum was only applicable in the FAA Northwest Mountain Region and has since been canceled. Therefore, the guidance and standards published in the memo cannot be considered for the incorporation of a Turf runway at WVI.

3-25
new turf runway would have to be constructed using dimensional and separation standards as defined by FAA AC 150/5300- 13A, in the same manner as the paved runways at the Airport and require adequate infrastructure to access the turf runway.

Some of the design and separation standards that would be applicable to a proposed turf runway, which would be designed to the smallest of RDCs (A-I(S)-VIS) are presented in Table 3-12. It is expected that a turf runway would not be used for simultaneous operations with the paved runway and is not being considered relative to operational capacity.

FAA AC 150/5300-13A requires the minimum separation between runways conducting simultaneous operations in daytime VFR conditions to be 700 feet. At this time, there are no locations on the Airport that could sufficiently accommodate an appropriately separated turf runway without significantly impacting existing infrastructure. As such, the Airport would likely have to apply for a Modification to Standards (MOS) to allow for the turf runway to be placed within 700 feet of one of the paved runway centerlines. The Airport would have to apply for an extension of the MOS every five years. The FAA may not approve the MOS in the future, which would nullify the validity of a turf runway on the airfield.

The soft surface of turf runways creates more rolling resistance and can be more slick than paved surfaces, increasing the amount of space an aircraft needs to accelerate to take off and slow after landing. The FAA recommends that takeoff, landing, and accelerate-stop distances be increased by a factor of 1.2 to compensate. FAA AC 5340-4B recommends an A-I(S)-VIS runway to be 3,540 feet to accommodate 75 percent of the national fleet of small aircraft with less than 10 passengers.

However, similar to Runway 20, the FAA recommends the minimum runway length be selected based on the requirements of a specific critical aircraft rather than a class of aircraft. As such, the minimum length of the turf runway at WVI is recommended to meet the needs of the Cessna 180, a taildragger aircraft that operated from WVI more than 300 times in 2019. The ground roll length for a Cessna 180 at maximum take-off length expected to be slightly above 900 feet under normal conditions at the Airport. Therefore, the turf runway is proposed to be 1,000 feet long by 60 feet wide, meeting the dimensional and safety area standards of an A-I(S)-VIS runway.

Use of the turf runway would be restricted to daytime use during VFR conditions and may require other special considerations.

It is recommended the Airport publish standard operating procedures in the chart supplement describing use of the turf runway prior to initiating operation, regardless of its location on the airfield. Use of the turf runway would be restricted to daytime use during VFR conditions and may require other special considerations. It would also be recommended the Airport provide education trainings to based and visiting pilots to provide understanding about the use of the turf runway in relation to the existing runways and facilities on the airfield.

It is important to note that since the initial writing of this MPU the FAA published AC 150/5300-13B: Airport Design to replace AC 150/5300-13A as the primary document for airport design standards. AC 150/5300-13B included a paragraph addressing aircraft operations conducted in the unpaved portion of an RSA adjacent to paved runway. The FAA does not inherently approve regular operations from unpaved portions of the RSA and cannot guarantee airfield separation and airspace protection for aircraft operating from unpaved RSAs. AC 150/5300-13B recommends airports with a demonstrated need for turf operations develop an official turf runway using normal runway design and separation standards (which remain unchanged between AC 150/5300-13A and -13B).

For airports that wish to allow aircraft operations from unpaved RSAs, the FAA requires a safety assessment to be conducted to ensure the airport remains compliant with AIP Sponsor Grant Assurances which require the operation of the airfield in a safe and serviceable condition. The safety assessment is conducted through the FAA’s Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and requires the airport to provide data and documentation assessing potential safety implications and ensuring an acceptable level of safety for aircraft, vehicles, individuals and facilities on and surrounding the airport. If the safety assessment is accepted by the FSDO, the FAA recommends the airport consider factors including pilot education programs and chart supplement information, hold line and taxiway separation standards, enhanced inspections of unpaved RSAs, and other applicable state and federal guidelines.

The feasibility and possible locations of a potential turf runway are discussed in Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis.

3-26
Table 3-12: Turf Runway Design Requirements
Design Criteria A-I(S)-VIS Standards
Runway Protection:

RSA Length (Beyond runway end) 240’
RSA Width 120’
ROFA Length (Beyond runway end) 240’
ROFA Width 250’
ROFZ Length (Beyond runway end) 200’
ROFZ Width 250’
Runway Separation:

Parallel Runway Centerline 700’*
Aircraft Holding Position 125’
Aircraft Parking Edge 125’
Parallel Taxiway Centerline 150’
*Minimum separation for parallel runways supporting simultaneous takeoffs and landings in visual conditions
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A
Table 3-13 summarizes the overall runway requirements for WVI. These requirements are based on the FAA guidelines published in the various Advisory Circulars and are intended to improve safety for aircraft operating at WVI.

Table 3-13: Summary of Runway Requirements
Runway Requirement Category Existing Recommended Deficiency Runway 2-20
Wind Coverage (Orientation) 98% (10.5 Kts) 95% None
Length 4,501’ 5,120’ 619’
Width 149’ 75’ None
Pavement Strength 96,000 lbs. (Dual Wheel) 96,000 lbs. (Dual Wheel) None Lighting MIRL & REIL MIRL & MALSF None*
Markings Non-Precision Non-Precision None
Visual Glideslope Indicator (VGSI) PAPI PAPI or VASI None

3-27
Runway Requirement Category Existing Recommended Deficiency Runway 9-27
Wind Coverage (Orientation) 98.4% (10.5 Kts) 95% None
Length 3,998’ 3,490’ None
Width 98’ 60’ None
Pavement Strength 65,000 lbs. (Dual Wheel) 65,000 lbs. (Dual Wheel) None Lighting None LIRL or MIRL** Lighting System
Markings Visual Visual None
VGSI PAPI (Runway 9) PAPI or VASI None
*Note: Existing REIL system meets FAA and 2010 CASP requirements. Airport stakeholders indicated that existing REILs are not always sufficient for pilots operating under reduced visibility conditions. **Note: While the CASP requirement for runway lighting is satisfied by existing MIRL on Runway 2-20, FAA AC 150/5340-30J: Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids recommends that visual runways have LIRL or MIRL.

Sources: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design; FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design; FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings; FAA AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids; FAA Form 5010-1, Airport Master Record; NOAA Weather Station at Watsonville Municipal Airport, 2010-2019

3.5 Taxiway System
An airport’s taxiway system links the runways with other operational areas at an airport. An effective taxiway system allows for the orderly movement of aircraft and enhances operational efficiency and safety by reducing the potential for congestion, runway incursions, and pilot confusion. The following evaluates the taxiway infrastructure at WVI and identifies recommended enhancements to meet the circulation needs of the various based and transient aircraft operators.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, both runways at WVI have full length parallel taxiways that provide access to and from the aprons. Taxiway A is the parallel taxiway for Runway 2-20 and is connected to the runway by Taxiways D and E. Taxiway C serves as the parallel taxiway for Runway 9-27 and is connected to the runway near its midpoint by Taxiway B.

Like the runway design standards described in Section 3.4, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design identifies dimensional standards pertaining to taxiways and taxiway-related separations that are intended to provide adequate operational clearance between other aircraft and fixed and moveable objects. These standards are dependent on either the ADG or the TDG of the critical aircraft and include the following:
o Taxiway Width
o Taxiway Edge Safety Margin (TESM) 10
o Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)
10 Taxiway Edge Safety Margin (TESM ): The distance between edge of taxiway and outer main landing gear of design aircraft. TESM is determined by subtracting the width of the outer main gear of the critical aircraft from the taxiway width and dividing by two.

3-28
o Taxiway Object Free Area (OFA)
o Taxilane Object Free Area (OFA)
o Taxiway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline Separation o Taxiway Centerline to Fixed or Moveable Object Separation o Taxilane Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline Separation o Taxilane Centerline to Fixed or Moveable Object Separation Most of the small recreational and flight training aircraft that operate at WVI in the ADG-I group are classified under TDG-1A, including the Cessna 340. Many of the larger turboprop and jet aircraft that currently utilize WVI including the Beechcraft King Air 350 and the Cessna Citation CJ2 are classified as either TDG-1 or TDG-2. It is assumed that TDG-3 and larger aircraft will not regularly use the Airport during the planning period. The existing conditions of the parallel taxiways at WVI, A and C, are compared to the corresponding FAA taxiway design standards for these various aircraft classifications in Table 3-14 and Table 3-15. The characteristics and conditions of the additional connector taxiways around the airfield are discussed in detail below.

Taxiway A
Taxiway A is 50 feet wide while its connectors, Taxiways D and E, are both 45 feet wide. As Taxiway A is expected to support all types of aircraft operating at WVI, it is recommended that it meet the highest standards applicable at the Airport. Taxiway A meets current taxiway and TSA width requirements based on ADG-II and TDG-2 requirements. Taxiway A’s TESM is 15 feet which exceeds the requirements for TDG-2. There are no paved shoulders on Taxiway A which is considered by the FAA to be adequate to accommodate existing and projected activity as long the Airport continues to maintain the unpaved shoulders and monitor for erosion. Taxiway A is separated from the Runway 2-20 centerline by 300 feet but does not run parallel to another taxiway. Therefore, the FAA’s Taxiway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline separation requirement is not applicable to Taxiway A. The existing Taxiway A OFA and separation from the centerline to fixed or moveable objects does not meet current ADG-II separation standards, as satellite imagery indicates that the perimeter fencing near the connector to Runway 2 end are located within 55 feet of the taxiway centerline, which is approximately 11 feet less than what is required by AC 150/5300-13A. The obstruction would need to be removed or relocated to provide standard separation.

Taxiway C
Taxiway C is situated parallel to Runway 9-27 for most of the length of the runway, with the exception of a 100-foot stretch where Taxiway C joins with Taxiway A near the main apron. Taxiway C is approximately 35 feet wide on the western side of Runway 2-20, 45 feet wide between Runway 2-20 and Taxiway A, and 30 feet wide on the eastern side of Taxiway A. Taxiway C is recommended to meet ADG-I and TDG-1A/B dimensional and separation standards. Taxiway C meets TDG-1A/B dimensional standards for taxiway, TSA, and taxiway OFA width, as well as TESM width and taxiway centerline to fixed or movable object separation. While paved shoulders are not required, when provided they should be at least 10 feet wide. The taxiway has seven-foot paved shoulders on the western side of Runway 2-20. There are no paved shoulders along Taxiway C east of Runway 2-20.

3-29
Table 3-14: Taxiway Design Standards Based on ADG
Item
Taxiway A
Existing
Conditions
ADG-II
Design
Standards
Deficiency
Taxiway C
Existing
Conditions
ADG-I
Design
Standards
Deficiency
TSA Width 79’ 79’ None 49’ 49’ None
Taxiway OFA Width 120’ 131’ 11 11’ 89’ 89’ None
Taxiway Centerline to:

Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane
Centerline N/A 105’ None N/A 70’ None
Fixed or Moveable Object 54.5’ 65.5’ 11’ 64’ 44.5’ None Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design
Table 3-15: Taxiway Design Standards Based on TDG
Item
Taxiway A
Existing
Conditions
TDG-2
Standards 12 Deficiency
Taxiway C
Existing
Conditions
TDG-1A/B
Standards Deficiency
Taxiway Width 50’ 35’ None 35’/30’/45’* 25’ None
Taxiway Edge Safety
Margin (TESM) 15’ 7.5’ None 11’ 5’ None
*Note: Taxiway C is approximately 35 feet wide on the western side of Runway 2-20, 45 feet wide between Runway 2-20 and Taxiway A, and 30 feet wide on the eastern side of Taxiway A.

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design
It is important to note that not all taxiways on an airport may necessarily need to be designed to the same standards. For example, taxiways or taxilanes leading to hangar areas capable of accommodating only smaller aircraft may be designed to smaller standards whereas the main parallel taxiways that support a variety of aircraft types should be designed to the largest applicable aircraft standards.

Taxiways D and E
Taxiways D and E connect Runway 2-20 and Taxiway A approximately 1,100 feet and 2,200 feet from the Runway 2 threshold, respectively. Both connector taxiways can be expected to serve the largest aircraft that regularly use the Airport. As such, it is recommended that each taxiway meets ADG-II and TDG-2 standards. Both taxiways are 50 feet wide and meet all applicable dimensional and separation standards. Taxiways D and E do not have paved shoulders, but, similar to Taxiway A, these should accommodate future activity so long as the Airport continues to maintain the unpaved areas. 11 This design standard is planned to be reduced to 124 feet in draft AC 150/5300-13B so the deficiency would be reduced to four feet. 12 There are no changes to these design standards in draft AC 150/5300-13B.

3-30
Taxiway B
Taxiway B is approximately 40 feet wide and serves as the connector between Taxiway C and Runway 9-27 near the runway midpoint. Taxiway B is recommended to meet ADG-I and TDG-1A/B standards as the connector taxiway will primarily serve small aircraft operating to and from Runway 9-27. Taxiway B meets all applicable dimensional and separations standards, but does not have paved shoulders, similar to the other taxiways on the airfield.

Apron Taxilanes
WVI has several taxilanes transecting the aprons, providing access from individual hangars and parking spots to the taxiways.

These taxilanes extend between rows of tie downs and hangars on the aprons and in the tenant parking areas. As such, it is vital that appropriate separation is maintained to ensure safe aircraft movement. Given that a variety of aircraft types utilize taxilanes to reach hangars and tie downs in several different locations on the airfield, it is recommended that all taxilanes meet ADG-II design standards as described by FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design. The FAA taxilane design standards are presented in Table 3-16.

Table 3-16: Taxilane Design Standards
Item Current ADG-II Design
Standards
Draft AC 150/5300-13B
ADG-II Design Standards
Taxilane Object Free Area (OFA) 115’ 110’
Taxilane Centerline to
Parallel Taxilane Centerline 97’ 94’
Fixed or Movable Object 57.5’ 55’
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design
There are nearly 30 different taxilanes at WVI, several of which do not meet current design standards. The location of the taxilanes and apron areas that do not meet dimensional standards are presented in Figure 3-6. It is recommended that the apron be remarked to follow FAA design criteria in conjunction with the next pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction project that is completed on each ramp. An analysis was not conducted for the planned changes with AC 150/5300-13B for these design standards.

3-31
Figure 3-6: Locations of Non-Standard Taxilane and Apron Markings

3-32
In addition to the design and separation standards presented in the previous section, FAA AC 150/5300-13A also provides guidance on taxiway configurations, including the following design principles that are intended to enhance safety by limiting the potential for runway incursions and pilot confusion. Many of these taxiway design considerations were instituted as part of the 2012 update to the FAA AC 150/5300-13A and have been a focus of the FAA nationwide through the Runway Incursion Mitigation (RIM) program. The RIM program was instituted to identify risk factors that may contribute to runway incursions and develop strategies to help airport sponsors mitigate these risks. While there are no specific locations at WVI that have been identified by FAA as a “hotspot” it is still important to integrate the design principles moving forward.

Three-Node Concept – Keep the geometry simple and reduce the number of taxiways intersecting at a single location.

Present the pilot with no more than three choices in selecting a direction – ideally left, right and straight ahead.

Intersection Angles – Design 90-degree turns when possible to provide the best visibility to the left and right. In other situations, and where necessary, standard angles of 30, 45, and 60 degrees are preferred. Acute angled taxiway exits enhance runway utilization but should not be used as runway entrance or crossing points.

Wide Expanses of Pavement – Wide pavements should be avoided as they require placement of signs far from a pilot’s sight and reduce readily observable visual clues. Under low visibility conditions, or due to a pilot focus on the centerline, signs can be missed. This guidance is especially critical at runway entrance points. When wide expanses of pavement are unavoidable, steps should be taken to avoid direct access to the runway.

Runway Crossings – Limiting the number of runway crossings reduces the potential for human error and aircraft incident and reduces the workload for both pilots and air traffic control (ATC) personnel.

Taxiway Crossings in the Center Third, or ‘High-Energy’ Section of a Runway – Runway intersections/ crossings should be limited to the outer thirds of runways where pilots have more options to maneuver and avoid potential collisions.

Indirect Access – Design taxiways in a manner that requires aircraft to make a turn between exiting the ramp and entering a runway. Taxiways with direct access from the apron to the runway have been shown to lead to confusion when a pilot typically expects to encounter a parallel taxiway but instead accidently enters a runway.

In consideration of these design methodologies, the following describes areas of concern for the Airport. Some of the noted recommendations will have multiple solutions that will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis. • Intersection Angles - Taxiway C intersects Runway 2-20 and Taxiway A at a non-standard angle, approximately 65 degrees. This may cause reduced visibility to pilots crossing the runway while taxiing to or from the approach end of Runway 9. Taxiway C could be relocated so as to intersect Runway 2-20 at a standard angle, preferably 90 degrees. • Intersection Angles - Taxiways A and C join Runways 02-20 and 09-27, respectively, at acute angles that require pilots to turn 135 degrees upon entering the runway to properly line up for takeoff. This reduces a pilot’s visibility of other aircraft rolling out on the runway after landing or aborted takeoff. It is preferred that the taxiways be reconfigured to connect with each runway at 90-degree angles to increase pilot visibility. • Wide Expanses of Pavement - Taxiway A widens to approximately 120 feet at the Runway 20 end where the current runway holding position marking is located. This places appropriate runway entry signage far from the pilot’s line of site, which may cause additional confusion. It is recommended that the wide pavement area be modified at the runway entry point to bring observable visual cues closer to the taxiway centerline.

3-33
• Taxiway Crossings in the Center Third of a Runway - Taxiway A intersects Runway 9-27 in the center third, ‘highenergy’ section of the runway. It is recommended that the taxiway or the runway be reviewed for the potential to move this intersection to the outer ‘low energy’ sections of the runway. • Indirect Access - As shown in Figure 3-7, Taxiways B, C, and D provide direct access from various areas of the apron to the runways. It is recommended that all direct access taxiways are removed or relocated.

Figure 3-7: Taxiways with Direct Access to Runway
The taxiway system at WVI is denoted using a system of lighting, marking and signage that provide visual guidance to pilots.

All taxiways are marked with yellow-painted markings that are one foot wide and are in good conditions, having been last repainted in 2019.13 The individual taxiways, Taxiway A, B, C, D, and E, are denoted with lighted signage that is reported to be in good condition. Finally, Taxiway A is lighted with Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting (MITL), which is also in good condition.

With the exception of the taxiway design and separation standard issues discussed in the previous sections, the taxiway markings meet FAA design requirements. The lighted signage meets the standards of AC 150/5340-18G while the MITL meets both the CASP and FAA recommendations for a B-II airport.

The FAA recommends all runway entrance taxiways have a unique designator with appropriate markings and signage. At WVI, Taxiways A connect at both ends of Runway 2-20 while Taxiways D and E provide midfield connections between 13 The yellow runway holding positions markings on Taxiway C west of Runway 2-20 are outlined in black due to the light pavement color, per the standards of FAA AC 150/5340-1M.

3-34
Taxiway A and Runway 2-20. Taxiway C connects to both ends of Runway 9-27 with Taxiway B connecting the runway near its midpoint. As Taxiways A and C provide connections at both ends of the respective runways, the designations do not meet FAA recommendations. Additionally, Taxiways B, D, and E may cause confusion as they do not clearly indicate which parallel taxiway they connect to. It is therefore recommended the Airport coordinate with the FAA to update the designations of the taxiways so that each has its own unique designation, meeting FAA standards and providing more clarity for pilots and ground vehicles.

3.6 Airport Lighting and Navigational Aids
Navigational aids (NAVAIDs) are any visual or electronic devices airborne or on the ground which provide point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight. As described previously in Section 3.5, the runways at WVI have lighting and NAVAID systems that are considered adequate to meet Airport needs during the planning time frame. While these systems provide guidance to aircraft when approach or departing from the runways, there are additional systems that assist aircraft when moving on the ground or overflying the Airport. WVI is equipped with the following non-runway lighting and NAVAIDs:
o White-green rotating beacon
o Lighted windsock
o Lighted wind tee
o Segmented circle
o Automated Surface Observation System
(ASOS)
o Localizer
While the FAA does not specify which NAVAIDs are required at GA airports, the 2010 CASP identified minimum objective equipment that should be present at public-use airports. As a Regional General Aviation airport, the CASP recommends that WVI has 24-hour on-field weather observation. The existing lighting and NAVAIDs present at the Airport therefore meet the recommendations set forth in the CASP. The existing rotating beacon and the wind indicators meet FAA design recommendations for size and placement on the airfield. The segmented circle also meets dimensional standards described in AC 150/5340-5C, Segmented Circle Airport Marker System, however, does not currently contain traffic pattern indicators. The Airport intends to install these indicators around the segmented circle to provide additional guidance to pilots and promote compliance with noise abatement procedures in 2022. With routine maintenance, the existing airfield lighting and NAVAIDs at WVI are expected to meet the user needs not specified in the CASP over the planning horizon.

3.7 Parachute Landing Area
As mentioned, the existing parachute landing area (PLA) at WVI is located on the west side of the airfield and has an established radius of 183 feet (366-foot diameter). The PLA is primarily used for tandem jumps conducted by a private operator and the Airport requires prior approval for all other skydiving operations in order for the Airport management to ensure that the operator will comply with the Airport’s standard operating procedures. It should be noted that the Airport is required to make the airport available for public use to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities per the FAA grant assurances as a federally obligated airport.

There is limited formal guidance or design standards available through the FAA for a PLA at an airport. The FAA published DOT/FAA/AR-11/30: Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports in 2012 to provide guidance for airports planning or using PLAs, however, the report was never officially adopted by the FAA as policy. The United States Parachute Association (USPA) provides industry best practices in the Skydiver’s Information Manual Section 2: Basic Safety

3-35
Requirements (BSRs) 14. BSRs establish minimum dimensions for PLAs 15 to ensure that skydivers have a safe landing area free of obstacles and hazards including trees, buildings, powerlines, and bodies of water, and generally agree with the findings of DOT/FAA/AR-11/30.

The size of the PLA is determined by the type of skydiving operations that occur. As the PLA at WVI only supports tandem parachute jumps, the minimum USPA-required radius for the PLA is 165 feet (330-foot diameter). DOT/FAA/AR-11/30notes that there is no requirement for the PLA to be circular. It recommends a minimum PLA size of 84,500 square feet with a 40- foot clearance on all sides from any hazards such as aboveground structures, towers, and open bodies of water. The existing PLA therefore exceeds dimensional requirements established by the USPA and DOT/FAA.

As noted in Chapter 1, the existing location of the PLA is under review by the Airport as it is included in a proposed land swap between the Airport and Nordic Naturals. Nordic Naturals is working with the Airport to ensure the new PLA would meet minimum dimensional standards as described by the applicable BSR.

Airport stakeholders have noted a concern over the location of the PLA in regard to the missed approach for the RNAV RWY 02 IAP which asks pilots to climb to 700 feet and then turn left. In many cases, this means pilots turn left in the vicinity of the PLA. As parachuters do not operate in IMC conditions, it is unlikely that pilots will be conducting a missed approach while the PLA is active. In cases where a pilot is practicing the missed approach during non-IMC conditions, several safety measures should be in operation to avoid any potential collision. Firstly, pilots should be listening to the radio to know if parachuters have deployed and react accordingly. Second, pilots practicing instrument procedures are required to have a safety pilot which should alert them to parachuters and direct them to avoid any parachuters. The Airport discussed these concerns with the FAA in November 2021 to determine if the missed approach procedure can be adjusted to ensure enough distance can be had between the PLA and direction to turn. The Airport submitted the request through the FAA’s Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP) Gateway and the FAA will soon begin their validation and prioritization process with a tentative schedule for an amendment in 2024. Figure 3-8 displays the potential adjustment to the RNAV (GPS) Runway 2 missed approach procedures to a right turn rather than a left turn as proposed by the FAA Western Flight Procedures (AJV-W24) in November 2021. 14 The USPA Skydivers Information Manual is available online at: https://uspa.org/SIM 15 PLAs are referred to as “Drop Zones” in the Skydivers Information Manual.

3-36
Figure 3-8: Potential Adjustment to RNAV (GPS) Runway 2 Missed Approach Procedures Source: FAA Western Flight Procedures (AJV-W24), November 2021

3.8 Airspace
The safe and efficient operation of aircraft requires that certain areas on and near an airport remain clear of objects that could present a hazard to air navigation. Airports that are listed in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and receive federal funding support through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) are considered “federally obligated” and as such, are subject to FAA Grant Assurances 20 and 21 which require airport sponsors to take appropriate actions to protect the surrounding airspace from incompatible land uses and to prevent/mitigate hazardous obstacles to navigation.

The ability of an aircraft to safely land at an airport is dependent on prevailing weather conditions, the level of pilot training, and the type of navigational equipment available both in the aircraft and on the ground, and approach procedures that have been established by the FAA. During Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), which is defined as conditions with a cloud ceiling of higher than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and at least three statute miles’ visibility, pilots may approach an airport using only visual cues to navigate. During Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), only properly trained pilots

3-37
flying adequately equipped aircraft can follow FAA-published Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to an approach an airport for landing.

The FAA classifies standard IAPs, and the runways supporting those procedures, based on the type of electronic navigation guidance and the lowest approach minimums (visibility and decision height/HATh) provided by that procedure. The classifications include Non-Precision, Precision, and Approach Procedures with Vertical Guidance (APV). Precision instrument approaches provide both lateral and vertical guidance and are traditionally supported by multiple ground-based NAVAIDs collectively called an Instrument Landing System (ILS). An ILS includes a Localizer (providing lateral guidance), a Glideslope (providing vertical guidance), and an approach lighting system (providing close-in visual guidance).

Non-Precision approaches provide only lateral guidance from NAVAIDs located either on the ground, such as Omnidirectional Range (VOR) or a Localizer (LOC) or in space using Global Positioning System (GPS). Another form of a non-precision approach is an Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance (APV). These approach procedures use GPS technology to provide ILS-like approach capability without the need for traditional ground-based ILS NAVAID equipment. Certain APVs utilize Wide-Area Augmentation System (WAAS) to provide greater accuracy from GPS signals, allowing for lower visibility minimums. These IAPs are referred to as Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches.

WVI has three IAPs that provide guidance in visibility conditions as low as 7/8 of a mile. Two of these use ground-based NAVAIDs (VOR and LOC) to provide lateral guidance to Runway 2 in visibility minimums as low as 1 mile. The third IAP is an LPV approach that allows aircraft to land on Runway 2 with the cloud ceiling as low as 448 feet and 7/8-mile visibility.16 The existing IAPs at WVI as of May 7, 2021 are outlined in Table 3-17.

Table 3-17: WVI Approach Procedures
Runway(s) Approach Class Guidance Provided Approach Type Lowest Minimums Supported
09-27 Visual None Visual Ceiling ≥ 1,000’ and
visibility ≥ 3 miles
02-20 Non-Precision Lateral
o Localizer (LOC)
o VHF Omnidirectional
Range (VOR)
Ceiling ≥ 700’ and visibility
≥1 mile
02 Approach Procedure with
Vertical Guidance (APV) Lateral & Vertical Localizer Performance w/ Vertical Guidance (LPV) Ceiling ≥ 448’ and visibility
≥ 7/8 mile
Sources: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design; AirNav, 2020 As noted in previous sections of this analysis, most of the air traffic operating at WVI includes small personal, business, and corporate aircraft. As such, the existing 448-foot decision altitude and 7/8-mile visibility is considered adequate to accommodate current and future activities. Furthermore, the existing APV approach meets the recommended approach capabilities described in the 2010 CASP. The existing APV meets these recommendations and is expected to be adequate. 16 Since the writing of this chapter, the Airport has coordinated with the FAA Western Flight Procedures Office to reduce the minima of the LPV approach to 408 feet MSL and ¾ -mile visibility.

3-38
It is important to note that a project to construct the necessary infrastructure to implement an ILS has been listed on the Airport’s Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) since 2011. However, the APV approach was implemented in 2016, before the FAA could initiate such a project. Airport staff indicated that the existing ceiling and visibility minimums provided by the APV are only about 50 feet higher than what would have been provided by an ILS. As such, it is not considered necessary to install an ILS at this time. However, during the stakeholder engagement process, pilots reported that the APV requires aircraft to have navigational equipment that can cost more than $25,000 to install. Given this, it may be beneficial for the Airport to review the need for an ILS in future planning projects.

There is a desire among Airport stakeholders and staff to implement a GPS-based IAP (RNAV or LPV) for the Runway 20 approach. Runway 20 is the preferred calm wind runway at WVI, and its approach is normally less affected by coastal fog and low clouds, allowing aircraft to land in IMC when visibility conditions are below minimums for the Runway 2 IAP. There is terrain to the east that renders the PAPI unusable beyond 4 NM. The Airport has discussed the addition of an IAP for Runway 20 but was told that it does not qualify through the FAA based on the low number of procedures conducted each year. The FAA has also previously indicated the establishment of a Runway 20 approach would mean that the Runway 2 RNAV or Localizer approach would have to be removed. As such, it is recommended that the Airport continue to coordinate with the FAA to investigate the feasibility of an IAP for the Runway 20 approach without impacting the approach capabilities of Runway 2 as technology improves and operations increase.

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, (also referred to as FAR Part 77) establishes standard imaginary surfaces around an airport to identify potential obstructions to air navigation. These surfaces primarily pertain to land use on and around the airport and are primarily used by the FAA Airports Division. Imaginary surfaces vary in size, shape, and slope depending on the approach capability of each runway end. The Part 77 surfaces applicable at WVI are described below and are shown in Figure 3-9. It should be noted that as there is no recommendation for modifying the IAP or visibility minimums and that the dimensions of the Part 77 surfaces are intended to remain the same throughout the planning period.
o Primary Surface: The Primary Surface is longitudinally centered on the runway centerline. The elevation of any point along the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point along the runway centerline.

The primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. The width of the Primary Surface for Runway 2-20 is 500 feet and 250 feet for Runway 9-27.
o Approach Surface: The Approach Surface is centered along the runway centerline, beginning at the end of the Primary Surface, and sloping upward and outward away from the Primary Surface. The approach surface has the same inner width as the width of the Primary Surface for the corresponding runway. The slope of the Approach Surface is dependent on the type of approach that is available or planned on either end of the runway.

As Runway 2 has a non-precision instrument approach, the inner width of the Approach Surface is 500 feet, the outer width of the Approach Surface is 3,500 feet, and the surface slope is 34:1, meaning that the surface increases one foot in height for every 34 feet of lateral distance. The Runway 20 Approach Surface has an inner width of 500 feet, an outer width of 1,500 feet, and a 20:1 slope. Runway 9-27 is considered a utility runway 17 and therefore both ends have the following Approach Surface dimensions: 250-foot inner width, 1,250-foot outer width, and 20:1 slope.
17 A Utility Runway is defined as a runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less.

3-39
o Transitional Surface: The Transitional Surface extends outward and upward from the sides of the Primary Surface and the Approach Surface at a slope of 7:1, up to the height of the Horizontal Surface. For parts of the Approach Surface that extend beyond the limits of the Conical Surface, the Transitional Surface extends 5,000 feet from the edge of the Approach Surface.
o Horizonal Surface: This surface is a horizontal plane, located 150 feet above the established airport elevation.

The perimeter of the Horizontal Surface is determined by swinging arcs of a specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface. The Horizontal Surface extends 10,000 feet from the end of the Runway 2 Primary Surface and 5,000 feet from the ends of the Runway 20, Runway 9, and Runway 27 primary surfaces. o Conical Surface: The Conical Surface extends outward and upward from the periphery edges of the Horizontal Surface. The Conical Surface extends at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

3-40
Figure 3-9: Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces
Source: 14 CFR Part 77 Safe Efficient Use and Preservation of Navigable Airspace, 2015 Figure 3-10 illustrates all the obstructions based on the existing conditions at the Airport, including the FAR Part 77 Surfaces.

Penetrations to these imaginary surfaces, either natural or manmade, are identified as obstructions and must be evaluated by the FAA. If not removable, obstacles can be mitigated through appropriate marking and/or lighting. More than 290 objects have been identified through the existing airspace analysis as obstructions that penetrate the aforementioned Part 77 surfaces. These include trees, buildings (including houses), utilities poles, and high terrain to the west of the airfield If not mitigated appropriately, obstacles could adversely affect approach and departure minimums and/or operational procedures.

3-41
Refer to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Drawing Set for detailed summary of obstructions and recommendations to address the areas of concern.

3-42
Figure 3-10: Existing FAR Part 77 Obstructions
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2021

3-43
As noted in Section 1.6.5, Nordic Naturals has discussed expanding their facility on the west side of the airfield. As their current property resides within the Caltrans Safety Zone 5, their original development proposal as shown in Figure 3-11 would have resulted in a building being located within this zone. As that is not desirable, the Airport and Nordic Naturals have been discussing a land swap that would result in the building being located in the current PLA location as shown in Figure 3-12.

While it is understood concerns have been raised regarding a building being located closer to a runway end, the location of the building in either location is outside of the FAA clear areas such as the RSA and ROFA and beyond the Building Restriction Line (BRL). The BRL loosely identifies the area that is suitable for building area locations on an airport and is traditionally based on required distance to clear a 35-foot-tall building utilizing the 7:1 slope of the Part 77 Transitional Surface.

It is not uncommon at GA airports for buildings to be constructed directly adjacent to the BRL.

Figure 3-11: Originally Proposed Nordic Naturals Development Source: Kimley-Horn 2021, Nordic Naturals 2020, City of Watsonville 2020

3-44
Figure 3-12: Revised Proposed Nordic Naturals Development Source: Kimley-Horn 2021, Nordic Naturals 2020, City of Watsonville 2020 As outlined in Order 8260.3, United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), the FAA has established sloping Obstacle Clearance Surfaces (OCS) that are used in the design and approval of instrument flight procedures. TERPS criteria specify the minimum measure of obstacle clearance that is considered by the FAA to supply a satisfactory level of vertical protection from obstructions and are predicated on normal aircraft operations. These are intended to provide obstaclefree paths for aircraft descending on a glide path to landing or climbing in a departure or missed approach. They also effectively add another layer of protection in cases where objects that penetrate the FAR Part 77 Surfaces cannot be removed or mitigated. The basic TERPS surfaces are also referenced in FAA AC 150/5300-13A and are used to establish landing threshold and departure end of runway locations. Like the FAR Part 77 Surfaces, these surfaces can vary in shape, size, and slope based on the approach capability of each specific runway end.

Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)
The TSS18 is generally a trapezoidal shaped surface that extends outwards and upwards from the runway along the extended centerline at a specific slope. The significance of this TERPS surface is that it is generally less encumbering than the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface, but it is more critically sensitive to obstacle penetrations. In this regard, FAR Part 77 can be viewed 18 Also known as an Approach Surface per FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Table 3-2 “Approach/Departure Standards”; and should not be confused with the Approach Surfaces as defined in FAR Part 77.

3-45
as an initial screening mechanism for obstructions and the airport owner should develop a mitigation strategy and continually strive to remedy areas of concern. However, the TSS is much more critical, and penetrations must be addressed with urgency to ensure the safety of aircraft operations which would otherwise result in adjustments to the approach procedures to restore safety. Any penetrations to these surfaces must be addressed immediately and could require displacement of the threshold that would reduce available runway length. Obstructions to TERPS surfaces that cannot be removed will often result in increased approach minimums and if the obstructions are severe enough – cancellation of the approach procedure.

For Runway 2, the TSS begins 200 feet beyond the runway end and extend outwards for 10,000 feet. The inner width is 400 feet and the outer width is 3,400 feet. The slope of the surface is 20:1. The TSS of Runway 20 begins at the runway end and extends outwards and upwards 5,000 feet at a slope of 20:1. The inner width is 250 feet and the outer width is 700 feet. For Runway 9-27, the TSS begins at each end of the runway and extends 5,000 feet. The inner width of the TSS is 250 feet, the outer width is 700 feet, and the slope is 20:1.

The existing airspace analysis identified more than 40 objects that penetrate the TSS of the four runway ends. The objects include treetops, antennas, utility poles and buildings that penetrate the TSS by as much as 32 feet. There are five obstacles that obstruct the Runway 20 TSS, thus requiring the use of the 590-foot displaced threshold. It is recommended that these objects be appropriately mitigated to avoid any penetrations to the TSS. Refer to the ALP Drawing Set for a detailed summary of obstructions and recommendations to address the areas of concern.

Glide Path Qualification Surface (GQS)
The GQS is an imaginary surface applied to runway ends that supports instrument approaches with vertical guidance. The surface extends 10,000 feet from the runway threshold along the runway centerline extended to the Decision Altitude (DA) for the procedure. For Runway 2, these surfaces have an inner width of 350 feet and an outer width of 1,520 feet; the slope is 30:1. This analysis determined that no objects penetrated the existing GQS for Runway 2.

Departure Surface
The Departure Surfaces, when clear, allow pilots to follow standard instrument departure procedures (SIDS) with standard rates of climb. FAA AC 150/5300-13A acknowledges that obstacles frequently penetrate departure surfaces. Known penetrations to these surfaces are identified in the FAA’s flight procedure publications used by pilots for flight planning. If the penetrations are substantial enough, the FAA may require non-standard rates of climb, higher departure minimums, or reduction in runway length available for takeoff.

The Departure Surface is a trapezoid shape that begins at the end of the runway. The Departure Surface begins at an inner width of 1,000 feet, extends along the extended runway centerline for 10,200 feet at a slope of 40:1, to an outer width of 6,466 feet for the departure ends of Runways 02, 09, and 20. Runway 27 is not currently authorized for instrument departures and therefore, the 40:1 departure surface is not currently applicable to Runway 27. However, it is the intention to make Runway 27 available for aircraft departures during the planning window. As such, a departure surface with the dimensions noted above would extend beyond the departure end of Runway 27.

The airspace analysis identified more than 180 objects that penetrate the departure surfaces of the three runway ends. Most of these objects are treetops but also include buildings, antennas, and roads that penetrate 19 the surface by as little as six inches and as much as 52 feet. Refer to the ALP Drawing Set for a detailed summary of obstructions and recommendations to address the areas of concern.
19 For planning purposes, a 15-foot tall vehicle is assumed to be on the road for an obstruction analysis.

3-46
As mentioned in Appendix B, certain land use practices and habitats can influence the wildlife species and populations that are attracted to the airport environment. Table B-2 lists more than 40 areas have been identified as potential wildlife hazard attractants adjacent to WVI. Notable hazardous wildlife attractants include the Harkins Slough, City of Watsonville Landfill, and the City of Watsonville Wastewater Plant. Pilots have reported that these landfills, sloughs, and Pinto Lake are the primary attractants for birds within the traffic pattern at the Airport. However, there have been very few bird strikes reported to the Airport in recent years, indicating that these attractant areas have had limited impacts on regular aircraft operations.

Hazardous wildlife attractants within the immediate approach and departure areas of a runway are of particular concern. FAA AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, strongly recommends that for runways serving turbine powered aircraft, a minimum 10,000 feet separation be maintained between wildlife attractants and the airfield. It further recommends that within the approach and departure areas, a 5-mile separation be provided. As a number of attractants are located within this distance and cannot be removed or relocated, the Airport conducted a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) in 2014 and a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) in 2016. The WHMP recommended activity is listed in Section B.1.2. The AMPU recommends that the Airport continue to follow guidance in the WHMP to manage and monitor wildlife in the vicinity.

3.9 General Aviation Facilities
The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the capacity of the existing GA facilities and their ability to meet forecast levels of demand during the planning period. The term “GA Facility” refers to a facility that provides aviation services to airport users and aircraft operators. This section includes evaluation of the general aviation facilities at WVI including the terminal building, aircraft storage infrastructure, vehicle access and parking, Specialized Aviation Service Operators (SASOs) requirements, and airport security.

General Aviation terminal buildings serve as a transfer facility for passengers and flight crews moving to and from the aircraft.

Terminal buildings can range in size and capability depending on several factors, specifically related to the types of users present at the airport. GA terminal buildings can range from a small pilot room used for flight planning and resting to a large multi-room building that provides space and service for multiple uses. Access to public facilities 24/7 from both the airside (aircraft apron and hangar areas) and the landside (ground vehicle parking area) is desirable.

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 113, Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning describes recommended standards for GA terminal facilities. ACRP recommends that terminals at general aviation airports should offer the following minimum services:
o Passenger Lounge
o Restrooms
o Pilot Lounge
o Food/Drink Vending
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the GA terminal at WVI provides a variety of services and amenities to users and visitors, which meet many of the recommended services listed in ACRP Report 113.

3-47
The existing administration/terminal building at WVI has approximately 4,500 square feet of interior space and 2,000 square feet of covered patio space. Approximately 3,000 square feet of the terminal building is dedicated to Airport-use while 3,500 square feet is used by the attached restaurant. ACRP Report 113 provides planning guidelines to develop spatial requirements of terminal buildings at general aviation airports. A factor of 2.5 people (pilots and passengers) per peak hour operation is assumed, while an area of 100 to 150 square feet of space per person is considered adequate to accommodate the peak hour traffic. Based on these assumptions, the formula used to determine the recommended size of the terminal building is as follows:
(Peak Hour Operations) × (2.5) × (100 sf to 150 sf) = Building square footage The results of the terminal size analysis are presented in Table 3-18 and are compared to the existing administration/terminal building. As shown, the existing terminal building at WVI is considered smaller than desired to meet projected levels of operations and passenger activity. It is understood that many of the services that could be provided in a single terminal are provided by different tenants throughout WVI currently. However, previous airport plans noted that the Airport has tentative plans to reconfigure and expand the terminal building to approximately 9,000 square feet, although the ultimate size could be modified based on the space available and the needs of Airport users. How the current services are provided should not dissuade the Airport from providing a larger GA terminal in the future.

Table 3-18: GA Terminal Building Size Requirements
Year Peak hour
Operations
Peak Hour Passengers
(Including pilot)
Terminal Size
Required
Existing Terminal
Building Size Surplus/Deficiency
2020 28 69 6,944 6,500 (444)
2021 30 76 7,563 6,500 (1,063)
2025 34 84 8,388 6,500 (1,888)
2030 38 95 9,543 6,500 (3,043)
2035 43 109 10,863 6,500 (4,363)
2040 49 124 12,361 6,500 (5,861)
Sources: Kimley-Horn; ACRP Report 113, Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning Airports need to have appropriate storage facilities to accommodate the safekeeping of both based and transient aircraft. As noted in Chapter 2, there were 280 based aircraft at WVI in 2020 and it is projected that this number will increase to 327 by 2040. This analysis uses information available as of May 2021 and recognizes that the number and size of storage facilities available at WVI may change during the planning period.

Aircraft are traditionally stored in one of three types of facilities: conventional hangars, T-Hangars, or apron tie downs (parking spaces). These storage types are explained in the following:
o Conventional Hangars: This type of hangar is a large building which can house multiple aircraft in protective storage, and usually contains a large door through which aircraft can pass. There are 22 conventional hangar units at WVI ranging in size from 2,000 to 9,680 square feet, resulting in approximately 81,300 feet of total aircraft storage space. Seven of these units are considered commercial/maintenance hangars that are leased by

3-48
SASOs that use the facilities for aircraft storage and to repair aircraft and aircraft parts. The remaining 15 units are leased by private aircraft owners and are primarily used for aircraft storage. While these hangars can accommodate multiple aircraft there is no requirement on the tenant to fill the hangar to capacity. o T-Hangars: This type of hangar is an individual storage unit for a small aircraft, usually a single-engine or light twin aircraft classified under ADG I. T-Hangars are shaped like the letter “T” and are typically nested together facing opposite directions, helping to create more densely configured aircraft storage spaces. There are 206 THangar units that range in size between 900 and 1,100 square feet. o Apron Tie Downs: Apron tie downs are hardpoints that allow pilots to secure their aircraft (including helicopters) when parked on the ramp. Tie downs do not provide protection from weather but do prevent unintended aircraft movement caused by wind and other factors. WVI has four dedicated tie down apron areas that are described in the following and summarized in Table 3-19.
o The east transient tie down ramp is approximately 170,800 square feet and has 23 tie downs, including three spaces for jets. Seven tie downs on the east transient ramp are currently utilized for longer term transient aircraft. When the lease ends the seven tie downs will revert to City management and be utilized for transient aircraft.
o The north tie down ramp is 244,700 square feet and is utilized by permanent based aircraft. It has tie downs for 68 aircraft and two helicopters.
o The transient ramp in front of the terminal building is approximately 116,547 square feet and can accommodate 20 aircraft.
o An additional apron located southeast of the GA terminal building adjacent to the commercial/maintenance hangars is 57,000 square feet and can accommodate 14 aircraft and five helicopters. This apron is for use by the hangar tenants only. There are three additional tie downs adjacent to Hangar L, temporarily designated for dilapidated aircraft storage.

Table 3-19: Existing Aircraft Storage Space
Conventional
Hangar Space
(Sq Ft)
THangar
Units
Based
Aircraft
Tie
downs
Transient
Aircraft Tie
Downs
Helicopter Parking
Spaces
81,300 206 98 20 25 7
Sources: 2020 WVI; Google Earth
Aircraft storage needs were determined by identifying the number of based and transient aircraft projected to use the Airport during the planning timeframe. The fleet mix of the Airport’s based aircraft fleet is discussed in Chapter 2, establishing the number of each aircraft type (single-engine piston, multi-engine piston, jet, rotorcraft) that is projected to be based at WVI during the planning period. Additionally, Section 3.2 discusses the number of itinerant operations expected to occur at the 20 Since the initial writing of the AMPU, the Airport removed 6 tie downs designated for based aircraft. Thus, the number available was reduced from 104 to 98.

3-49
Airport on an average day during the peak month (PMAD) throughout the planning period. The following assumptions were used to determine what percentage of these operations account for transient aircraft that will require overnight storage:
o 33 percent of all traffic is itinerant
o 25 percent of itinerant traffic are transient aircraft in need of storage (8 percent of total traffic) These assumptions were considered in the following analyses to determine conventional hangar, T-Hangar, apron tie down, and helicopter parking space needs.

Conventional Hangars
The demand for conventional and T-Hangars is dependent upon the number and type of aircraft based at an airport, as well as local climate conditions, airport security, hangar availability, rates and charges, and owner preferences. The percentage of based aircraft stored in hangars varies from airport to airport but is usually greatest in regions subject to extreme weather conditions. Indoor aircraft storage is typically desired within the Monterrey Bay area due to sun exposure, heat, and moisture.

As aircraft vary in shape and size, the exact storage space required differs between each aircraft model. For planning purposes, several assumptions were determined using guidelines suggested in ACRP Report 113.

Table 3-20 presents the assumptions used to determine conventional hangar needs.

Table 3-20: Conventional Hangar Storage Assumptions
Assumption
Aircraft Type
Single-Engine
Piston Multi-Engine Piston Jet Rotorcraft
Storage space required per aircraft (Sq
Ft) 1,000 2,000 2,500 1,000
Percent of based aircraft fleet stored in
conventional hangars 10% 50% 100% 50%
Percent of transient aircraft fleet stored in
conventional hangars 20% 60% 60% 60%
Source: Kimley-Horn
Based on the above criterion, and the aviation forecasts, combined with the consideration of potential fleet mix and projected activity peaking characteristics, Table 3-21 depicts the demand requirements for conventional hangars at the Airport. The current conventional hangar aircraft storage space appears to be adequate for existing and planned demand during the planning window. However, it is anticipated that conventional hangar space at WVI will be near capacity by 2040, however, the analysis shows there will be sufficient Conventional Hangar space throughout the 20-year period. It should be noted that requirements are not rigid, meaning that shifting of the space requirements between conventional and T-Hangars is something that will need to be considered as operations fluctuate and user’s specific requirements are identified. The amount of available storage space may also change due to the reversion of commercial/maintenance hangars to City management once the current leases expire.

3-50
Table 3-21: Conventional Hangar Storage Requirements
Summary 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040
Aircraft Requiring conventional hangars 42 44 45 49 53 57 Conventional Hangar Space Required (Sq Ft) 57,500 59,500 61,500 68,500 73,500 81,500 Conventional Hangar Space Available (Sq Ft) 81,300 81,300 81,300 81,300 81,300 81,300 Surplus/(Deficit) 24,100 22,100 20,100 13,100 8,100 100 Sources: WVI, Kimley-Horn
T-Hangars
Unlike conventional hangars, T-Hangars can only house one aircraft per unit and are traditionally used to house based aircraft. As such, storage space requirements for T-Hangars are determined based on units available rather than square footage. Planning assumptions were made to determine how many T-Hangar units will be required at WVI during the 20-year planning window. This analysis assumed that T-Hangars will not be utilized to store transient aircraft of any type and will not be used to house jets or helicopters. It is assumed that 40 percent of based multi-engine piston aircraft and 80 percent of based single-engine piston aircraft will be stored in T-Hangars during the planning period.

Table 3-22 presents the results of the T-Hangar storage analysis based on the aforementioned planning assumptions. The analysis indicates that there is currently a deficiency of T-Hangar units at WVI, which is concurrent with what has been reported by Airport staff and stakeholders. It is projected that the Airport will need 13 additional T-Hangars by 2025 and 36 additional units by 2040. Once again, these requirements are not rigid, as shifting aircraft owner preferences may change the number of aircraft needing T-Hangar storage over the planning period.

Table 3-22: T-Hangar Storage Requirements
Summary 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040
T-Hangar Units Required 211 212 219 226 235 242
T-Hangar Units Available 206 206 206 206 206 206
Surplus/(Deficit) (5) (6) (13) (20) (29) (36)
Sources: WVI, Kimley-Horn
Apron Tie downs
The layout and size of an apron is dependent on the aircraft that frequent an airport, ground vehicle circulation needs, and FAA design standards. ACRP Report 113 also provides design guidance for apron layout and capacity. For the purpose of calculating required aircraft parking apron needs, the assumptions listed in Table 3-23 were applied to the forecast data above.

3-51
Table 3-23: Apron Aircraft Storage Assumptions
Assumption
Aircraft Type
Single-Engine
Piston Multi-Engine Piston Jet Rotorcraft*
Percent of based aircraft fleet stored on
apron
10% 10% 0% 50%
Percent of transient aircraft fleet stored
on apron
80% 40% 40% 40%
*Note: Rotorcraft were not included in the apron tie down analysis as they required parking areas with specialized markings and separation.

Source: Kimley-Horn
Table 3-24 presents the results of the apron storage requirement analysis based on the planning assumptions listed above.

As shown, this analysis indicated that a total of 55 apron tie downs will be required for based and transient aircraft at WVI by 2040. This results in a surplus of 68 tie downs at the end of the planning horizon. It is understood that currently the tie down spaces are almost completely utilized, which seems contradictory to the surplus shown as part of the MPU. The MPU analysis bases the utilization on the preferred storage of the aircraft types as outlined in storage assumptions above.

It should be noted that the number of tie downs available at the Airport may change during the planning period as there are currently 41 tie downs that are located within the existing RVZ, as discussed in Section 3.4. If the Airport achieves compliance with FAA RVZ standards, some or all of these tie downs may be eliminated. Possible scenarios for this development are discussed further in Chapter 4.

Table 3-24: Apron Aircraft Storage Requirements
Summary 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040
Apron Tie Downs Required 42 43 46 49 51 55
Apron Tie Downs Available 123 123 123 123 123 123
Surplus/(Deficit) 81 80 77 74 72 68
Surplus/(Deficit) with Removal of 41 Tie
downs for RVZ compliance 40 39 36 33 31 27
Sources: WVI, Kimley-Horn
Helicopters Tie Downs
As helicopters and rotorcraft have different operational and storage needs compared to fixed wing aircraft, dedicated apron parking areas often need to be provided to ensure safe movement of aircraft and people on the apron. WVI has two dedicated parking areas with five spaces for based rotorcraft and two spaces for transient rotorcraft. These parking spaces can accommodate helicopters that have up to a 40-foot rotor span and a 60-foot length. It is important to note that these parking

3-52
spaces are not helipads as the FAA requires additional design and separation standards to be able to utilize them for landings and takeoffs.

As noted in Table 3-21 and Table 3-23, it is assumed that 50 percent of based helicopters will be stored in conventional hangars while 50 percent will be stored on the apron. Sixty percent of transient rotorcraft are assumed to be stored in conventional hangars and 40 percent are planned to be stored on the apron. No helicopters are planned to be stored in THangars. Helicopter storage needs in conventional hangars were included in the conventional hangar analysis above.

Based on the above assumptions, Table 3-25 presents the results of the rotorcraft apron parking analysis. As shown, it is projected that the Airport will require four helicopter parking spaces on the aprons by 2040. Three of these spaces will be used by based helicopters while one is projected to be used by transient rotorcraft. As such, there is anticipated to be a surplus of two total parking spaces at the end of the planning period. However, one of the two spaces are located on the apron reserved for hangar tenants only. While the existing facilities are expected to be sufficient during the planning period, the Airport may want to consider allowing transient aircraft to use the based aircraft apron in the future.

It should also be noted that the Airport is currently redesigning one of the tenant-leased apron areas to provide additional helicopter parking.

Table 3-25: Helicopter Apron Parking Requirements
Summary 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040
Helicopter Parking Spaces Required 4 4 4 4 4 5
Helicopter Parking Spaces Available 7 7 7 7 7 7
Surplus/(Deficit) 3 3 3 3 3 2
Sources: WVI, Kimley-Horn
Aircraft Storage Summary
A summary of overall aircraft storage requirements by facility type is shown in Table 3-26. As shown, apron tie down facilities are projected to meet Airport needs throughout the 20-year planning window. Conventional hangar space is expected to meet Airport needs for most of the planning window, with only a small deficit emerging at the 20-year projection (200 SF). It is anticipated that WVI will need an additional 36 T-Hangar units for based aircraft during the planning period.

3-53
Table 3-26: Aircraft Storage Requirement Summary
Summary 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040
Conventional
Hangars
Space Required (Sq Ft) 57,500 59,500 61,500 68,500 73,500 81,500 Space Available (SF) 81,300 81,300 81,300 81,300 81,300 81,300 Surplus/(Deficit) 23,800 21,800 19,800 12,800 7,800 (200) T-Hangars
Units Required 211 212 219 226 235 242
Units Available 206 206 206 206 206 206
Surplus/(Deficit) (5) (6) (13) (20) (29) (36)
Apron Tie
Downs
Tie Downs Required 42 43 46 49 51 55
Tie Downs Available 123 123 123 123 123 123
Surplus/(Deficit) 81 80 77 74 72 68
Helicopter
Parking
Parking Spaces Required 4 4 4 4 4 5
Parking Spaces Available 7 7 7 7 7 7
Surplus/(Deficit) 3 3 3 3 3 2
Sources: WVI, Kimley-Horn
WVI is currently accessed from Airport Boulevard, which provides access to many of the hangars along the south and east sides of the airfield. Aviation Way connects to Airport Boulevard at two points and provides direct access to the terminal and the SASO hangars. There are four public access points that allow entry to the GA terminal and SASO parking lots. Although these entrances are not gated, all airside facilities beyond them are only accessible through controlled access gates. There are three automatic vehicle access gates along Aviation Way and one access gate located along Airport Boulevard.

Additionally, 13 pedestrian gates provide controlled access to various parts of the aprons and hangar areas. Airport staff have indicated that the existing access roads meet Airport needs and will not be a concern during the planning window.

During the stakeholder engagement process of this MPU, aircraft owners noted that the south hangar area is not readily accessible from the terminal apron without entering the active taxiway or exiting the airside area and driving along Aviation Way. These stakeholders requested that a dedicated path be identified to allow for ground vehicle movement between the various areas of the airfield. Any vehicle access road would have to be designed to meet all pertinent design and separation standards as well as airport regulations. Based on the Airport Rules and Regulations, driving on a taxiway is not permitted, thus it is recommended that aircraft owners that cannot travel along a taxilane exit the airfield, drive along Aviation Way, and reenter the airfield at the desired location.

WVI has two paved and lighted vehicle parking lots located adjacent to the terminal building that have spaces to accommodate 81 vehicles, including five handicap spaces. The Airport Operations Center has a parking lot that has 12 additional parking spaces for Airport employees. There are also parking lots adjacent to the several of the SASO hangars that have 80 additional parking spaces for tenant staff and visitors. Airport staff, tenants, and Airport stakeholders have indicated that automobile parking is sufficient for the Airport’s needs. Additionally, the existing parking lots meet requirements set by the

3-54
City of Watsonville Municipal Code for air transportation facilities. It is therefore anticipated that automobile parking for airport users will not be a concern for the 20-year planning period.

Although WVI does not have a traditional private fixed-base operator (FBO), as is common at many GA airports, many of the same essential services are provided to pilots by SASOs located on the Airport. Companies such as United Flight Services, Strawberry Aviation, Specialized Helicopters, and Gary Air offer a range of services including aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO), aircraft rentals, aerial tours, flight training, aircraft painting and interior installation, and air taxi services. The services offered by the SASOs at WVI complement the services offered by the Airport in the GA terminal building, providing an excellent overall level of service to pilots and Airport users. However, there is a limited number of services available to jet aircraft operators. As the Airport plans to attract a greater number of business and corporate jet aircraft in the future, it is recommended that the Airport consider adding amenities and services such as an aircraft ground power unit (GPU), lavatory cart, catering, and potable water cart to better serve jet aircraft.

Security guidelines for GA airports are provided by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) using an Airport Security Assessment and Protective Measures Matrix. The Airport Security Assessment is a good tool for GA airports to determine their existing security levels and areas where they could see improvement. The results of the assessment for WVI are presented in Chapter 1. Notable security features at WVI include full perimeter six-foot fencing that is barbed in some areas, restricted vehicle and pedestrian gates, security signage, CCTV systems, and after-hours security inspections by a third-party contractor.

While WVI meets most of the recommendations established in the TSA Airport Security Assessment, there are still areas that the Airport would like to see improvement in. Airport staff and stakeholders indicated that people trespass through the northern perimeter fence adjacent to the water tanks and use the Airport property as a shortcut. While it may be difficult to completely eliminate these intrusions, it is recommended that the Airport continue to maintain the fencing and inspection procedures to deter unauthorized persons from entering the airfield. Additionally, the existing access gates use a security code to allow approved personnel into security areas. The security system could be improved by implementing a radio-frequency identification (RFID) key system, where approved personnel would access the gate with an electronic key fob. To meet this need, the Airport plans to implement gate card access at all entrance points in 2023.

3.10 Airport Sustainability
FAA AC 150/5070-6B Change 2, Airport Master Plans recommends that all airport master plans incorporate elements of sustainability throughout the planning process. Sustainability plans are tailored to individual airport needs and can vary in scope and content between airports. However, the AC requires all master plans to review the Airport’s plans for recycling and minimizing the generation of airport solid waste and address any issues related to solid waste recycling. The FAA provides guidance for waste minimization programs through its 2014 document titled Recycling, Reuse, and Waste Reduction at Airports.

Of the seven types of waste identified by the FAA, the following are typically produced at WVI:
o Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) — everyday items that are used and then discarded, such as product packaging, bottles, food scraps, and newspapers.

3-55
o Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) — any non-hazardous solid waste from land clearing, excavation, and/or the construction, demolition, renovation, or repair of structures, roads, and utilities. o Green Waste — tree, shrub, and grass clippings, leaves, weeds, small branches, seeds, pods, and similar debris generated by landscape maintenance activities.
o Food Waste — food that is not consumed or is the waste generated and discarded during food preparation activities.
o Spill Cleanup and Remediation Wastes — these are materials that are generated and remediation of contamination from a variety of sources on an airport (storage tanks, vehicular leaks, spills from maintenance activities, etc.).
o Hazardous Waste — must be handled in accordance with stringent federal regulations. Wastes designated as “hazardous” are covered by regulations outlining legal handling, treatment, or disposal. Hazardous waste at WVI is discussed in greater detail in Appendix B.

WVI participates in the City of Watsonville Garbage Removal and Recycling Program and the Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Program. The Airport has eight dumpsters placed in various locations around the hangar and apron areas for solid waste disposal and recycling. These containers each have an eight-cubic-yard capacity and four of them are dedicated to recycling. These dumpsters are serviced on a weekly basis by the City of Watsonville Sanitation Department, which hauls garbage and recyclables to the Watsonville Waste and Recycling Drop-off Center. The Center is capable of recycling metal, concrete, wood, plastic, cardboard, electronics, and appliances, among other MSW and C&D waste. WVI has special collection areas to separate batteries, tires, paint, and chemicals from the general refuse stream. The Airport also maintains an oil recycling tank that can be used by aircraft owners to safely dispose of used engine oils and filters. The oil tank is emptied every 180 days or as needed to comply with California environmental regulations.

During construction projects, the Sanitation Department places larger (15-cubic-yard) disposal containers on the Airport to collect and construction and demolition waste for recycling. All Airport design and/or construction contracts include sustainability language to ensure compliance with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. The Airport and its contractors also adhere to city permitting processes to ensure proper waste recycling or disposal.

Although the aforementioned sustainability practices greatly reduce the environmental impacts of the Airport, there are some areas that could be improved. Namely, Airport staff reported that a considerable amount of waste is dumped on the airfield without appropriate processing or collection. Much of the waste that causes issues for the Airport is placed in the dumpsters near the corporate hangars and the south hangar area, often causing the dumpsters to overflow. As such, a significant amount of MSW and C&D waste is left uncontained until Airport Staff can coordinate with the Sanitation Department to remove the waste. This increases the risk of environmental contamination from garbage and forces the Airport to conduct additional garbage pick-ups. While all eight dumpsters are only accessible to Airport users, Airport staff indicated that the majority of excess waste is not aviation-related. It is recommended that the Airport work with users and tenants to reduce excess waste buildup on the Airport. Furthermore, the Airport should continue to participate in the City’s disposal and recycling programs to comply with FAA guidance.

3.11 Support Facilities
Various support facilities are needed at an airport to maintain safe, efficient aircraft operations and effectively serve the travelling public. At WVI, these facilities include aviation fuel storage and supply infrastructure, airport maintenance and equipment storage buildings, and aircraft wash facilities. The following evaluates these facilities and their ability to meet the operational needs of the Airport.

3-56
The existing aircraft fueling facilities at WVI include three 12,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs), a 24/7 self-service fueling island, and five mobile refueling trucks that provide full-service. In total, WVI is able to store a total of approximately 45,00 gallons of fuel; 26,450 gallons of 100LL AvGas and 18,200 gallons of Jet A Fuel. As of August 2020, WVI sold approximately 140,000 gallons of AvGas and 60,000 gallons of Jet A per year. Given this, the Airport’s existing fuel storage facilities are expected to be sufficient to hold more than 30 days’ worth of fuel during the planning period, which is the recommended amount for GA airports. The existing USTs and fuel dispensers were installed in 1992 and are nearing the end of their useful lifespan. Airport staff has reported reliability issues with fuel delivery systems and trucks. Inspections conducted by the Santa Cruz County Health Service Department identified a number of issues with these systems that need to be addressed to meet environmental standards. The FAA recommends all new fuel farms be constructed with aboveground storage tanks, which are generally easier to maintain and have a smaller environmental impact. As such, it is recommended that the Airport replace the USTs and fueling system with above ground storage tanks and new fuel trucks.

It should be noted that the Airport made unleaded AvGas (UL94) available in September 2021 in order to support the desire for the availability of alternative fuels. UL94 is a recently developed aviation fuel with reduced environmental impacts compared to 100LL. As of 2021, approximately 66 percent of the U.S. piston aircraft fleet is approved to run on UL94 without modifications. 21 UL94 is considered an interim solution while higher octane unleaded fuels such as 100UL are developed and introduced. WVI is tentatively planning to fully transition from 100LL and UL94 to 100UL by 2024, depending on market availability. Initially, the Airport is considering converting one 12,000 UST to house UL94 before both AvGas tanks are converted to 100UL use. As many of the small aircraft that currently use 100LL can safely transition to UL94 use, it is anticipated that the remaining 100LL and proposed UL94 facilities will be sufficient to meet demand at the Airport. However, the future demand for UL94, 100LL, 100UL, and Jet A may fluctuate depending on market conditions and fleet mix. As such, it is recommended that the Airport monitor demand to determine if how much storage capacity is allocated to each fuel type.

Airport maintenance facilities include equipment and infrastructure pertaining to the safety and operational capability of an airport. WVI is equipped with a 900-square foot maintenance equipment storage (MES) building, located adjacent to the Airport Operations Center along Aviation Way. Equipment utilized at the Airport include a street sweeper, dump truck, a cargo trailer, aircraft tug, tractors, golf carts, and utility vehicles. The existing MES building is not capable of housing vehicles, so all utility vehicles and tractors must be stored on the apron. This increases the weather exposure to these vehicles which may wear them down faster and may reduce the service life of the equipment.

As such, it is recommended that WVI develop a maintenance facility that is capable of housing maintenance vehicles and equipment. ACRP Report 113 provides guidance on the recommended size of airport MES buildings. As WVI occupies 344 acres, ACRP recommends that the MES building have four storage bays for vehicle and equipment storage (2,400 to 3,200 square feet) and one bay for support facilities (600-800 square feet), resulting in a total building size of 3,000-4,000 square feet.

Aircraft wash facilities (wash racks) provide a common area for GA aircraft owners to access water to clean their aircraft.

Although an aircraft wash rack is not present nor required at WVI, several stakeholders indicated the desire for one to be 21 Swift Fuels. (n.d.) “Frequently Asked Questions”. Available online at: https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/faq (Accessed May 2021).

3-57
made available at the Airport. Wash racks are designed to catch wash water and drainage, allowing airports to meet any environmental regulations pertaining to wash water and chemical discharge into the environment. Wash racks are usually constructed in one of the three following layouts, open air (exposed pavement slab with drainage), covered (roof with open sides), and enclosed (hangar with or without door).

ACRP Report 113 recommends that wash racks be large enough to accommodate the largest aircraft in use at the facility, be located outside of all safety and object-free areas, not interfere with airfield and emergency operations, and not obstruct FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces. Potential locations for an aircraft wash rack are discussed in Chapter 4, however, ACRP Report 113 recommends that the wash rack be located near appropriate utilities (water, electricity, sanitary sewage, and communications), but away from high traffic areas such as the terminal, helicopter parking area, and SASO facilities. Given that WVI’s critical aircraft is expected to be the Beechcraft King Air 350, it is recommended that a wash rack would be 70 feet by 70 feet to accommodate the 57-foot wingspan of the King Air plus 13 feet to allow for personnel movement around the aircraft. A 10-foot clear area is recommended to surround the wash rack, and, as such, the total area for the wash rack is recommended to be 90 feet by 90 feet. ACRP Report 113 recommends certain features and layouts for aircraft wash racks depending on local drainage capabilities and environmental requirements. Given that local and state regulations require wash water to be treated, it is recommended that a wash rack would either be an open-air facility with a valved drainage system that only opens during wash events, a covered facility, or an enclosed facility.

3.12 Utility Systems Infrastructure
As mentioned in previous sections of this analysis, the Airport’s water and sewer services are provided by City of Watsonville facilities, while electrical power is supplied by PG&E. AT&T is the Airport’s telephone provider. The Burchell Water Tank is located on Airport property and a critical asset to the City of Watsonville’s network of water facilities. Airport stakeholders and staff have indicated that the existing utility infrastructure and services adequately meet the needs of the current Airport facilities. Undeveloped areas of the airfield do not currently have utilities. As such, any future development projects in these areas would require an extension of most or all of the aforementioned utilities to the new development.

The 2010 WVI Drainage and Utility Master Plan indicated that the Airport has several areas with inadequate drainage infrastructure to handle even moderate storms. The 2010 Drainage Plan identified a series of potential projects that would improve stormwater drainage and prevent flooding of the aprons and adjacent properties surrounding the airport. It is recommended that the Airport follow the recommendations of the 2010 Drainage Plan to address these issues.

Additionally, Airport stakeholders indicated a desire for electric aircraft to begin operating at the Airport in the future. The Airport would require additional electrical infrastructure and potentially capacity to support electric aircraft including aircraft chargers and battery swap/charging stations. It is recommended that the Airport continue to explore electric aircraft needs in the future to determine the exact needs for the facility.

3.13 California Aviation System Plan
Requirements
As mentioned throughout this analysis, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) sets minimum facility and service standards for public-use airports through the California Aviation System Plan (CASP). The most recent version of the CASP was published in 2010, although a new draft plan was released for public comment in November 2020. The 2010 CASP classified WVI as a Regional General Aviation and established minimum standards for WVI and similar airports in the state.

These minimum standards and WVI’s performance in each metric are summarized in Table 3-27. WVI meets all CASP

3-58
standards with the exception of the recommended runway length, which recommends the primary runway to be 5,120 feet long, which concurs with the recommended length determined using FAA AC 150/5325-4B.

Table 3-27: Minimum Standards for Regional General Aviation Airports Project Description (in order of priority) Regional GA Airports Watsonville Metrics
Runway Length/Extension
Sufficient to accommodate 100% of the aircraft
fleet at 60% useful load per FAA AC 150/5325-4B
WVI: 5,120’
Does not Meet
Runway Width 75’ Exceeds
Runway Weight Limit (lbs.) 12,500 single wheel Exceeds
Runway Safety Area (RSAs) Formula determined per AC 150/5300-13 Meets Visual Aids VASI/PAPI to lighted runway in no approach lights; REIL for IFR runway without approach lights Meets
Approach Procedures GPS/VOR Meets
Runway Approach Lighting None Exceeds
24-hour On-field Automated Weather (AWOS/ASOS) 24 hour on-field weather observation Meets Fuel Available Jet A and 100LL Meets
Airport Layout Plan Approval date fewer than 5-years old (month/year) In Progress Source: 2010 California Aviation System Plan, General Aviation System Needs Assessment Element

3-59

3.14 Facility Requirements Summary
Based on the facility requirements identified in this chapter, Table 3-28 presents a summary of recommended deficiencies to address to the Airport’s existing facilities throughout the planning period:

Table 3-28: Summary of Facility Requirements
Number Facility Requirement
Runways
1 Extend Runway 2-20 to achieve full length of at least 5,120 feet 2 Acquire fee-simple property or avigation and land use easement for RPZs to Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 3 Develop a strategy to address Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards and regain full operational capabilities of Runway 9- 27 4 Investigate feasibility of MIRL system for Runway 9-27 5 Investigate development of future turf runway
6 Investigate feasibility for MALSF system and FAA eligibility 7 Develop strategy for engaging in national policy on eligibility of non-primary runways Taxiways
8 Reconfigure Taxiway A to meet ADG-II taxiway separation to fixed or moveable object standards 9 Widen existing paved shoulders on Taxiway C to meet ADG-II design standards, if continue to provide paved shoulders 10 Reconfigure Taxiways A and C to address non-standard runway intersection angles and acute-angle runway entrance taxiways
11 Reconfigure Taxiway A to modify wide expanse of pavement at Runway 20 entrance 12 Reconfigure Taxiway Taxiways B, C, and D to eliminate taxiways with direct access from apron to runways 13 Consider options to reconfigure A to eliminate runway crossing in high-energy sections of the runways 14 Reconfigure apron and hangar area taxilanes to meet TDG-2 and ADG-II design and separation standards 15 Update designations of Taxiways B, D, and E; and runway entrance Taxiways A and C Parachute Landing Area (PLA)
16 Continue to coordinate with Nordic Naturals on land swap agreement 17 Coordinate relocation of PLA while maintaining USPA standards Airspace
18 Coordinate with FAA regarding maintenance of the on-airport localizer and existing APV, VOR, and LOC approach procedures
19 Continue to coordinate with FAA to investigate feasibility of GPS-based IAP to Runway 20 as technologies improve

3-60
Number Facility Requirement
20 Remove on-airport FAR Part 77 obstacles and coordinate with adjacent property owners to remove or mitigate obstacles to the approach and transitional surfaces
21 Coordinate with adjacent property owners to remove obstacles from the Runway 20 Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) in order to remove 590-foot displaced threshold
22 Continue to follow guidance in the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to manage and monitor wildlife in the vicinity.

General Aviation Facilities
23 Expand GA Terminal Building to meet Airport and users’ needs 24 Develop hangars as demand arises and financial conditions allow 25 Improve ground handling services for Jet Aircraft (e.g., lavatory cart, catering cart, GPU) Sustainability
26 Coordinate with Airport users and tenants to mitigate excess dumping of non-aviation solid waste Support Facilities
27 Construct Maintenance Equipment Storage (MES) building based on guidance from ACRP Report 113 28 Construct aircraft wash rack based on guidance from ACRP Report 113 29 Improve airfield drainage based on findings of 2010 WVI Drainage and Utilities Master Plan 30 Extend Airport utilities as needed for future development 31 Determine location for future aboveground fuel facilities Source: Kimley-Horn

Alternatives Analysis and
Recommended
Development Plan
Published February 2023 | Final
Prepared for
City of Watsonville
Prepared by

4-i
Table of Contents
4 Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Acknowledgement of Potential Airport Closure ...................................................... 4-2

4.3 No-Analysis Alternatives ......................................................................................... 4-4

4.4 Airside Alternatives................................................................................................ 4-12

4.4.1 Runway 2-20 Extension ........................................................................................................4-12

4.4.2 Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) ...............................................................................................4-17

4.4.3 Parachute Landing Area (PLA).............................................................................................4-37

4.4.4 Turf Runway...........................................................................................................................4-44

4.4.5 Taxiway A – Wide Expanse of Pavement at Runway 20 Entrance ....................................4-50

4.4.6 Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) .................................................................................4-53

4.4.7 Airspace Obstructions ...........................................................................................................4-60

4.5 Landside Alternatives............................................................................................ 4-63

4.5.1 General Aviation Terminal.....................................................................................................4-63

4.5.2 Aircraft Storage......................................................................................................................4-68

4.5.3 Support Facilities ...................................................................................................................4-77

4.6 Recommended Development Plan ....................................................................... 4-84

4-1
4 Alternatives Analysis
This chapter identifies and evaluates potential development alternatives for Watsonville Municipal Airport (WVI) to meet the existing and future facility needs identified in Chapter 3. This element of the Master Plan Update (MPU) was developed using an iterative process, beginning with an exploration of how various facilities could be improved to meet current and projected demands. The needs that were identified include specific elements of the airside and landside, each of which was examined independently to ascertain the preferred alternative for that element. Certain aspects of development would impact other areas, requiring an examination of how to combine the various alternatives, including potential modifications to preferred, facility-specific alternatives, into a Recommended Development Plan (RDP). In some cases, a single, logical improvement plan made the most sense and for others, multiple potential configurations or alternatives were considered.

A key aspect of the alternatives analysis was to provide the stakeholders and the community with the opportunity to review the various alternatives and provide input prior to any decisions being made. This stakeholder and public outreach process was accomplished through a series of meetings with the Project Review Committee (PRC), public open houses, and discussions with individual stakeholders in which draft materials were presented for review, discussion, and input. The alternatives analysis is presented as follows:
o Evaluation Criteria
o Acknowledgement of Potential Airport Closure
o No-Analysis Alternatives
o Airside Alternatives
o Landside Alternatives
o Recommended Development Plan
The goal of this chapter is to identify a range of alternatives for airfield and landside development that are consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines and standards and goals of WVI. The alternatives are based on a review of Airport’s needs as well as current environmental, physical, and financial constraints. Note that prior to the development of any airport project, an environmental analysis and permitting may be required, as further discussed in Chapter 5.

As noted in Chapter 3, it is important to remember that the potential solutions and selected RDP identified in this chapter will be part of a 20-year phased plan that is subject to changing guidance, policies, and interpretation. The RDP cannot and does not need to be implemented immediately. For example, FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design was last updated in 2012 and a new version (-13B) was in draft at the time of this chapter’s writing and has since been published. This analysis evaluates airfield facilities based on the standards of -13A. As such, some of the facility standards that are the basis for the identified alternatives may change based on the final guidance and new requirements may become applicable during the 20-year planning window. It will be important for WVI to discuss the latest FAA guidance as implementation is initiated for each project to confirm the recommendations made in this MPU are applicable at the time of implementation.

4-2

4.1 Evaluation Criteria
Each of the alternatives was weighed against a set of evaluation criteria that reflect the overarching design and management objectives of the Airport and this MPU. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify which alternatives provide the greatest benefit with the least impact, which ultimately inform the selection of the preferred alternative. The general evaluation criteria are listed below and are applied to the various analysis, as applicable. o Satisfy Future Demand: Alternative accommodates future demand volumes and forecast fleet mix and operational needs of the Airport.
o Meet FAA Design Standards: Alternative meets current FAA design standards, which are intended to enhance the operational safety of the Airport and reduce the need for a Modification of Standard (MOS). o Minimize On-airport Impacts: Alternative ensures compatibility with existing facilities by minimizing impact to surrounding facilities and uses and providing a balanced use of Airport property for short- and long-term plans. o Cost: Estimated capital development costs that also consider continued operation and maintenance costs to ensure the project is achievable in a manner that does not overburden the financial resources of the Airport. o Flexibility: Alternative can be scaled, phased, or adjusted to meet changing market conditions well into the future.
o Environmental Considerations: Alternative is compatible with environmental considerations on-airport and minimizes negative impacts to the community and natural environment. o Airport User Preferences: Alternative best suits Airport user and stakeholder preferences.

4.2 Acknowledgement of Potential Airport Closure
As it has been discussed by the public and the City of Watsonville Council Members, it was considered prudent for the MPU to acknowledge the potential for the Airport’s closure. While the MPU neither recommends the closure of WVI nor considers it a viable alternative, it does acknowledge that the Airport sponsor must do its due diligence in investigating what it would take to close the Airport and the implications of such a decision. This MPU does not cover all considering factors for airport closure but does provide a high-level overview of the process and implications. More information on airport closures and preservation of airports can be found in FAA Compliance Guidance Letter (CGL) 2018-2, The Process for the Release and Permanent Closure of Federally Obligated Airports, and the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 44, A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-use Airports.

Throughout the U.S., local residents and elected officials sometimes request that an airport be closed, or its operational capacity be severely reduced. The reasons for these requests can range from a perceived burden on local financial resources to environmental concerns to noise complaints. Airport closures can result in immediate implications for the airport sponsor, aviation-related users, and the community in which the airport is located. Airports serve as a driver of economic activity and contribute to the safety, security, and social wellbeing of the communities in which they are located, as well as provide other benefits to aviation and non-aviation users. These benefits include, but are not limited to, supporting corporate passenger service, general aviation activities, air taxi, air medivac and military operations, as well as attracting people to a region for business or pleasure.

Airport closures may also negatively impact the capability of the state aviation system to provide comprehensive air connectivity across California. The closure of an airport does not automatically mean that the aircraft and businesses owners

4-3
will also cease to exist, but instead may relocate to a nearby airport. This can negatively impact those facilities if they do not have sufficient airfield or storage capacity for these new operations and tenants.

In many cases of requests for airport closures, there is a lack of understanding of the types of activities that take place at these airports and that they can provide immense economic value to the region as well as life-saving activities. For example, WVI operated as a base of operations for CalFire during the August 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire that ravaged the nearby Santa Cruz Mountain range. WVI housed seven helicopters with personnel and equipment including mobile fuelers and support vehicles. WVI also played a vital role in the disaster relief efforts following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. During the closure of the major roadway access routes due to damage, WVI was the County’s conduit for incoming supplies.1 Additionally, the 2015 Santa Cruz County Operational Area Emergency Management Plan considers WVI as an essential facility in disaster response. As described further in Chapter 1, WVI’s 2019 total economic benefits included 452 jobs, $27.2 million in payroll for workers, and $67.0 million in output.

While the closure or deactivation of an airport is not impossible, it is a complex and lengthy process. Additionally, there are three guiding principles used to determine when the FAA generally will not consider airport closure unless a replacement airport is being constructed:2
o If the airport serves a unique role and there is no comparable alternative within its vicinity o If the airport is part of a system of airports and the role it fulfills is important to the continued operation of the local airport system
o If the airport is classified as a National or Regional airport in the current National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
As a Regional airport, the closure of WVI is unlikely unless the Airport sponsor provides sufficient justification for closure acceptable to the FAA. In addition to these guiding principles, airports that have accepted federal funds to keep the airport operating safely agree to 39 grant assurances (also referred to as obligations). Grant assurances federally obligate airports through the useful life of grant-funded improvements, intended to not exceed 20 years from the date of grant acceptance (for each individual grant). When federal grant funds are used to purchase land, or when airport land is conveyed to the sponsor as a surplus or non-surplus property, obligations tied to those funds do not expire, as the useful life of the land is presumed to be into perpetuity. Should WVI decide to pursue closure, a complete review of grant obligations and land deeds for would need to be completed to confirm the extent of applicable federal obligations. If these obligations were found for Airport property at WVI, the City would need to provide the FAA with justification for its request to close as well as complete an environmental review through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the closure. The FAA would also create a public notice for a “Change in Use of Aeronautical Property” in the Federal Register to afford the public an opportunity to comment.
1Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report 2005-2006 2 CGL 2018-2, The Process for the Release and Permanent Closure of Federally Obligated Airports (August 1, 2018), pgs. 1-2.

CalFire Operating in Santa Cruz Mountains

4-4
The FAA reviews release requests in terms of the following major considerations:
o Reasonableness and practicality of the sponsor’s request o Disposition and effect of the request on all airport assets o Net benefit to civil aviation
o Compatibility of the proposal with the needs of civil aviation o Existing airport being in a safe and operable condition o State aeronautical agency’s recommendation on the sponsor’s request If the FAA does approve a sponsor’s request to be released from its federal obligations, there are a series of steps that must be completed by the sponsor to dispose of airport property, including but not limited to:
o Determine the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land and infrastructure based on the highest and best use.

Additionally, the value realized from the disposal of any buildings and improvements owned by the airport sponsor must be treated as airport revenue regardless of original financing source o Reinvest the federal share of grant-funded improvements back into a new FAA-approved AIP-eligible project if the original project’s duration of useful life has not expired o Disposal of Airport Property (land and infrastructure) plans shown to FAA benefit civil aviation If WVI were to undergo this process, it is important to note that the sale of the property would not automatically be available for the City’s General Fund and may be required to be reimbursed to the FAA or reinvested in other aviation infrastructure.

It is also important to note that per Grant Assurance C.19.a, the airport sponsor is obligated to “…suitably operate and maintain the airport and facilities...” While waiting for the FAA grant assurances to expire, an airport sponsor may not allow an airport to fall into disrepair while considering a closure. The airport sponsor remains obligated to operate the airport and all facilities necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable federal, state, and local agencies for maintenance and operation. This can include maintenance of the pavement, lighting, navigational aids, and removal of obstructions, among many other regular maintenance items. Without FAA funding, this can result in millions of dollars in local funds being expended to maintain WVI while waiting for the grant assurances to expire.

4.3 No-Analysis Alternatives
Generally, facility improvements may be categorized as those that require in-depth alternatives analyses and those that do not. Some improvements do not offer alternatives as the conditions or needs should be met and there are no other options to achieving the infrastructure improvement. These improvements may have limited complexity and therefore do not require a full analysis. For the purposes of this MPU, improvements that do not require in-depth analyses are primarily focused on upgrading existing Airport infrastructure and/or standardizing conditions per FAA guidance. Such recommended improvements at WVI are listed below and depicted later in this chapter in Figure 4-29. More details on the background for each of these are provided in Chapter 3.

4-5
o Acquire fee-simple property or avigation and land use easement for Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) to Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27. The RPZs are intended to protect people and property on the ground in the event of an aircraft undershoot. It is recommended that the Airport gain positive control over the land use within the RPZs through fee-simple property acquisition, avigation easements, or land use easements. o Investigate feasibility for Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights (MALSF) system and FAA eligibility. As mentioned in Chapter 3, FAA AC 150/5340-30J recommends a MALSF lighting system for runways with non-precision approaches and where approach area identification is difficult. FAA Order 6850.2 requires that the minimum land available for a MALSF system begin 200 feet from the approach end of the runway and extend at least 1,400 feet outwards with a 400-foot width. Given the existing conditions of Runway 2, the MALSF lights would extend across Highway 1 and would require the Airport to coordinate with Caltrans to establish an easement to install lights in the area of the highway and associated on-ramps.

If Runway 2-20 is extended to the recommended length of 5,120 feet (a 619-foot extension) or the maximum possible length of 5,181 feet (a 680-foot extension), the MALSF lights would extend into the portion of Airport property currently being used as a golf range. In this case, the Airport would also have to install aviation equipment in the golf range and adjacent parking lot. It is important to note that a MALSF or Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) would be required if the instrument approach procedure (IAP) is upgraded to a precision IAP such as an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach, discussed further in Section 4.4.6.

As the MALSF is not required in the runway’s current configuration, installation of such a system may not be eligible for FAA funding. Therefore, it is recommended the Airport continue to explore the feasibility of a MALSF in conjunction with potential development of the Runway 2-20 extension and the implementation of precision IAP. It is not recommended at this time as a standalone project for the current runway conditions. Figure 4-1 presents the typical layout of a MALSF installed on the approach end of Runway 2 as it would be constructed in the runway’s existing conditions, Runway 2 with a 619-foot extension, and Runway 2 with a 680-foot extension. The exact placement would need to be further verified during a future design effort.

4-6
Figure 4-1: Runway 02 End Typical MALSF Layout

4-7
o Investigate feasibility of MIRL system for Runway 9-27: Runway lighting provides added guidance to pilots on the ground and in the air. It was therefore recommended the Airport investigate the feasibility of installing a low- or mediumintensity lighting system (LIRL/MIRL) for Runway 9-27. Installation of such a system would require the extension of electricity to both sides of the runway and the construction of the lighting fixtures per the standards of FAA AC 150/5340- 30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids. Given that FAA currently does not consider Runway 9-27 to be eligible for AIP funding (as discussed in the following bullet), construction of a MIRL system will need to be funded locally or using state funds. The Airport will also be financially responsible for the ongoing upkeep of the lighting and associated conduit. As such, it is not recommended the Airport pursue installation of a LIRL/MIRL system at this time, rather, the Airport should engage in funding eligibility discussions as described below. o Develop strategy for engaging in national policy on funding eligibility of non-primary runways. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the FAA does not typically fund maintenance or improvement projects on crosswind runways if the primary runway provides adequate crosswind coverage, defined to be at least 95 percent of the time. Given this policy and the wind coverage provided by Runway 2-20, the primary runway, the FAA’s participation in funding future enhancements or maintenance of this runway is likely to be limited, putting increased financial burden on the Airport to maintain Runway 9-

27. As such, it is recommended that WVI coordinate with other affected airports, the FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming, and pertinent industry organizations to discuss the future of the policy and the FAA’s actions regarding its enforcement.

In addition to engaging in the nationwide policy, it is recommended that the Airport discuss applying the definition of a “secondary” runway to Runway 9-27 to ensure the runway would still be eligible for FAA funding per FAA Order 5100.38D. The ADO has the authority to make a specific determination that the runway is required for operation of the airfield.
o Reconfigure Taxiway A to meet Airport Design Group (ADG)-II taxiway separation to fixed or moveable object standards. The taxiway must be configured in such a way as to ensure that the taxiway separation to fixed or moveable object separation meets ADG-II standards without compromising other design or separation standards. As such, it is recommended the Airport perimeter fence be relocated from its current location near the connector to Runway 2 end to ensure that design standards are met.
o Widen existing paved shoulders on Taxiway C to meet ADG-II design standards, if continuing to provide paved shoulders. While paved taxiway shoulders are not required per ADG-II design standards, it is recommended that the existing paved shoulders be widened by three feet to meet ADG-II standards. Alternatively, the Airport can choose to remove the pavement and instead construct shoulders using turf, aggregate-turf, soil cement, lime, or bituminous stabilized soil to reduce potential for erosion.
o Reconfigure Taxiways A and C to address non-standard runway intersection angles and acute-angle runway entrance taxiways. FAA AC 150 150/5300-13A recommends right-angle runway entrance taxiways wherever possible.

This provides pilots the best visibility of both the runway and the approach to the runway. Right angle taxiways also provide clear indication of an approaching runway. It is recommended that Taxiway A and Taxiway C be reconfigured to meet Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 at 90-degree angles during the next pavement rehabilitation project. Figure 4-2 presents the recommended configuration of Taxiways A and C. o Reconfigure Taxiways B, C, and D to eliminate taxiways with direct access from apron runways. FAA AC 150 150/5300-13A states that taxiways that provide direct, straight-line access between the aircraft parking apron/ramp and the runway are inadvisable due to the increased risk of runway incursions. WVI currently has three taxiways that provide direct access and one area of potential concern: Taxiway B, D, and C at the end of Runway 27. It is recommended that

4-8
the Airport relocate Taxiways B and D to eliminate direct access by demolishing the current pavement and shifting the entrance taxiways during the next pavement rehabilitation project. Additionally, it is recommended that the taxilane connecting the corporate hangars to Taxiway C be reconfigured to include two turns before joining Runway 27. Figure 4-2 shows the recommended configuration of Taxiways B, C, and D.

While not technically a direct access taxiway, Taxiway C is a potential area of concern at the intersection with Taxiway A, adjacent to the north tie down ramp. Currently, Taxiway A is marked with a double-yellow taxiway edge marking to warn pilots not to cross between the ramp and Taxiway C. However, there is no physical barrier between the ramp and the taxiway, which would allow aircraft to taxi directly between the ramp and Runway 2-20. It is recommended that the Airport monitor aircraft traffic on the ramp to determine whether aircraft cross the taxiway edge markings to access Taxiways A or C. If this does occur, it is recommended the Airport repaint the north tie down ramp to include a no-taxi island along Taxiway A at the intersection of Taxiways A and C, per the standards of FAA AC 150/5340-1M: Standards for Airport Markings and AC 150/5300-13A. It is important to note that the north tie down ramp may need to be remarked or removed to correct the non-standard runway visibility zone (RVZ) concerns at the Airport, which could eliminate the issue of a direct access taxiway. In this case, the apron would be temporarily reconfigured to address the direct access taxiway until it is modified to meet RVZ standards.

Similarly, Taxiway C is marked with a solid double-yellow taxiway edge line along the north T-hangar area. If Taxiway B is reconfigured to the east, as shown in Figure 4-2, it is recommended the Airport monitor aircraft traffic on the ramp to determine whether aircraft cross the taxiway edge markings to access Taxiway B. If aircraft cross the taxiway edge line to access Taxiway B and Runway 27, it is recommended that the Airport repaint the T-hangar down ramp to include a notaxi island. It is recommended these improvements be completed in conjunction with the next taxiway rehabilitation/reconstruction project, with the exception of the relocation of Taxiway B. As Taxiway B will likely be impacted by modifications made to the airfield to correct the non-standard runway visibility zone (RVZ), it is recommended that Taxiway B be relocated at the time those modifications are completed. o Update designations of Taxiways B, D, and E; and runway entrance Taxiways A and C: FAA AC 150 150/5300-13A recommends all runway entrance taxiways have a unique designator with appropriate markings and signage. At WVI, Taxiways A and C connect at both ends of Runway 2-20 and 9-27, respectively, causing potential confusion for pilots unfamiliar with the Airport. As such, it is recommended the Airport coordinate with the FAA to redesignate Taxiways A and C at each runway end to provide unique designations for each entrance (i.e., Taxiway A would be redesignated Taxiway A1 at the Runway 2 end, and A4 at the Runway 20 end). It is also recommended Taxiways B, D, and E be redesignated to correspond with the parallel taxiways they connect to (i.e., Taxiway B would be redesignated Taxiway C2, and Taxiway E be redesignated Taxiway A2, etc.). Numbering midfield taxiway connectors often offer pilots a better understanding of where their aircraft is located on an airfield and what major taxiway they are approaching when exiting the runway after landing.

The Airport will need to update the taxiway pavement and airfield signage and coordinate with the FAA to change the FAA Chart Supplement and Airport Diagram. It is recommended this be completed in conjunction with the next taxiway rehabilitation project and the realignment of the direct access and runway entrance taxiways. Furthermore, it is recommended the entire taxiway designation and signage system be updated at the same time to avoid any incongruencies among markings, signage, and airfield chart designations.

4-9
Figure 4-2: Recommended Taxiway Configuration
See
Figure 4-15 for
recommended
run-up area
configuration

4-10
o Taxiway A - Runway 27 Intersection. Currently, Taxiway A crosses Runway 9-27 176 feet west of the runway center point, which presents an increased risk of high-speed collision in the event of a runway incursion. FAA AC 150/5300-13A recommends that taxiways should avoid crossing runways in the ‘high-energy’ center one-third of the runway in an effort to reduce this risk, although it is not an airfield design requirement. Therefore, it was recommended that this intersection be reviewed to determine the feasibility of shifting the intersection to the outer ‘low energy’ sections of the runway.

It is important to consider operational impacts when reviewing any potential relocation of the taxiway. As discussed in Chapter 1, Runway 20 is the preferred calm wind runway for the Airport and the runway supports approximately 74 percent of operations based on 2018-2020 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data. Taxiway A is the sole access point for the Runway 20 end and is heavily trafficked by both arriving and departing aircraft. Any relocation of Taxiway A could cause increased operational inefficiencies as aircraft departing Runway 20 would have a longer taxi from the apron area. If Taxiway A was relocated to the west side of Runway 2-20, aircraft would be required to cross both runways to reach the Runway 20 end, increasing the risk for runway incursions and incidents. Additionally, a threatened plant species, the Santa Cruz tarplant has been reported in the area surrounding Runway 9-27 intersection. As such, it is recommended that Taxiway A not be relocated from its current location at the Runway 9-27 intersection. o Reconfigure apron and hangar area taxilanes to meet Taxiway Design Group (TDG)-2 and ADG-II design and separation standards. Several taxilanes do not meet appropriate separation distance for TDG-2 and ADG-II standards.

It is recommended that the Airport repaint the transient ramp, north tie down ramp, east transient ramp, Specialized helicopter ramp, and taxilanes in the north hangar area to meet these standards. It is recommended that the Airport complete this work during the next apron rehabilitation/reconstruction project, as the final layout of the taxilanes may be impacted by changes to apron size and configuration.
o Coordinate with FAA regarding maintenance of the on-airport localizer and existing instrument approach procedures. The FAA’s Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) Department is responsible for developing and maintaining all public instrument flight procedures and airways. As such, it is important for the Airport to coordinate with AIS to ensure the existing approach procedures are maintained without changes to approach minima or capability. This will require routine maintenance of NAVAIDs on and off the field as well as evaluation of obstructions along the IAP path.

The maintenance should be done in accordance with FAR Part 77 and FAA Order 8260.3. o Continue to follow guidance in the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) to manage and monitor wildlife in the vicinity. FAA AC 150/5200-33B describes general separation criteria and best land use practices to mitigate the risk of hazardous wildlife on and around an airport. As the Airport developed a WHMP in 2016 and has been successful in managing the wildlife to date, it is recommended that staff continue to follow the recommended actions in the WHMP and update it as necessary. Described further in Appendix B, this would include training new staff on proper procedures, keeping apprised of current technologies for wildlife management, and reviewing any new development within 10,000 feet of WVI for potential wildlife attractants.
o Improve ground handling services for Jet Aircraft (e.g., lavatory cart, catering cart, ground power unit [GPU]). As mentioned in Chapter 3, the Airport expects to attract a greater number of jet aircraft in the next five years, which will require improved infrastructure and amenities to service these aircraft and their users. The Airport has already begun to modify the east transient ramp to allow for convenient transient jet parking in front of the terminal building. It is recommended that the Airport acquire additional equipment for servicing jet aircraft including, at minimum, a GPU, catering and potable water cart, lavatory cart, and aircraft tug or towbars capable of accommodating most light to medium business jet aircraft.

4-11
o Enhance restricted access gates. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Airport’s secured areas are accessed through four vehicle gates and 13 pedestrian gates located around the property. Authorized individuals can pass through these gates using keypads and security codes. While the system is adequate, the existing keypad system is somewhat vulnerable as security codes can be shared between authorized personnel and non-authorized individuals. The 2017 TSA General Aviation (GA) Security Guidelines document recommends the use of advanced-technology such as a radio-frequency identification (RFID) key system. RFID systems allow Airport staff to keep a record of user’s movements through the access gates and to disable RFID keys if an authorized user reports a key being lost or stolen. The Airport has plans to implement an RFID gate card system at all access points in 2023 to enhance airfield security. o Coordinate with Airport users and tenants to mitigate excess dumping of non-aviation solid waste. Solid waste can present several hazards to the Airport and surrounding environment. Airport staff indicated that excess non-aviation waste builds up around dumpsters near the corporate hangars and the south hangar area. It is recommended that the Airport work to educate users and tenants about the risks associated with excess waste and the need to reduce excess waste. This could include added signage near dumpsters, education programs for users, and added language to the Airport minimum standards to improve awareness for users. o Improve airfield drainage based on findings of 2010 WVI Drainage and Utilities Master Plan. The 2010 WVI Drainage and Utilities Master Plan identified a number of areas of inadequate drainage infrastructure on the aircraft aprons and many other areas of the Airport property. It is recommended that the Airport follow the recommendations of the 2010 Drainage Plan to address these issues.
o Extend Airport utilities as needed for future development. As additional development is added throughout the Airport property, appropriate utilities should be extended as required. o Designate Airport-owned, off-airfield parcel as dedicated Santa Cruz Tarplant Habitat. As noted in Appendix B, much of WVI’s airfield is designated as a critical habitat for the Santa Cruz Tarplant, a threatened plant species which has been identified growing in undeveloped areas along both runways and parallel taxiways. The presence of tarplant on the airfield poses a significant challenge for future airfield development, as several federal and state statutes require the preservation and protection of threatened or endangered species. While the Airport is working to mitigate impacts to tarplant onsite, it is likely that some of the developments recommended in this chapter may affect the existing and future tarplant areas. As such, the Airport is coordinating with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to designate the parcel of Airport-owned land west of California Highway 1 (#57 and #58) as a dedicated habitat for Tarplant to offset lost critical habitat in other areas of the airfield. It is unknown if this plan will be considered a sufficient mitigation effort at this time, but it is recommended the Airport continue to coordinate with the CDFW to ensure a critical habitat is preserved for tarplant on airport property.
o Complete Pavement Maintenance. As discussed in Section 3.5, the pavement conditions were assessed through the 2022 Pavement Evaluation Study - Pavement Maintenance / Management Plan (PMMP). The PMMP determined the remaining life of the existing pavements and the recommend maintenance and rehabilitation schedules based on the forecasted aircraft operations at WVI from this MPU. When the PMMP schedule was developed, consideration was given to the requirements to maintain a good operational surface, to be cost effective, and to spread out the work in such a manner as to maintain a reasonably uniform annual cost of rehabilitation. The results of the PMMP were reviewed and incorporated into the Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) presented in Chapter 5 and no further analysis was done as part of this MPU.

4-12

4.4 Airside Alternatives
The development of airside alternatives focused on issues affecting the operations and regulatory compliance of WVI. This presents various alternatives for previously identified needs including the extension of Runway 2-20, nonstandard RVZ, Parachute Landing Area (PLA), implementation of a turf runway, reconfiguration of Taxiway A, improvements to instrument approach procedures, and mitigation of airspace obstructions. An analysis of the alternatives for each need was conducted utilizing the previously discussed evaluation criteria to select a preferred alternative to satisfy the need. The preferred alternatives were then reviewed collectively, including the no-analysis, those presented in this section, and those presented in Section 4.5, and combined to create the RDP, discussed in Section 4.6.

4.4.1 Runway 2-20 Extension
Runway length alternatives were developed primarily to address the insufficient length of Runway 2-20. An extension to at least the length recommended in FAA AC 150/5325-4B is critical for the Airport to meet the needs of the current grouping of aircraft as well as future anticipated demand. Alternative 1 presents the potential benefit and impacts if a runway extension is not completed, while Alternatives 2 and 3 identify ways to improve insufficient runway length conditions. These alternatives were assessed, and a preferred alternative is presented below. As stated in Chapter 3, the FAA has indicated that the distances recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B used in this analysis should only be used for airport planning purposes. If the Airport wishes to construct a runway extension, it will need to identify an individual critical aircraft type as a regular user to justify a minimum length prior to conducting the environmental review or design of the extension. At this time, Runway 2-20 meets the minimum recommended length of the Airport’s current critical aircraft, the Beechcraft King Air 350. As such, a runway extension would not be justified at this time, so a runway extension is being considered in this MPU as an ultimate development to be completed outside of the 20-year planning timeframe. However, the extension is included in this analysis to ensure the ongoing protection of land and airspace from future development until aviation activity warrants an extension to meet the needs of larger and faster aircraft. At that time, it is recommended the Airport validate the type and number of aircraft operations occurring at the Airport to identify a critical aircraft that regularly uses the Airport and requires a runway extension.

An example of such an aircraft is the Dassault Falcon 900, which has operated at the Airport in recent years and has a recommended runway length of 5,130 feet under normal conditions at WVI.

Runway 2-20 Alternative 1: Maintain Current Conditions
This alternative would maintain Runway 2-20 in its current condition of 4,501 feet in length. As noted in Chapter 3, the minimum recommended length of Runway 2-20 is 5,120 feet. If an extension is not constructed, the runway would not meet the length recommended by the FAA AC for the B-II group of aircraft but would meet the needs of the current critical aircraft (Beechcraft King Air 350). Moreover, if an extension is not constructed, the Airport would limit its potential to serve a greater flying community. The Airport would not be able to cater to larger aircraft, specifically medium and large corporate jet aircraft, whose users have already requested a longer runway. Serving larger aircraft typically indicates the potential for increased Airport revenues as larger aircraft usually purchase more fuel, request additional services, and can pay higher service charges for the extra space needs.

Declining to extend the runway will save the City money from the design and construction costs for the initial project as well as future pavement maintenance projects for the extension.

The benefits, impacts, and considerations of Alternative 1 are summarized below.

4-13
Benefits
• Cost savings of up-front design and construction of runway Impacts/Considerations
• Limited ability for the Airport to support larger and more business/corporate jet aircraft • Runway 2-20 does not meet recommended length per FAA AC 150/5325-4B Runway 2-20 Alternative 2: Extend Runway to 5,120 feet (619-foot-long extension) This alternative extends Runway 2-20 619 feet to the southeast as depicted in Figure 4-3. Taxiway A and all required safety and clearance zones would also shift to the southeast by 619 feet to meet FAA design standards. This extension would achieve an ultimate runway length of 5,120 feet, the recommended length for Runway 2-20 from the FAA AC. This would allow the Airport to serve most of the corporate aircraft fleet, improving the Airport’s service capabilities and assisting the Airport in achieving its goal to attract more jet aircraft to Watsonville. A 619-foot-long extension of the runway would require demolition of approximately 16,100 square feet of existing Taxiway A pavement and construction of 134,100 square feet of new runway and taxiway pavement.

Additionally, a runway extension would require the approach and departure RPZs to shift to the southwest by 619 feet. This would increase the amount of land within the RPZ that is not owned or controlled by the Airport from 27.58 acres to 28.03 acres and may introduce new obstacles to the approach surface. If this Alternative is selected, it is recommended that the Airport conduct an airspace study to determine if any obstacles penetrate the various FAR Part 77 and Order 8260.3, United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) surfaces, as described in Chapter 3. Additionally, the additional runway length would slightly increase the size of the existing RVZ, thereby increasing the number of tie downs and T-hangars impacted by the RVZ.

The following bullets summarize the benefits and impacts of a 619-foot-long runway extension.

Benefits
• Runway 2-20 meets recommended length per FAA AC 150/5325-4B • Increases Airport’s capability to accommodate jet and turboprop aircraft Impacts/Considerations
• Costs of runway/taxiway design and construction and future maintenance for 134,100 square feet of pavement • Small increase in number of tie downs and hangars impacted by non-standard RVZ • RPZ shift and possible new approach surface obstacles

4-14
Figure 4-3: Alternative 2 - Runway 2-20 619-foot-long Extension

4-15
Runway 2-20 Alternative 3: Extend Runway to 5,181 feet (680-foot-long extension) This alternative extends Runway 2-20 680 feet to the southeast to achieve an ultimate runway length of 5,181 feet and is shown in Figure 4-4. Similar to Alternative 2, Taxiway A and all required safety and clearance zones would also shift to the southeast by 680 feet to meet FAA design standards. This ultimate length provides the maximum length of runway that could be achieved within the existing Airport property boundary while still meeting applicable design standards. The 680-foot-long extension would provide nominal improvements in capability over Alternative 2, however, it would offer the maximum amount of airspace protection for the Airport in the event of future developments.

A 680-foot-long extension of the runway would require demolition of approximately 16,100 square feet of existing taxiway pavement and construction of 143,250 square feet of new runway and taxiway pavement. The proposed runway extension would require the approach and departure RPZs to also shift to the southwest by 680 feet. This would slightly reduce the amount of land within the RPZ that is not owned or controlled by the Airport from 27.58 acres to 27.32 acres but may introduce new obstacles to the runway approach surface. If Alternative 3 is selected, it is recommended that the Airport conduct an airspace study in a similar fashion to that suggested in Alternative 2. Additionally, the additional runway length would slightly modify the size of the existing RVZ to impact a few more hangars and tie downs.

Benefits
• Runway 2-20 meets recommended length per FAA AC 150/5325-4B • Increases Airport’s capability to accommodate jet and turboprop aircraft Impacts/Considerations
• Costs of runway/taxiway design and construction and future maintenance for 143,250 square feet of pavement • Small increase in number of tie downs and hangars impacted by non-standard RVZ • RPZ shift and possible new approach surface obstacles

4-16
Figure 4-4: Alternative 3 - Runway 2-20 680-foot-long Extension

4-17
Runway 2-20 Extension Evaluation
The alternatives presented above were evaluated using several quantitative and qualitative aspects that are considered important to Airport stakeholders and staff. It is important to note that while an extension to Runway 2-20 has been planned and discussed since at least 2003 the operations at the Airport have changed. While an alternatives analysis was conducted to address this project that has been in discussion for nearly 20 years, any extension of Runway 2-20 is not currently justified by the forecast air traffic during the planning period. It is recommended the Airport continue to monitor aircraft activity and engage specific Airport users to determine what length of runway would accommodate their needs.

The runway extension alternatives were scored on a scale of 1 to 3, with three being the best score for each evaluation criterion. Relevant criteria selected for this evaluation include:
o Meet Design Standards: Meets current FAA length and separation standards o Satisfy Future Demand: Accommodates future activity demand o Cost: Capital development, operational, and maintenance costs o Environmental Considerations: Minimizes negative impacts to the community and natural environment Table 4-1 presents the evaluation of the three development alternatives for the extension of Runway 2-20. Alternative 1 scores slightly lower than Alternatives 2 and 3 as it does not meet the recommended length per FAA AC 150/5325-4B.

Alternatives 2 and 3 score similarly as there are minimal differences between the 619-foot-long extension and the 680-footlong extension. As such, it is recommended the Airport pursue Alternative 3 to extend Runway 2, 680 feet to the south to provide the maximum allowable length and protect the most airspace around the airfield.

Table 4-1: Runway 2-20 Extension Alternative Evaluation Alternative
Meet FAA
Design
Standards
Satisfy Future
Demand Cost Environmental Considerations Total Score
1: Maintain Current Conditions 2 2 3 3 10
2: Extend Runway 2-20 by 619 Feet 3 3 2 3 11
3: Extend Runway 2-20 by 680 Feet 3 3 2 3 11
Source: Kimley-Horn

4.4.2 Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ)
As described in Chapter 3, three T-hangar buildings (27 units) and 41 apron tie downs currently impede the line-of-sight between the two intersecting runways within the area known as the RVZ. To reduce the potential for adverse aircraft collisions, aircraft departures are currently prohibited from Runway 27. It should be noted that after the MPU analysis was completed, the Airport Design AC was updated to -13B which included slight changes to the RVZ calculation. These changes and applicability to WVI are documented in Appendix D. The new guidance does not modify the alternatives described in this section unless noted.

The following sections describe eight alternatives to achieve compliance with FAA RVZ standards. These include:

4-18
• Maintain current conditions
• Construction of an air traffic control tower (ATCT)
• Removal or relocation of hangars and tie downs
• Relocation of Runway 27 threshold:
o So RVZ does not impact on hangars
o So RVZ does not impact on hangars or tie downs
o To eliminate intersection with Runway 2-20
• Shift Runway 9-27 west to have no impact on existing tie downs and hangars • Closure of Runway 9-27
Additionally, a 255-foot-long extension of Runway 9 is discussed, which by itself would not resolve RVZ issues but could be paired with another alternative to increase the length of Runway 9-27, as appropriate.

The calculations and figures presented in the following sections make assumptions regarding the ultimate configuration of the Airport’s runways. Runway 2-20 is assumed to be extended 680 feet from the approach end of Runway 2, the longest the runway can be extended while meeting FAA design and separation standards within existing Airport property. While the runway extension only has minor implications on the overall size of the RVZ, it assumes the most conservative RVZ conditions that could be present at the Airport. In Runway 2-20’s ultimate configuration, 41 tie downs on the north tie down ramp (#36) and 29 T-hangar units in buildings I (#12), J (#13), and K (#14) would be fall within the RVZ. Figure 4-5 presents the ultimate condition of Runway 2-20 with a 680-foot extension to the southwest and the corresponding RVZ.3 It is important to note each of the eight alternatives may have significant financial implications for the Airport, not only related to the initial design and construction of each alternative but also the ongoing maintenance of Runway 9-27. As discussed in Chapter 3, Runway 9-27 may no longer be considered eligible for FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding under current FAA policy. As such, the Airport is likely to be wholly responsible for the long-term maintenance costs and capital costs of any improvements made to the runway.
3 This extension is assumed to occur sometime in the future, beyond the 20-year horizon of the Master Plan. It is therefore identified as an “ultimate” condition rather than a “future” condition, which indicates it is anticipated within the 20-year planning period. The Airport will continue to monitor aircraft operations and needs to provide the required justification to support this extension at such time it is warranted. Refer to Section 4.4.1 for further information about the runway extension.

4-19
Figure 4-5: Runway Visibility Zone – Runway 2/20 Ultimate Condition

4-20
RVZ Alternative 1: Maintain Current Conditions
Alternative 1 maintains the current configuration of the airfield, thereby retaining the existing operational limitations of Runway 9-27. This alternative would ensure that Runway 9-27 maintains its current length, thus continuing to support the fleet of aircraft currently using the runway. This alternative would require the Airport to continue to restrict the use of Runway 27 for aircraft departures. For planning purposes, restricted use of Runway 27 would not affect airfield capacity, as discussed in Chapter 3. However, the Airport and stakeholders have expressed a desire to regain full use of Runway 27 as it provides an alternative departure direction if wind and/or visibility conditions preclude the use of Runway 20. Maintaining current conditions would be the least environmentally impactful alternative as it would not require any additional development. Additionally, this alternative would be the least cost, as the Airport would avoid the upfront costs of designing, demolishing, and constructing pavement and buildings on the airfield, though future maintenance of the runway pavement could be wholly at the cost of the Airport due to funding eligibility as discussed above. While there are some benefits to maintaining current conditions, this alternative does not provide a permanent solution to the nonstandard RVZ, as the FAA has previously indicated it will eventually require action from the airport to eliminate this issue.

The following bullets summarize the potential benefits and impacts/considerations of maintaining current RVZ conditions.

Benefits
• No change in Runway 9-27 length
• No impact to endangered species habitats
• Cost savings of up-front design and construction of runway and hangar construction/modification Impacts/Considerations
• Continued operational limitations for Runway 27
• Airport would be responsible for maintenance of the full length of Runway 9-27 • Does not provide a permanent solution, which FAA requires as part of this Master Plan RVZ Alternative 2: Construct Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) Alternative 2 includes construction of an ATCT on the airfield. FAA AC 150/5300-13A dictates that objects may restrict line-ofsight visibility within the RVZ if an operational ATCT is present on the airfield when a MOS is obtained. The MOS must be renewed with the FAA every five years and in the future may not satisfy RVZ requirements4 . The MOS also requires the ATCT
to be operational to satisfy RVZ requirements. As such, the ATCT would be required to be operated 24/7 or the Airport would have to restrict use of Runway 27 outside of hours of ATCT operation. An additional benefit of an ATCT is that while the ATCT is operational, both runways may be used simultaneously, increasing the airfield’s hourly and annual capacity.5 Based on the activity forecasts discussed in Chapter 2, the current and projected aviation activity levels do not warrant the construction of an ATCT. As such, the Airport would be fully financially responsible for the cost of the siting, design, construction, and ongoing maintenance of an ATCT building. Siting the ATCT can often be a challenge in itself, as the tower will require clear line of site of both runways and all taxiways in the movement area. Construction of an ATCT may preclude development of certain areas of the airfield based on these sightlines and other regulations. The Airport would also be 4 The newly released 2022 AC 150/5300-13B Airport Design indicates that an MOS would no longer be required to remove the requirement of the RVZ if an ATCT were constructed. An RVZ would now become recommended best practice. 5 Current and forecast aircraft activity demand is satisfied within the capacity of the airfield without the simultaneous operation of both runways.

4-21
required to pay for the staffing and operational costs of the ATCT, likely with partial or no financial assistance from the FAA Contract Tower program.

Furthermore, the Airport would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the full length of Runway 9-27. If, at some point in the future, Runway 9-27 becomes too costly to maintain and is closed, then the ATCT would become entirely redundant as traffic at the Airport would not warrant operations with a single runway. The Airport could explore alternative options such as a virtual tower, which is in testing and is thought to have lower construction and maintenance costs than a traditional ATCT, however, this technology would still require significant upfront and ongoing capital investment, as well as staffing. Given the significant costs associated with the construction, upkeep, staffing and operation of an ATCT, this alternative is not considered a viable option for the Airport.

Benefits:
• RVZ design standard is no longer applicable to intersecting runways assuming MOS obtained • Allows for simultaneous use of both runways, increasing airfield capacity Impacts/Considerations
• The Airport would be fully responsible for cost of contract tower as current and forecast aviation activity does not warrant construction of ATCT
• Requires siting of ATCT on airfield, limiting other development based on sightlines and regulations • Requires a MOS
• Airport would likely be financially responsible for maintenance and upkeep of both Runway 9-27 and ATCT • Requires 24/7 ATCT operation, which current activity levels do not warrant; or Runway 27 would only be available for departures during hours of ATCT operation
RVZ Alternative 3: Remove/Relocate Hangars/Tie downs
This alternative would entail the partial demolition of three T-hangar buildings, removing 29 T-hangar units (16 units from Thangar Building K, 10 units from T-hangar Building J, and 3 units from T-hangar Building I). Additionally, 41 apron tie downs would be removed from the north tie down ramp. While the Airport could still meet forecasted demand with the remaining aircraft tie downs, removal of T-hangar units would exacerbate the existing shortage of T-hangar units.

If the Airport were to relocate the impacted T-hangars as part of Alternative 4 rather than just remove them, it would have significant design and construction costs. Due to limitations of FAA funding, it is likely the Airport would have to bear the full financial responsibility of hangar relocation or construction. Based on current local funding availability, it is highly unlikely that the aircraft storage could be replaced at the same time as this alternative is implemented without assistance from a private developer.

This alternative would enable the Airport to provide full operational capabilities of both runways and maintain the current length of Runway 9-27. This would best allow the runway to serve the widest variety of aircraft but would also have the highest associated maintenance and upkeep costs due to the additional runway length compared to other alternatives.

Benefits
• No change in Runway 9-27 length
• Enables full operational capability of both runways
Impacts/Considerations

4-22
• Loss of 29 T-hangar units, increasing T-hangar deficiency from six (as of 2020) to 35 • Challenges to replacing infrastructure on Airport due to limited funding sources • Airport would be responsible for maintenance of the full length of Runway 9-27 RVZ Alternative 4-A: Relocate Runway 27 Threshold 800 Feet West – No Hangar Impact Alternative 4-A relocates the Runway 27 threshold west by 800 feet to shift the RVZ so T-hangar buildings I, J, and K are not impacted. As depicted in Figure 4-6, this alternative would provide an ultimate runway length of 3,198 feet, 292 feet shorter than the length recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B. Alternative 4-A would require the removal of 27 aircraft tie downs on the north tie down ramp, leaving 22 tie downs remaining. Even with the removal of 27 tie downs, the Airport is still projected to have a surplus of apron tie downs through the 20-year planning period. More importantly, the Airport would regain the capability to operate from both ends of Runway 9-27.

While the runway length proposed in Alternative 4-A does not meet the recommended length from AC 150/5325-4B, it exceeds the required takeoff length of its critical aircraft, the Cessna 340. As such, relocating the Runway 27 threshold 800 feet west would have marginal impacts on the runway’s ability to serve as a substitute to Runway 2-20 during crosswind conditions, however, the runway is still anticipated to accommodate more that 95 percent of the aircraft it is forecast to serve.

As part of this alternative, a review of the runway lengths, fleet mix, and the 2019 annual operations of other regional airports was conducted. Reid-Hillview (RHV) has two parallel runways of 3,100 feet, six based multi-engine aircraft, and almost 200,000 annual operations. San Carlos (SQL) has a 2,621-foot-long runway, four based jets and six based multi-engine aircraft, and over 80,000 annual operations. Palo Alto (PAO) has a 2,443-foot-long runway, six based multi-engine aircraft and over 155,000 annual operations. The activity at these three airports demonstrates that the current fleet mix and annual operations that take place at WVI could be conducted on a shortened Runway 9-27. Due to the aforementioned eligibility concerns, the Airport may be responsible for the upfront costs of relocating the end of Runway 27, demolishing Taxiway C at the existing runway threshold, and construction of a new connector taxiway. Additionally, the Airport would be financially responsible for the upkeep of Runway 9-27, although these costs would be less than those associated with Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 due to the reduced runway length. The Runway 27 RPZ would also shift west, increasing the amount of land in the RPZ that is already controlled by the Airport.

It is important to note the proposed end of Runway 27 in this alternative would align with the taxilane exiting the east hangar area. If this alternative is selected, the runway end entrance taxiway would need to be shifted approximately 70 feet west to avoid a direct access configuration. This would in turn shift the runway threshold west by an additional 70 feet, which would reduce the total runway length of 3,128 feet. Prior to implementation, additional review should be conducted to determine if there are other viable options such as no-taxi islands rather than shifting the runway threshold the additional 70 feet.

The benefits, impacts, and considerations associated with Alternative 4-A are summarized in the bullets below.

Benefits
• Enables full operational capability of both runways
• No impact to existing T-hangar deficiency
• Increases amount of land in the Runway 27 RPZ controlled by the Airport Impacts/Considerations
• Runway 9-27 length is 292 feet less than the length recommended for 100% of B-I-Small aircraft fleet per FAA AC 150/5325-4B

4-23
• Marginally limits Runway 9-27’s ability to serve larger jet and turboprop GA aircraft • Airport would be responsible for maintenance of Runway 9-27

4-24
Figure 4-6: Alternative 4-A – Relocate Runway 27 Threshold 800 Feet West – No Hangar Impact

4-25
RVZ Alternative 4-B: Relocate Runway 27 Threshold 1,993 Feet West – No Hangar or Tie Down Impact
Alternative 4-B reduces the size of the RVZ by relocating the end of Runway 27 1,993 feet west. As shown in Figure 4-7, this alternative would shrink the RVZ so that no existing hangars or tie downs are impacted by the RVZ. This would allow the Airport to regain full operational capabilities of both runways while not impacting the existing shortage of T-hangars at the Airport.

Alternative 4-B results in Runway 9-27 having a total length of 2,005 feet, 1,485 feet less than the length recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B. This alternative results in nearly a 50 percent reduction in runway length, limiting the runway’s ability to support operations of larger jet and turboprop GA aircraft and making the runway available for use by mostly small GA aircraft in the national fleet. This length would meet the recommended length for the Beechcraft G58 Baron under planning circumstances but may cause operators to limit payload or stage lengths on hot or windy days. As noted under Alternative 4- A, the activity at other regional airports demonstrates that the current fleet mix and annual operations that take place at WVI could be conducted on a shortened Runway 9-27.

Alternative 4-B would shift the Runway 27 RPZ entirely onto existing Airport property, resolving any concerns of off-airport incompatible land uses. It would also clear approximately 7.0 acres of land on Airport property for development of future aeronautical facilities. The newly-cleared land falls within Caltrans Safety Zone 2 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone), which limits the allowed uses and facilities able to be developed in that area to low-intensity aeronautical facilities such as aircraft tie downs and single-story hangar units or industrial buildings. This new land could potentially be used to develop revenuegenerating facilities, which could in turn offset some of the long-term maintenance costs of Runway 9-27.

Benefits
• Enables full operational capability of both runways
• No impact to existing T-hangar deficiency
• Increases amount of land in the Runway 27 RPZ controlled by the Airport • Clears approximately 7.0 acres of land for aircraft storage or aeronautical use development, potentially satisfying demand for aircraft storage
Impacts/Considerations
• Reduces Runway 9-27 length to 2,005 feet, 1,485 feet less than the length recommended for B-I-Small aircraft by FAA AC 150/5325-4B
• Airport would be responsible for maintenance of Runway 9-27

4-26
Figure 4-7: Alternative 4-B – Relocate Runway 27 Threshold 1,993 Feet West – No Hangar or Tie Down Impact

4-27
RVZ Alternative 4-C: Relocate Runway 9 End 1,858 Feet East – No Intersection Alternative 4-C relocates the end of Runway 9 to a point 250 feet east of Runway 2-20, disconnecting the two runways and eliminating the RVZ design standard6
. As depicted in Figure 4-8, shortening Runway 9-27 to eliminate the RVZ would reduce the usable length of Runway 9-27 to 2,140 feet, 1,350 feet less than the length recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B. This alternative would require Taxiway A to be shifted approximately 140 feet east to connect to Runway 9 at the relocated threshold. The runway pavement west of the relocated threshold that is unusable could potentially remain and be considered a paved overrun area.

While not as severe a reduction as Alternative 4-B, the utility and operational margin of safety of the airfield’s primary runway would be diminished. Any reduction in length to Runway 9-27 is considered detrimental to the needs of Airport users. This alternative would relocate the Runway 9 RPZ entirely onto airport property, providing the Airport the ability to control land use beyond the runway end. Similar to Alternative 4-B, this alternative would clear approximately 7.0 acres of Airport Property beyond the Runway 9 RPZ for development of other aeronautical facilities within Caltrans Safety Zone 2. Again, development in these areas may generate revenue to offset long term maintenance costs for the remaining runway.

The following bullets summarize the benefits and impacts/considerations associated with relocating the Runway 9-27 end 1,858 feet east.

Benefits
• Eliminates RVZ entirely
• Increases amount of land in the Runway 9 RPZ controlled by the Airport • Clears approximately 7.0 acres of Airport property for low-intensity aeronautical facilities Impacts/Considerations
• Reduces Runway 9-27 length to 2,140 feet, 1,350 feet less than the length recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B • Airport would be responsible for maintenance of Runway 9-27 6 The 2022 AC 150/5300-13B includes a new supplemental safety enhancement for converging, non-intersecting runways that includes a Line of Sight (LOS) analysis similar to an RVZ to ensure pilot situational awareness. This new guidance may reduce the benefit of this alternative.

4-28
Figure 4-8: Alternative 4-C – Relocate Runway 9 End 1,858 Feet East – No Intersection

4-29
RVZ Alternative 5: Shift Runway 9-27 1,993 Feet West
This alternative shifts Runway 9-27 1,993’ feet to the west to resolve the nonstandard RVZ conditions and adds 1,993 feet of new pavement west of the Runway 9 threshold, as shown in Figure 4-9. There are significant challenges associated with shifting the runway, making the alternative a highly unlikely. However, it has been evaluated as a potential development solution to fulfill National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1970 requirements for all potential alternatives to be considered.

Similar to Alternative 4-B, this alternative prevents the removal of existing hangars or tie downs at the Airport, although it allows the Airport to maintain the same length of the existing runway. Additionally, a runway shift would clear approximately

7.0 acres of Airport property for aircraft storage area development.

This alternative would require the purchase of a minimum 13.6 acres of land in the northwest side of the property. The land area needed to provide the standard 250-foot-long RSA and runway object free area (ROFA) includes approximately 22 residential properties and terrain that varies in elevation from approximately 10 feet above RSA end elevation to 30 feet below RSA elevation. As such, a shift of Runway 9-27, Taxiway C, and the necessary safety areas would require the removal of 19 homes and approximately 22 outbuildings. Additionally, a significant amount of land would have to be filled in to attain appropriate runway and safety area grading. The Airport would be fully responsible for the financial burden associated with the purchase of property, the fill and grading of the safety areas, and construction of the new pavement, as Runway 9-27 is not currently considered eligible for AIP funding.

As Alternative 5 only shifts Runway 9-27 rather than reducing its length, the size of the RVZ remains roughly the same. In this alternative, the RVZ shifts from the east side of Runway 2-20 to the west side, where it would impact the existing parachute landing area (PLA) and a small portion of the Nordic Naturals property. While the existing facilities in this area do not affect the integrity of the shifted RVZ, it would preclude the development of this area for aircraft storage facilities or other buildings. This alternative would shift the RPZ almost entirely outside of Airport property, limiting the ability of the Airport to control compatible land uses of the approach end of Runway 9. Furthermore, shifting the runway would shift the FAR Part 77 and TERPS surfaces, potentially introducing new obstructions to the approach surface, which may result in a displaced threshold. Given the significant financial, engineering, and construction challenges associated with Alternative 5, it is not considered a viable development alternative.

The following bullets summarize the benefits and impacts/considerations associated with shifting Runway 9-27 1,993 feet west.

Benefits
• Meets Runway 9-27 recommended length per FAA AC 150/5325-4B • Does not require removal of existing tie downs and hangars • Clears approximately 7.0 acres of land for aircraft storage development Impacts/Considerations
• Requires purchase of a minimum 13.6 acres of land
• Requires substantial grading/drainage improvements
• Requires purchase and demolition of minimum of 19 homes and 22 residential outbuildings, bisecting an existing neighborhood
• Significant upfront design and construction costs with cost implications for Airport due to lack of AIP funding eligibility • Extends RVZ to west of Runway 20, limiting development of Airport land west of Runway 20

4-30
• Increases amount of RPZ on land uncontrolled by Airport • Shifts Part 77 & Threshold Siting Surfaces, potentially introducing new approach obstructions

4-31
Figure 4-9: Alternative 5 – Shift Runway 9-27 1,993 Feet West

4-32
RVZ Alternative 6: Close Runway 9-27
Alternative 6 entails the closure of Runway 9-27, eliminating the need for the FAA RVZ design standard by eliminating the intersection of two runways. In this alternative, the Airport would no longer be responsible for the long-term costs of runway maintenance. Additionally, closure of Runway 9-27 would clear approximately 37.6 acres of land for future development. The Airport would need to discuss the eligibility for the costs of demolition of the existing pavement prior to development of any new facilities. As the land within the existing runway footprint is already developed, it minimizes the environmental implications associated with developing the land for new facilities such as aircraft storage areas or a potential turf runway.

While the airfield capacity meets the existing and forecasted demand as determined by FAA AC 150/5060-5, Airport stakeholders indicated a desire for Runway 9-27 to remain operational. Runway 9-27 provides additional capability in crosswind conditions and when clouds or fog obstruct the Runway 2 approach. As such, closure of Runway 9-27 could limit the operational capabilities of the Airport during adverse wind or weather conditions. Both Airport stakeholders and staff have indicated closure of Runway 9-27 is the most undesirable alternative given the associated operational and environmental implications.

The following bullets summarize the benefits of Alternative 6, as well as the impacts or issues that would be associated with it.

Benefits:
• Eliminates RVZ design standard entirely
• Land could be utilized for alternative uses including new aeronautical facility development, new technologies, or a turf runway
• As the land is already developed, there is less environmental impact to endangered species habitats • Airport is no longer financially responsible for maintenance and upkeep of Runway 9-27 Impacts/Considerations
• Reduced airfield capabilities during crosswind conditions and low visibility conditions along Runway 2 approach • Airport may be financially responsible for demolition and removal of Runway 9-27 pavement • Closure of runway is not desired by Airport stakeholders RVZ Alternative 7: Extend Runway 9-27 255 Feet West
Alternative 7 extends Runway 9-27 255 feet west of the current threshold but does not address the RVZ issue by itself.

Instead, Alternative 7 could be coupled with Alternative 4-A or 4-B to offset some of the runway length lost in those alternatives. Alternative 7 provides the maximum possible extension of Runway 9 and all necessary safety areas within the existing Airport property boundary. Figure 4-10 depicts Alternative 7 coupled with Alternative 4-A, providing an ultimate Runway 9-27 length of 3,453 feet, just 37 feet less than the length recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B. When coupled with Alternative 4-B (not shown in a figure), Alternative 7 provides an ultimate length of only 2,260 feet, 1,230 feet less than what is recommended by FAA AC 150/5325-4B.

This alternative could be phased with Alternatives 4-A or 4-B to allow the Airport to regain RVZ compliance before the runway extension is designed and constructed, providing a longer ultimate length. The Airport would be responsible for the design, grading, and construction of the runway extension; as well as the ongoing maintenance and upkeep costs for Runway 9-27, including the new pavement.

Approximately 0.7 acres of land would have to be filled and graded to meet RSA grading requirements, as the land west of the Runway 9 threshold drops approximately 26 feet in elevation within the needed area for the extended runway’s RSA. This

4-33
would require modification of the critical tarplant habitat, which will require additional environmental mitigation efforts. The extension proposed in this alternative shifts the Runway 9 RPZ, Part 77 surfaces, and TERPS surfaces 255 feet west. As such, this alternative would increase the number of homes in the RPZ from 12 to 15 and increase the amount of land in the RPZ that is not controlled by the Airport. Shifting the Part 77 and TERPS surfaces may introduce new approach obstructions that could necessitate a displaced threshold on the Runway 9 end. Additionally, shifting the runway would bring approaching and departing aircraft closer to houses under the approach path, potentially increasing noise and risk of collision in the event of an accident.

The following bullets summarize the benefits, impacts, and issues associated with extending Runway 9-27 255 feet to the west.

Benefits:
• Increases runway length without requiring purchase of additional land • Meets FAA dimensional and separation standards within existing Airport property • Can be completed in conjunction with Alternatives 4-A or 4-B Impacts/Considerations
• Increases number of homes within RPZ from 12 to 15
• Airport would be responsible for full cost of extension and maintaining Runway 9-27 • Impacts critical tarplant habitat
• Even when coupled with Alternative 4-A or 4-B, runway length does not meet recommended length from FAA AC 150/5325-4B
• Shifts Part 77 & Threshold Siting Surfaces, potentially introducing new approach obstructions • Requires grading/fill of approximately 0.7 acres of RSA • Increase amount of RPZ on land uncontrolled by Airport

4-34
Figure 4-10: Alternative 7 – Extend Runway 9-27 255’ West

4-35
RVZ Alternative Evaluation
Resolving the non-compliant RVZ is a complex and costly project for which several alternatives have been identified. Some of the alternatives reduce airfield capabilities to achieve RVZ compliance while others sacrifice existing infrastructure to regain full use of the airfield. The alternatives were evaluated using several quantitative and qualitative aspects that are considered important to the Airport and its stakeholders. Due to the complexity of the RVZ issue and the higher number of alternatives compared to other items, the RVZ alternatives were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with five being the best score for each evaluation criteria.

Relevant evaluation criteria selected for this evaluation include:
o Satisfy Future Demand: Accommodates future activity demand o Meet Design Standards: Meets current FAA design standards o Airport User Preference: Best suits Airport user and stakeholder preferences o Cost: Capital development, operational, and maintenance costs o Environmental Considerations: Environmental considerations on-airport and minimizes negative impacts to the community and natural environment
As shown in Table 4-2, Alternative 4-A has the highest overall score as it limits impacts to existing infrastructure while providing a runway length comparable to many other airports in the region. Construction of an ATCT would also provide great benefit although the costs of construction and operation of a control tower would be prohibitive. Alternatives 4-B, 4-C, and 6 all score very similarly as they solve the RVZ issue without impacting building infrastructure, but do not satisfy user preferences. Removal of infrastructure would meet user preferences but would exacerbate the existing hangar shortage on the airfield, thereby failing to satisfy future demand. Alternative 1 has a low score as it does not fix the nonstandard conditions and would require continued operational restrictions. Alternative 5 scores lower than all other alternatives as it has significant financial, operational, and environmental challenges associated. Alternative 7 scores well as it would help regain the lost runway length yet loses points as does not solve the issue on its own.

Given these scores, the preferred Alternative is 4-A in which the Airport shifts the Runway 27 threshold feet west and removes 27 aircraft tie downs to achieve RVZ compliance and opens Runway 27 to departures. It is also recommended the Airport consider extending Runway 9 255 feet to the west, providing an ultimate length of 3,453 feet after the Runway 27 end is relocated. Phasing of these improvements will be discussed in Chapter 5.

4-36
Table 4-2: RVZ Alternatives Evaluation
Alternative Satisfy Future
Demand
Meet FAA Design
Standards
Airport User
Preference
Environmental
Considerations Cost Total Score
1: Maintain Current
Conditions 3 1 3 5 3 15
2: Construct ATCT 4 5 4 4 1 18
3: Remove Infrastructure 3 5 3 3 2 16
4-A: Relocate Runway 27
Threshold 800 Feet West –
No Hangar Impact
4 4 3 5 4 20
4-B: Relocate Runway 27
Threshold 1,993 Feet West
– No Hangar or tie down
impact
2 3 2 5 4 16
4-C: Relocate Runway 9
End 800 Feet West – No
Intersection
3 3 2 5 4 17
5: Shift Runway 9-27 1,993’
West 3 4 5 1 1 16
6: Close Runway 9-27 2 5 1 4 5 17
7: Extend Runway 9 by
255’ (Must be paired with
another alternative)
4 3 4 3 2 13
Source: Kimley-Horn

4-37

4.4.3 Parachute Landing Area (PLA)
As mentioned in Chapter 3, the Airport is coordinating with the City and a local business to complete a land swap to relocate a planned warehouse outside of the Caltrans Safety Zone 5. For the purposes of this MPU analysis, it is assumed that the proposed land swap does occur. As such, the future warehouse would sit on land currently occupied by the Parachute Landing Area (PLA), requiring the PLA to be moved to a different area on the airfield. If this area where the existing PLA is not developed, then a new location for the PLA would not be required.

As the area involved in the land swap include the PLA, three locations were reviewed on or near the area that the developer has proposed to transfer back to the Airport as fair compensation for the land to be occupied by the proposed development. In the event the areas below are considered insufficient at a later date or the Airport chooses not to pursue the land swap, other areas of the airfield could be considered for the relation of the PLA. Namely, the PLA could be placed on the undeveloped land directly east of the Runway 20 end, north of Runway 9-27. In this case, it would be recommended the Airport coordinate with the skydiving operator on the airfield to conduct an additional study to determine the best use of the land occupying the confines of the existing PLA and the most suitable PLA location outside of the three options presented below.

As previously discussed, the Airport is required to provide an operable space for skydiving in order to meet its grant assurances. While not explored as part of the MPU, the Airport may consider relocating the PLA to an off-site location. This is conducted very infrequently so the requirements and process would need to be discussed with several divisions of the FAA. A potential path forward would likely include the following steps:
• Determine applicable conditions and requirements to provide an off-site PLA • Review suitable locations
• Determine cost and funding for land acquisition or lease, capital improvements, and on-going maintenance • Discuss options with current operator and obtain better understanding of impacts to their business and operations Consideration should be given to things such as the acceptable distance from the current airfield, operation within the existing airspace system, if existing City property could be utilized and how a lease or deed would need to be structured to meet FAA grant assurances.

Several pilots and Airport stakeholders indicated that parachuters often operate outside of the lateral boundaries of the PLA when freefalling or under canopy, increasing the risk of a possible collision between aircraft overflying the Airport and skydivers. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Airport is currently working with the FAA to alter the missed approach procedure to Runway 2 to shift the missed instrument approach path to the east of Runway 2-20 and further from the PLA. Pilots also reported needing to overfly the PLA when conducting visual missed approaches or go-around maneuvers. Due to the limited available space on Airport property, relocation of the PLA to a location ensuring total separation from both runways is not feasible. Instead, it is recommended the Airport work with the skydiving operator and pilots to establish operating procedures and designated approach paths (for aircraft and parachuters) when skydiving operations are occurring at the Airport.

In the following three alternatives, the future Nordic Naturals building is shown in the location and configuration preferred by the Airport and Nordic Naturals. As the building’s configuration may change before the land swap is complete and the building is constructed, the final placement of the PLA should be reviewed again prior to implementation. Additionally, the PLA is depicted as a circle in these figures, as the U.S. Parachuters Association (USPA) Basic Safety Requirements (BSR) recommends the PLA be separated by a minimum radial distance of 165 feet from the nearest hazard.7 When the proposed 7 USPA BSRs are considered recommendations and are not a formally-adopted guidance for airport design. BSRs are discussed further in Chapter 3.

4-38
land swap occurs, the Airport may reconfigure the shape and size of the PLA to suit its needs so long as an adequate hazard clearance area is provided.

Location 1 – 366-foot PLA
Location 1 entails placing the PLA directly east of the existing Nordic Naturals facility, as depicted in Figure 4-11. This location would place the PLA within 170 feet from the existing Nordic Naturals building and 490 feet the centerline of Runway 2-20.

Compared to the current PLA location, Location 1 is approximately 80 feet closer to the building and 49 feet closer to the nearest runway. The size of the PLA would remain 366 feet in diameter, which exceeds the minimum diameter recommended by the USPA of 330 feet.

Accessing Location 1 would require the Airport firing range service road to be extended approximately 1,500 feet along the western edge of airport property and across the existing drainage ditch. While the extension of the firing range service road would increase the distance that ground vehicles need to drive on the airfield compared to current conditions, this access road decreases the distance the skydiving operator’s ground vehicles must travel to pick up parachuters compared to current conditions and other alternatives. This is preferred by the skydiving operator as it allows for a quicker response during times skydiving operations are conducted. The service road would require construction of a bridge or culvert over the ditch, increasing the coast of relocating the PLA. Prior to the finalization of the roadway design, a conversation with the adjacent property owners should take place about the continued use of that roadway.

In Location 1, a portion of the PLA would occupy land on which Nordic Naturals plans to construct a parking lot for the new development. As such, the Airport would have to coordinate with Nordic Naturals to alter the proposed land swap boundaries to ensure an equal number of acres are transferred. Additionally, the proposed parking lot would need to be reconfigured to ensure it does not penetrate the PLA or the pertinent safety and separation zones. If Nordic Naturals does not agree to alter the parking lot or land swap boundaries, the Airport could shift the PLA east. This would require the reconfiguration, either removal, relocation, or culverting of the draining ditch in this area to ensure an adequate space free of obstacles for skydivers.

Shifting the PLA east would bring it within 400 feet of the runway, which increases the risk of aircraft and parachuters operating in close proximity to each other. As such, it is not recommended the PLA be installed in the area of the drainage ditch. The following bullets summarize the benefits and impacts/considerations of placing the PLA in Location 1.

Benefits
• Provides shorter access road than existing route
Impacts/Considerations
• Requires construction of bridge or culvert over drainage ditch • Requires reconfiguration of proposed Nordic Naturals parking lot; alternatively, the drainage ditch could be reconfigured, shifting the PLA closer to Runway 2-20
• Reduces distance between PLA and Nordic Naturals from 250 feet to 170 feet • Reduces distance between PLA and nearest runway from 539 feet to 490 feet

4-39
Figure 4-11: PLA Location 1 – 366-foot PLA

4-40
Location 2 - 366-foot PLA
As depicted in Figure 4-12, Location 2 places the PLA directly east of the proposed Nordic Naturals development. The boundaries of the PLA would sit approximately 511 feet and 513 feet from Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27, respectively.

However, the northern edge of the PLA would only have 204 feet of separation from Taxiway C, 60 feet less than the existing PLA location. Location 2 would provide the greatest separation of any location from the nearest runway centerline but does place the PLA nearer to the runway intersection, increasing overall risk when either runway is in use. Similar to Location 1, this alternative would provide a 366-foot diameter PLA, which matches the size of the existing area and exceeds the minimum size recommended by the USPA. Unlike Location 1, Location 2 would not require the boundaries of the land swap to be adjusted nor the existing drainage ditch reconfigured. This configuration would require a much longer PLA access road from the Airport firing range, increasing the risk of unauthorized people or vehicles to enter the runway environment while trying to exit the PLA. It would also necessitate construction of bridge or culvert over drainage ditch. The aforementioned benefits, impacts, and considerations of placing the PLA in Location 2 are summarized below.

Benefits
• Does not require reconfiguration of land swap boundary or drainage ditch • Provides greatest separation between PLA and nearest runway centerline Impacts/Considerations
• Requires construction of bridge or culvert over drainage ditch • Edge of PLA located only 49 feet from proposed Nordic Naturals Building • PLA is located closer to the runway intersection and Taxiway C • Requires longer PLA access road, increasing risk of incursions into runway environment

4-41
Figure 4-12: PLA Location 2 – 366-foot PLA

4-42
Location 3 – 300-foot PLA
Similar to Location 1, Location 3 places the PLA directly east of the existing Nordic Naturals building in the location of the proposed land swap. However, as depicted in Figure 4-13, the diameter of the PLA would be reduced to 300 feet. Location 3 would provide many of the same benefits as Location 1 but would likely not require the reconfiguration of the land swap boundary. The reduced diameter of the PLA does not meet USPA recommendations, as Location 3 would not provide the necessary 165 feet clearance distance from the property fence and the drainage ditch. However, the Airport could coordinate with the skydiving operator and the USPA to determine if the ditch and fence would be considered hazards to safe parachuting operations.8 If these features are not considered hazards, the size of the PLA could be increased to meet USPA requirements.

Location 3 places the PLA only 451 feet from the nearest runway centerline, 31 feet less than Location 1 and 110 feet less than the existing PLA.

Benefits
• Does not require reconfiguration of land swap boundaries Impacts/Considerations
• Does not meet USPA recommendations for minimum PLA size/separation • Smallest separation between PLA and nearest runway
• Requires construction of bridge or culvert over drainage ditch 8 Hazards are defined by the USPA Skydiver’s Information Manual as “telephone and power lines, towers, buildings, bodies of water, highways, vehicles, and trees. However, trees that will not interfere with parachute landings are not considered obstacles”

4-43
Figure 4-13: 300-foot PLA – Location 3

4-44
Parachute Landing Area Evaluation
Each alternative was scored for the potential impact related to development for each of the following four criteria:
o Meet FAA Design Standards: Meets current FAA and USPA design standards and recommendations o Minimize On-Airport Impacts: Minimizes operational impacts and provides balanced use of Airport property o Environmental Considerations: Minimizes negative impacts to the natural environment on-airport and the community
o Airport User Preference: Best suits Airport user and stakeholder preferences A comparison of Locations 1, 2, and 3 with regard to the evaluation criteria is summarized in Table 4-3. Locations 2 and 3 receive similar overall scores, while Location 1 scores slightly lower. Location 2 scores high in design standards and environmental considerations as the PLA would meet FAA and USPA standards and recommendations and would not require the reconfiguration of the land swap boundary or the drainage ditch. While Location 2 would provide maximum separation from both runways, it is much closer to the runway intersection, so it scores lower in airport impacts and airport user preferences.

Location 3 scores lower in airport user preference and meeting design standards because the 300’ PLA does not meet USPA recommendations and would be closest to Runway 2-20, which pilots have reported as undesirable. Conversely, Location 3 scores high in environmental considerations and on-airport impacts as it would not require reconfiguration of the drainage ditch and would not have significant impacts on the land swap.

It is therefore recommended the Airport relocate the PLA to Location 3 and reduce the size to 300 feet in diameter. Given the pending status of the land swap, it is recommended the Airport continue to coordinate with Nordic Naturals and the onsite skydiving operator to design a PLA that integrates best practices with the final design of the new Nordic Naturals facility and the needs of the Airport and aeronautical users.

Table 4-3: Parachute Landing Area Evaluation
Alternative
Meet FAA
Design
Standards
Environmental
Considerations
Minimize OnAirport ImpactsAirport User
Preferences Total Score
1: 366-foot PLA 3 2 2 2 9
2: 366-foot PLA 3 3 2 2 10
3: 300-foot PLA 2 3 3 2 10
Source: Kimley-Horn

4.4.4 Turf Runway
Airport staff reported some desire by aircraft owners to take off and land in the grass infield area adjacent to Runway 27, which is not marked or graded as an aircraft operating area. As such, Airport stakeholders requested the inclusion of a formal turf runway on the airfield.

4-45
General Design Considerations
As discussed in Chapter 3, a proposed turf runway would need to be designed as a regular runway which is expected to meet A-I(Small)-VIS safety and separation standards. It should be noted this analysis follows standards set in AC 150/5300-13A, which was the guidance in effect at the time of writing.

The FAA does not inherently approve regular operations from unpaved portions of the RSA and cannot guarantee airfield separation and airspace protection for aircraft operating from unpaved RSAs. AC 150/5300-13B recommends airports with a demonstrated need for turf operations develop an official turf runway using normal runway design and separation standards (which remain unchanged between AC 150/5300-13A and -13B). For airports that wish to allow aircraft operations from unpaved RSAs, the FAA requires a safety assessment to be conducted to ensure the airport remains compliant with AIP Sponsor Grant Assurances which require the operation of the airfield in a safe and serviceable condition.

The safety assessment is conducted through the FAA’s Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and requires the airport to provide data and documentation assessing potential safety implications and ensuring an acceptable level of safety for aircraft, vehicles, individuals and facilities on and surrounding the airport. If the safety assessment is accepted by the FSDO, the FAA recommends the airport consider factors including pilot education programs and chart supplement information, hold line and taxiway separation standards, enhanced inspections of unpaved RSAs, and other applicable state and federal guidelines.

The RSA does not extend beyond the paved width of Runway 2-20 or Runway 9-27, and as such no unpaved RSA is available to establish an unofficial turf runway. The unpaved areas adjacent to each runway are clear of obstructions as they are in the ROFA, but would not meet RSA grading, compaction, and drainage standards and may not be currently suitable for aircraft operations as acknowledged in the new AC. The Airport could coordinate with the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) to conduct a safety determine if an unofficial landing area would provide an acceptable level of safety if it was established in the ROFA.

Unofficial Turf Runways at Other California Airports
Implementation of a turf runway has been discussed by Airport staff with other airport operators in California following the request from Airport stakeholders. One such airport that has an air traffic control tower (ATCT), reported having established unofficial, unmarked landing areas on the airfield that are eligible for federal funding and have not been approved by the FAA ADO. This airport developed a written policy establishing standard operating procedures, restricting use to only landing aircraft whose pilots have completed checkout flights, and acknowledging that all aircraft operations are at the risk of the pilot-incommand (PIC). This airport has also stated that if the FAA or ATCT staff object to the use of the turf runway in the future they will cease its operation. While this method of establishing and operating a turf runway would allow WVI to satisfy user desires without having a significant impact on existing infrastructure, it has several potential issues and risks, opening the Airport to additional liability. Namely, as the turf runway would be considered an unofficial landing area, the Airport would not be able to use FAA funding to establish or maintain the runway.

Even if the Airport does not accept federal funds for establishing a turf runway, other portions of the airfield must meet FAA design standards as the Airport has previously accepted funding to construct and maintain those facilities. As such, construction of a turf runway that impacts other federally required safety areas may jeopardize the Airport’s good standing with the FAA. If the FAA objects to an unofficial turf runway, the Airport would need to close the landing area or risk losing funding for future projects of other airfield facilities. Additionally, the Airport could be held liable in the event of an aircraft accident, regardless of whether the PIC signed an acknowledgement of risk waiver. As such, an unofficial turf runway would have significant risks that may impact the Airport’s financial sustainability and does not guarantee continued use of the turf runway if

4-46
the FAA objects to its construction and operation. As such, it is not recommended that an unofficial turf runway outside of the RSA be planned for or constructed at WVI at this time.

Potential Turf Runway Locations
Three potential locations for an official A-I(S)-VIS turf runway were identified on the airfield and are depicted in Figure 4-14. It is important to note Location #2 is only considered applicable if Runway 9-27 is closed to achieve RVZ compliance or if the Airport can no longer support the financial responsibilities associated with pavement maintenance for that runway. The following subsections discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each location.

Location 1: Parallel to Runway 2-20
Location 1 places the proposed turf runway parallel to the existing paved Runway 2-20, beginning approximately 940 feet from the Runway 2 threshold. The turf runway centerline and the paved runway centerline would be separated by approximately 175 feet. This separation is less than the minimum recommended separation according to FAA AC 150/5300-13A and -13B for simultaneous use of the two runways but ensures the RSA of both the paved runway and the turf runway do not overlap. As Location 1 does not meet FAA separation standards, a Modification of Standard (MOS) would be required to permit simultaneous operations on both runways.9 It is unknown if the FAA would grant this MOS, which would then preclude the simultaneous use of the turf and paved runway. In this scenario, aircraft would have to wait for all other aircraft or vehicles to exit the paved runway environment prior to entering the turf runway. 10 Conversely, no aircraft or vehicles could enter or operate in the turf runway environment while an aircraft operates on the paved runway. As such, the runway occupancy time would likely increase, marginally reducing the overall runway capacity. While this may not be a barrier to Location 1, the FSDO would likely consider the proximity of the operations between these two runways as part of their safety assessment.

Regardless of whether simultaneous operations are approved, the turf runway’s RSA will need to be graded and a drainage ditch constructed between the two runways to ensure both surfaces are appropriately drained. The Airport will then need to construct paved or unpaved connector taxiways between the paved runway and the turf runway to ensure safe crossing while minimizing surface erosion. This would limit the locations where aircraft could exit the turf runway and rejoin the pavement, further increasing runway occupancy time. Location 1 contains no known tarplant areas, minimizing the impact of turf runway construction and operation on the critical habitat. Location 1 would shift the flight path of arriving and departing aircraft approximately 180 feet closer to the existing PLA, potentially increasing the risk of a collision between an aircraft and skydiver.

The preferred location of the PLA, mentioned in Section 4.4.3, would only be separated from the turf runway by approximately 280 feet, again presenting a risk for aircraft and skydiver collisions. The following bullets summarize the benefits and issues/impacts of placing a turf runway in Location 1.

Benefits
• Minimal impact to existing tarplant areas
9 The FAA requires airports to apply for a modification to standards (MOS) if any characteristic for the airport deviates from airport design, material, and construction standards. Airports must demonstrate that any deviation provides an acceptable level of safety, useful life, lower costs, greater efficiency, or the need to accommodate an unusual local condition on a specific project through approval on a case-by-case basis. MOS are required to be renewed every five years.
10 Aircraft exiting the paved runway would be required to cross the hold line prior to the next aircraft entering the runway environment.

4-47
Impacts/Considerations
• Would require MOS for nonstandard runway separation for simultaneous operations OR would not allow for simultaneous operations on Runway 2-20
• Would increase runway occupancy time and may decrease capacity of Runway 2-20 • Requires construction of paved or unpaved connector taxiways • Moves arriving and departing aircraft closer to existing and preferred PLA location Location 2: Replace Paved Runway 9-27
Location 2 entails the placement of the turf runway at the existing paved Runway 9 threshold, extending 1,000 feet east towards Runway 2-20. Location 2 would only be applicable if Runway 9-27 is closed to resolve RVZ compliance issues or if the Airport can no longer financially support the long-term maintenance; the paved runway would not be closed solely for the purpose of constructing a turf runway. In Location 2, Taxiway C would provide access to the turf runway at the current Runway 9 threshold. An unpaved or paved connector taxiway could be constructed to link the east end of the turf runway, or a turnaround added to allow aircraft to back taxi. If Runway 9-27 is closed, the turf runway placed in Location 2 would effectively replace it as a fully designed and operational runway, with appropriate safety areas, RPZs, and airspace protection.

Placement of a turf runway in Location 2 would likely not require any MOS as the existing safety areas and separation distances surrounding the location exceed the minimum requirements of an A-I(S)-VIS runway. Additionally, as the land has already been cleared and developed, Location 2 would have significantly fewer environmental implications than Locations 1 or

3. The following bullets summarize the benefits and issues/impacts of placing a turf runway in Location 2.

Benefits
• Taxiway C provides access to Location 1, reducing costs and impacts associated with construction of connector taxiway
• Does not require MOS
• Meets safety area, separation, and RPZ standards
• Land is already developed, reducing environmental implications Impacts/Considerations
• Only viable if Runway 9-27 is closed

4-48
Figure 4-14: Turf Runway Location Alternatives
*Note: Turf location #2 would only be possible if Runway 9-27 were closed as a paved runway to resolve the RVZ compliance issues as discussed in Section

4.4.2. This MPU does not recommend the closure of the existing Runway 9-27 soley for the purpose of turf runway placement and construction.

4-49
Location 3: Parallel to Runway 9-27
In Location 3, the proposed turf runway would run parallel to the existing paved surface of Runway 9-27 northwest of the Runway 2-20/9-27 intersection. The turf runway would sit approximately 360 feet north of the paved runway centerline and would require a connector taxiway to be constructed to link the turf runway with Runway 9-27. Due to ROFA constraints in Location 3, the turf runway would have to be oriented approximately four degrees left of the current Runway 9 orientation.

In Location 3, the turf runway would not sit in an area identified as having tarplant, however, the safety areas and required connector taxiway would impact known tarplant areas. The Airport is required to mow the runway and taxiway safety areas to comply with FAA design standards, therefore, known tarplant areas would have to mitigated. Location 3 may require an MOS to permit simultaneous operations given the inadequate runway separation and the four-degree difference between runway orientations. Conversely, non-simultaneous operations would greatly increase runway occupancy time, similar to Location 1, decreasing runway capacity.

Given Location 3’s proximity to Buena Vista Drive, the Airport would likely have to identify and mitigate obstructions to the western approach area. This may necessitate shortening of the turf runway, which would further limit its ability to serve aircraft. Location 3 would shift the close-in approach path nearer to houses along Buena Vista Drive. Aircraft landing and departing from the turf runway in Location 3 would be separated by approximately 210 feet from these houses. While this separation meets A-I(S)-VIS design standards, it would likely increase the noise levels for homes in the area. The following bullets summarize the benefits and issues/impacts of placing a turf runway in Location 3.

Benefits
• Provides turf runway
Impacts/Considerations
• Would require MOS for nonstandard runway separation or may not allow for simultaneous operations on Runway 09- 27 • Would increase runway occupancy time and may decrease capacity of Runway 9-27 • Requires construction of paved or unpaved connector taxiways • Impacts known tarplant areas
• Shifts close-in approach path nearer to homes on Buena Vista Drive Turf Runway Evaluation
An evaluation of the three proposed turf runway locations is presented in Table 4-4. The relevant criteria included in this evaluation included the following:
o Meet Design Standards: Meets FAA runway length, safety area, and separation standards o Environmental Considerations: Minimizes negative impacts to the environment on-airport and in the local community
o Minimize On-Airport Impacts: Minimizes operational impacts and provides balanced use of Airport property As shown, Location 2 scores noticeably higher than Locations 1 or 3 as it has significantly fewer environmental and on-airport impacts. However, Location 2 is severely limited in its practicality as it assumes the paved Runway 9-27 has already been closed due to RVZ compliance issues. Locations 1 and 3 score very similarly as they both would require an MOS and would impact aircraft operations on the existing pavement.

4-50
Table 4-4: Proposed Turf Runway Evaluation
Meet Design
Standards
Environmental
Considerations
Minimize On-Airport
Impacts Total Score
Location 1: Parallel to
Runway 2-20 1 2 1 4
Location 2: Replace
Runway 9-27 2 3 3 8
Location 3: Parallel to
Runway 9-27 1 1 2 4
Source: Kimley-Horn
Given the significant challenges associated with obtaining an MOS for Locations 1 and 3 and the limited applicability of Location 2, implementation of an official turf runway at WVI is not recommended as part of this MPU. Instead, it is recommended the Airport and its stakeholders coordinate with the FAA FSDO to conduct a safety assessment for an unofficial landing area in the unpaved portion of the ROFA adjacent to either runway.

4.4.5 Taxiway A – Wide Expanse of Pavement at Runway
20 Entrance
FAA design standards recommend avoiding wide expanses of pavement on an airfield, particularly at runway/taxiway intersections and entrances. Wide pavements shift signage and directional lights further from a pilot’s view, reducing the conspicuity of signage and visual cues, potentially limiting the situational awareness of pilots and increasing risk of runway incursions. Currently, Taxiway A is approximately 150 feet wide at the hold short line of Runway 20 due to the presence of an unmarked run-up area.11 It is recommended that Taxiway A be reconfigured at the Runway 20 entrance to narrow the width of the taxiway to 50 feet at the runway entrance, meeting the runway at a standard 90-degree angle.

Figure 4-15 shows two potential configurations to replace the existing taxiway and unmarked run-up area with a 50-foot-wide taxiway and a run-up area designed per FAA AC 150/5300-13A. These configurations also take into account the extensive tarplant in this area. It should be noted that prior to the final design, the configuration should be reviewed against current FAA design standards as well as the current operations of the airport users. This will ensure the current needs of this area, such as flight training preparation, standard aircraft run-ups, and holding for instrument procedures, are being met. There are configurations and locations beyond what is discussed in this MPU that can meet this need.

As shown, Location 1 includes a dual lane hold area consisting of approximately 11,000 square feet of new pavement.

Location 1 allows up to three aircraft to simultaneously conduct pre-takeoff checks without blocking Taxiway A. Available space is limited in Location 1 due to runway and taxiway separation requirements, meaning that the runup area would likely be limited to use by aircraft in ADG I.

Location 2, meanwhile, consists of a dual lane holding area with approximately 13,000 square feet of new pavement. Location 2 would be less constrained by FAA design requirements but would require the entrance taxiway to Runway 20 to be shifted 11 Taxiway A has since been marked with a movement-area boundary marking denoting the run-up area.

4-51
southwest by approximately 216 feet. This would require aircraft to back-taxi to the Runway 20 threshold to utilize the full length of the runway, increasing the runway occupancy time, thereby lowering airfield capacity, and increasing risk for runway incursions. As such, Location 1 is the preferred alternative for the replacement of the unmarked run-up area.

The configurations depicted in Figure 4-15 are potential solutions for the existing non-standard configuration and do not indicate the potential ultimate layout. Similar to other taxiway configuration improvements, it is recommended the Airport complete this project in conjunction with the next scheduled taxiway reconstruction project. It is recommended that the Airport conduct an environmental survey at the time of implementation of this improvement to determine the exact location of tarplant as this will likely influence the configuration of the taxiway and run-up area and may require the taxiway to be configured in a manner not depicted in this MPU. The final configuration could be refined as part of the design effort when the reconfiguration is implemented.

4-52
Figure 4-15: Potential Taxiway A/Run-up Area Configurations LOCATION 1 LOCATION 2

4-53

4.4.6 Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP)
An IAP provides pilots the ability to land at the Airport during inclement weather or low visibility conditions. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Runway 2 is served by a localizer (LOC) approach and an Area Navigation (RNAV) GPS approach capable of Lateral Navigation (LNAV), Vertical Navigation (VNAV), and Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV). The current RNAV LPV approach to Runway 2 allows aircraft to approach the Airport in visibility conditions as low as 7/8 statute mile with a decision altitude (DA) of 448 feet mean sea level (MSL) or 296 feet above the runway threshold (HATh). The Airport is also served by a VOR IAP that gives aircraft the ability to circle to land on any runway but requires a greater minimum visibility and higher cloud ceiling.12
Runway 2
Airport stakeholders have expressed a desire for implementation of an IAP that provides greater capabilities in lower visibility and cloud conditions than the existing Runway 2 LPV approach. While this MPU does not preclude the future implementation of a higher-capability IAP, there are several potential implications that the Airport must consider when investigating the feasibility of a more capable IAP.

If the Airport chooses to pursue an IAP that has a lower DA and lower visibility minima than what is currently available, it is recommended that it coordinate with the FAA Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) Department to identify the obstructions and factors that result in the existing DA and visibility minima on the LPV approach. Once these obstructions or factors have been identified, the Airport can conduct a study to review the accuracy of the location and height of each obstacle compared to the information in the AIS database. This will provide an accurate list of airspace penetrations that currently affect the DA and visibility minima on the LNAV/VNAV and LPV approaches and may determine previously identified obstacles which do not actually penetrate the approach and departure surfaces from Runway 2. If obstacles do penetrate, the Airport will then have the option to remove or mitigate them so the FAA may implement a new IAP with lower minima.

FAA AC 150/5300-13A establishes certain requirements for runways supporting different levels of approach procedures.

Currently, the Runway 2 LPV is classified as an Instrument Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance (APV). APVs include both LPV and ILS approaches providing guidance down to a decision altitude of 250 feet HATh and ¾ mile visibility. ILS approaches with a DA lower than 250 feet HATh and ¾ mile visibility are considered Precision Approaches. Precision approaches require the highest design standards for any given critical aircraft classification (e.g., B-II) and have additional considerations regarding runway lighting and markings. A precision approach introduces the precision object free area (POFZ or ILS Critical Area). Runways supporting precision approaches must be at least 4,200 feet long and 75 feet wide, which is satisfied by the existing Runway 2-20. These runways are typically lighted by High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) and must have precision runway markings, which would require additional capital investment from the Airport.

Table 4-5 presents a comparison of the runway design standards for a B-II runway supporting an APV with minima not lower than ¾ mile visibility (B-II-4000) and a B-II runway supporting a precision approach with minima lower than ¾ mile visibility.

Nearly all safety area and object-free area dimensions and runway separation distances increase dramatically. An increase in design standards would have a significant impact on WVI, as shown in Figure 4-16. The increased ROFA dimensions would require shifting of Airport Boulevard and Buena Vista Drive, removal of the Airport firing range, and acquisition and removal of at least 10 residential properties on the north side of the Airport. Furthermore, the decreased slope of the airspace surfaces 12 Since the writing of this chapter the Airport has coordinated with the FAA Western Flight Procedures Office to reduce the minima of the LPV approach to 408 feet MSL and ¾ -mile visibility.

4-54
may limit the length of Runway 2-20 can be extended to and may require a displaced threshold. Given the potential implications to airfield design standards, it is recommended the Airport coordinate with the FAA to determine if a new IAP can be implemented to achieve a lower DA without reducing the visibility minima below ¾-mile.

Table 4-5: Comparison of B-II-2400 and B-II-4000 Runway Design Standards Design Criteria
Existing B-II4000 StandardsB-II-2400
Standards Change
02 20 02 20
Runway Protection:

RSA Length (Beyond runway end) 300’ 600’ 300’
RSA Width 150’ 300’ 150’
ROFA Length (Beyond runway end) 300’ 600’ 300’
ROFA Width 500’ 800’ 300’
ROFZ Length (Beyond runway end) 200’ 200’ None
ROFZ Width 250’ 300’ 50’
POFZ Length* N/A 200’ 200’
POFZ Width N/A 800’ 800’
Approach RPZ Length 1,700’/1,000’ 2,500’/1,000’ 800’/None Approach RPZ Inner Width 1,000’/500’ 1,000’/500’ None
Approach RPZ Outer Width 1,510’/700’ 1,750’/700’ 240’/None Approach RPZ Area (Acres) 48.978/13.77 78.914/13.77 29.936/None Departure RPZ Length 1,000’ 1,000’ None
Departure RPZ Inner Width 500’ 500’ None
Departure RPZ Outer Width 700’ 700’ None
Departure RPZ Area (Acres) 13.77 13.77 None
Runway Separation:

Aircraft Holding Position 200’ 250’ 50’
Aircraft Parking Edge 250’ 400’ 150’
Parallel Taxiway Centerline 240’ 300’ 60’

4-55
Design Criteria
Existing B-II4000 StandardsB-II-2400
Standards Change
02 20 02 20
A Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) is only required for runways with a precision approach with minimums of less than 250 feet AGL and ¾ Statute mile (RVR 4000). Therefore, the existing conditions of the POFZ are reported as “not applicable” (N/A) under B-II-4000 standards.

Sources: Kimley-Horn, FAA AC 150/5300-13A

4-56
Figure 4-16: B-II-2400 and B-II-4000 Design Standards Comparison

4-57
In addition to the request for lower visibility minimums, pilots have requested the construction and implementation of an instrument landing system (ILS) to provide at least similar performance as the existing LPV. An ILS provides vertical and horizontal guidance to approaching aircraft using a localizer antenna and glideslope antenna and indicates distance to the runway using either Low-Power Distance Measuring Equipment (LPDME) or marker beacons. Category I (CAT I) ILS procedures can have a minimum DA as low as 200 AGL and visibility as low as 1800 feet Runway Visual Range (RVR).13 CAT-I ILS procedures can be flown using a Course Deviation indicator (CDI) or Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI), which are usually installed as standard instruments on GA aircraft equipped with ILS-receivers.

The primary benefits of an ILS are the low cost and simplicity of the avionics needed for aircraft to use the ILS and the wide acceptance of the technology at airports world-wide. Drawbacks of the ILS primarily relate to the substantial costs associated with the installation and maintenance of necessary infrastructure on and near the Airport. As mentioned in Chapter 1, a localizer antenna is currently installed for the Runway 2 approach, so the Airport would only need to install a glideslope antenna and LPDME or marker beacons to attain the necessary equipment for an ILS. Even so, the costs of ILS infrastructure could be a significant challenge for the Airport. Additionally, the FAA has moved away from the implementation of these systems in favor of GPS-based procedures. Since 2009, the FAA has only funded installation of an ILS at one GA airport nationwide. In that time, the FAA AIS has implemented more than 2,700 LPV procedures.14 As such, the Airport would likely be responsible for the full costs of the installation and lifetime maintenance of all ILS infrastructure.

LPV procedures are attractive to airports as they provide similar performance to ILS without the need for installation of significant infrastructure. However, LPV is a newer technology and is still restricted in its deployment and capability. LPV approaches meanwhile can normally only have a minimum DA of 250 feet HATh and not lower than ¾ mile visibility (4000 RVR), more than twice the distance as a CAT I ILS. Additionally, LPV approach procedures require aircraft to be equipped with a Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)-enabled GPS unit, which can cost several thousand dollars to install on GA aircraft. While the technology continues to improve and decrease in costs, WAAS is still limited in its deployment across the GA aircraft fleet.

Runway 20
In addition to requested improvements to the Runway 2 IAP, Airport stakeholders have requested the Airport investigate the feasibility of a similar GPS-based IAP to Runway 20. Runway 20 can only be accessed in IFR conditions by circling around from one of the Runway 2 approaches, which requires significantly higher visibility minima. The Airport has previously investigated a Runway 20 IAP with the FAA, who indicated it would be reluctant to support IAPs to both ends of runway 2-20 due to the Airport having insufficient operational needs. As such, the implementation of a GPS-based IAP to Runway 20 would require the removal of the existing RNAV approach to Runway 2. As such, the Airport would have to choose to replace the Runway 2 RNAV approach with a Runway 20 IAP. Airport stakeholders and staff have stated this would be detrimental to the Airport and it is not considered a viable development alternative for the Airport.

If the Airport were to choose to either replace or complement the existing Runway 2 RNAV IAP with a similarly capable IAP for Runway 20, a number of design and safety standards would change, creating additional challenges. Namely, the TERPS surfaces, discussed in Chapter 3, would increase in lateral size, and require a shallower gradient. This would likely introduce new obstructions to the approach and may require the displaced threshold distance to be increased for the runway or may 13 Category II (CAT II) and Category III (CAT III) ILS procedures may have minimums lower than 200 feet HATh DA and 1800 RVR. However, these procedures typically require use of a radio altimeter to determine height above threshold. Most small GA aircraft are not equipped with radio altimeters and are therefore not authorized to fly CAT II or III approach procedures. 14 FAA AIS (October 2021). Satellite Navigation — GPS/WAAS Approaches

4-58
require the Airport to clear additional obstructions to remove the existing displaced threshold.15 Additionally, the size of the approach RPZ would increase, reducing the amount of land within it that is currently controlled by the Airport. As shown in Figure 4-17, the RPZ for a B-II-4000 runway would include land occupied by approximately 90 residential properties, greatly increasing the amount of incompatible land uses present in the RPZ. If the FAA were to require the Airport to gain control of all land to ensure compatible land use within the RPZ, the Airport would face significant challenges that may result in the removal of such an approach.

Airport stakeholders are aware of the FAA’s current position on this matter and have expressed an interest in implementing an IAP to Runway 20 with higher minima than the Runway 2 RNAV approach. The Airport could implement an IAP with minima not lower than one mile without affecting the existing RPZ or TERPS surfaces. In this case, it would still be prudent for the Airport to conduct an airspace study to accurately identify approach surface obstructions that could affect the DA and visibility minima of a Runway 20 IAP. At this time, the FAA is unlikely to fund such a study, so the full financial burden of conducting the study and then implementing an IAP would fall to the Airport.

Given the potential ramifications to the Runway 2 approach, this MPU does not recommend that the Airport develop a GPSbased IAP in the immediate future, regardless of the visibility minima. Instead, it is recommended that the Airport continue to coordinate with the FAA to determine if an IAP would be feasible if and when GPS navigation technologies become more widely available and cost effective. If it does, the Airport can choose to implement an approach with minima similar to the existing Runway 2 RNAV approach or one with minima higher than one mile visibility. 15 Existing obstructions to Runway 20 are discussed further in Airspace Obstructions.

4-59
Figure 4-17: Runway 20 Approach RPZ – B-II-4000 Standards

4-60

4.4.7 Airspace Obstructions
As noted in Chapter 3, a number of imaginary surfaces extend outwards and upwards from the two runways at WVI. The dimensions and gradients of each of these surfaces are defined in FAR Part 77 and Order 8260.3, United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Any penetration of these imaginary surfaces, either natural or manmade, is identified as an obstruction and must be evaluated by the FAA to determine if the penetration presents a hazard to air navigation. If determined to be a hazard, the obstacle should be removed or altered to mitigate the penetration. At the current time, the FAA has identified obstructions along the Runway 20 approach path that require the runway threshold to be displaced 590 feet from the north end of the runway pavement. Potential strategies for mitigating the obstructions affecting Runway 20 and the general Part 77 airspace obstructions are discussed in the subsections below.

Runway 20 Displaced Threshold Obstructions
The close-in approach path to Runway 20 is obstructed by several objects, resulting in the 590-foot-long displacement of the runway threshold. An airspace analysis conducted for this MPU identified more than 30 objects that penetrate the Part 77 Approach Surface and should be mitigated appropriately. Five of these objects penetrate the 20:1 Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) on the Runway 20 end, which is the reason for the displaced threshold.

Figure 4-18 depicts these objects, with those obstructing the 20:1 TSS highlighted in yellow. Table 4-6 summarizes the five obstacles that penetrate the TSS and require the displaced threshold. These consist of two trees (#24 and #25) and two utility poles off Airport property (#32 and #36), as well as one lighted pole (#1) on Airport property to warn pilots of the powerlines in the close-in approach path. Objects #24 and #25 have been flagged as the controlling obstructions as they penetrate the TSS by more than 30 feet.

Table 4-6: Runway 20 TSS Obstruction Summary
Object Number Object Type TSS Penetration Distance (Ft.) 1 Pole 18.0’
24 Tree 32.2’
25 Tree 36.5’
32 Utility Pole 9.9’
36 Utility Pole 10.1’
Source: Martinez Geospatial
It is recommended the Airport mitigate these five obstructions to eliminate the displaced threshold, providing the maximum landing distance available for Runway 20. The Airport could remove all penetrating obstructions, then eliminate the displaced threshold; or remove the trees and relocate the threshold to intermediate location between the runway end and its current location. The benefits and impacts of each of these alternatives are discussed below.

4-61
Figure 4-18: Runway 20 Approach Surface and TSS Obstructions

4-62
Alternative 1: Remove All TSS Obstructions and Relocate Threshold to Runway End Alternative 1 includes removing all TSS obstructions and subsequently relocating the runway threshold to the existing end of the pavement. According to aerial imagery, objects #24 and #25 are located on the same residential property one block north of Airport property. As such, it is recommended the Airport coordinate with this landowner to remove the palm trees and obtain an easement to trim other trees on the property if they grow above the slope of the TSS. The utility poles (#32 and #36) are owned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and sit on City property along Buena Vista Drive. The powerlines split several times in this area, providing power to dozens of houses in the adjacent neighborhood. It is recommended the Airport coordinate with PG&E to move the powerlines underground and remove the utility poles along Buena Vista Drive. The Airport or PG&E will also have to coordinate with private landowners in the neighborhood, as the installation of underground powerlines will likely require landscaping and electrical work to be completed on each applicable building in the area. If the utility poles and powerlines are removed, the lighted pole (#1) on Airport property can be removed. Once all five obstructions are removed, the Airport can relocate the runway threshold to the pavement end, regaining 590 feet of available landing distance. The primary concern of this alternative is the potential pushback the Airport could receive from the adjacent property owners as aircraft would be flying over the houses at a lower altitude than if the threshold remained in its current location.

Alternative 2: Remove Objects #24 and #25, Relocate Threshold 215 feet from Runway 20 End Alternative 2 would allow the Airport to increase the available landing distance for Runway 20 without removing all penetrating obstructions. In this scenario, the Airport would remove the trees (#24 and #25) and relocate the threshold 215 feet from the Runway 20 end. This would increase the available landing distance of Runway 20 by 375 feet, providing a total distance of 4,126 feet. This would allow the Airport to regain some of the landing distance if the powerlines are unable to be moved underground. In this alternative, the Airport would still have to coordinate with the private landowner to remove the trees, which is the same issue as Alternative 1. However, the Airport would not have to pay for the relocation of the powerlines, thus reducing the cost of the project when compared to Alternative 1.

Given that the Airport would have to remove the Objects #24 and #25 in both alternatives, it is recommended the Airport remove all obstructions and move the Runway 20 threshold to the end of the pavement as described in Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 is only recommended if the Airport is unable to come to an agreement with PG&E and the private landowners to move the powerlines underground. If PG&E is willing to remove the aboveground powerlines but private landowners are not, it may be possible for the Airport and PG&E to replacing the existing poles with shorter poles that fall below the TSS. In this instance, it is recommended the Airport investigate state and local requirements for the minimum height for powerlines serving residential neighborhoods.

General Obstructions
In addition to the objects that impact the TERPS surfaces on the Runway 20 approach, there are obstructions within the Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces at WVI comprised mainly of terrain and trees, poles, and fences. This data and recommended disposition will be provided in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set on the Airport Airspace Drawing (Sheet 3) and Inner Approach Surface drawing sheets (Sheets 4 and 5). The recommended mitigation strategy for each type of airspace obstruction is presented below. It should be noted that it is sometimes impossible to achieve airspace completely devoid of obstructions due to excessive costs or other considerations. Obstructions that cannot be removed should be lighted with hazard beacons. It is recommended that an in-depth evaluation be conducted near the time of removal of airspace obstructions to confirm the number and locations of obstacles affecting Part 77 surfaces.

4-63
Ground – For ground obstructions found within the primary surface and inner approach surface on Airport property, the Airport should verify elevation with a field survey and grade as necessary to address the obstruction. Grading should be planned to be completed during the next runway or taxiway rehabilitation project.

Tree – Trees found on Airport property should be removed. For tree obstructions found off Airport property, arrangements will need to be made with the individual property owners. Removal is the preferred method over tree trimming as it ensures the trees will not regrow to be obstructions again in the future. If the owner is only willing to trim the tree, then an easement to return to trim the trees in the future should be obtained.

Building – Buildings that are obstructions should be lighted per FAA AC 70/7460-1L, Obstruction Marking and Lighting.

Road – For obstruction analysis purposes, it is assumed that a 15-foot truck is on the road. For roads within the primary surface, they will likely need to be relocated or lowered in the future.

Fence/Post/Utility Poles/Tank/Antenna – The Airport should coordinate with surrounding property owners to determine if manmade objects can be removed or relocated. If these items cannot be relocated or removed, they should be lighted per FAA AC 70/7460-1L. Depending on conditions, reflective markers may be used to reduced costs.

4.5 Landside Alternatives
As described in Chapter 5, there is a need for the Airport to develop new landside facilities to meet forecast demand and recommended safety and design standards. Namely, an existing shortage of T-hangar units and projected need for conventional hangar space will require the Airport to construct new aircraft storage facilities. The Airport’s GA terminal building was previously planned to be expanded and reconfigured to provide adequate space for the onsite restaurant. Additionally, the aviation fuel storage facilities at WVI are nearing the end of their useful life and need to be replaced to meet operational needs and environmental standards. As such, the existing fuel delivery system and fuel truck parking area must be modified or relocated to accommodate above-ground fuel storage tanks (AGTs). Finally, it is recommended the Airport construct an Airport Maintenance Equipment Storage (MES) building to protect trucks and equipment from the elements, thereby extending their useful life. The following sections present alternatives that address the considerations described above and provide for an optimized overall landside area.

4.5.1 General Aviation Terminal
ACRP Report 113: Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning recommends sizing of a GA terminal be based on the number of peak hour operations the airport is expected to accommodate during the forecast period. Using this formula, it is recommended the GA terminal have an ultimate size of 12,361 square feet (including approximately 3,500 square feet for the dedicated restaurant currently onsite) to provide amenities including a pilot and passenger lounge, restrooms, flight planning area, and food/beverage vending machines. However, Airport stakeholders and staff indicated that a portion of the traffic utilizes select services offered by the various SASOs on the airfield. As such, the GA terminal likely will not need to be expanded to the full size recommended by the ACRP report.

The Airport previously designed a terminal expansion in the 2003 AMPU. This layout, presented in Figure 4-19, would provide an ultimate building size of approximately 10,000 square feet, with 6,300 square feet dedicated to the terminal and 3,700 square feet dedicated to the restaurant. Although this configuration would offer adequate space for the desired amenities, it may be outgrown as transient traffic increases at the Airport. Additionally, this layout would require eight parking spaces in the

4-64
parking lot west of the terminal to be partially removed. This would reduce off-street automobile parking in the terminal area, which, although the needs of the Airport are currently met, has very little surplus space to meet future demand.

4-65
Figure 4-19: 2003 AMPU Proposed Terminal Layout

4-66
If the Airport chooses to pursue an expansion using the layout proposed in the 2003 AMPU, it is recommended that a separate project be conducted to fully design the terminal building expansion and any necessary improvements to the terminal parking lot and surrounding area. However, if the Airport feels the 2003 AMPU layout cannot sufficiently meet its needs, it is recommended the Airport design a different terminal expansion or a complete building reconstruction. Figure 4-20depicts potential areas the terminal could be expanded into or where an entirely new building could be constructed. As shown, the existing terminal could be expanded in the grass area west of the current building up to approximately 3,300 square feet without impacting the parking lot, providing a total building size of approximately 9,800 square feet. Alternatively, a new building could be constructed in the grass area and existing parking lot, providing an ultimate building size of approximately 7,200 square feet with the land available to expand another 2,800 square feet. In this scenario, the west terminal parking lot could be relocated to the location of the existing terminal building and combined with the east terminal parking lot.

4-67
Figure 4-20: Potential GA Terminal Expansion Areas

4-68

4.5.2 Aircraft Storage
Table 4-7 presents a summary of the surpluses and needs for aircraft storage facilities at WVI. As shown, there is currently a surplus of conventional hangar space, although this is projected to decrease over the next 20 years until demand is projected to slightly exceed storage capacity in 2040. However, a portion of conventional hangar space is reserved for use by SASOs and is not always available for based or transient aircraft storage. As such, there may be a need for additional conventional aircraft storage to be constructed to accommodate demand. The Airport also has a T-hangar shortage that is projected to increase to 36 units in 2040. The apron tie downs currently available at the Airport are expected to meet demand through the forecast period, even if 41 tie downs are removed to comply with RVZ standards as discussed in Section 4.4.2.

Table 4-7: Aircraft Storage Needs Summary
Storage Type 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040
Conventional
Hangar (square
footage)*
Surplus/(Deficit) 23,800 21,800 19,800 12,800 7,800 (200) T-Hangar (units) Surplus/(Deficit) (5) (6) (13) (20) (29) (36) Apron Tie Downs
Surplus/(Deficit) 81 80 77 74 72 68
Surplus/(Deficit) with
41 Tie Downs Removed 40 39 36 33 31 27
Helicopter
Parking Surplus/(Deficit) 3 3 3 3 3 2
* A portion of conventional hangar space is reserved for use by SASOs and is not always available for based or transient aircraft storage. As such, there may be a need for additional conventional aircraft storage to be constructed to accommodate demand.

Sources: WVI, Kimley-Horn
It is recommended the Airport construct additional aircraft storage facilities to meet current and projected needs of the Airport.

There are several areas on the airfield where storage facilities could be constructed or reconfigured to add aircraft storage capacity. There are several factors that need to be considered when determining the feasibility of each area to accommodate aircraft storage facilities. Namely, the areas must be large enough to contain the applicable storage facility while providing adequate safety buffers and clear areas between aircraft, vehicles, and buildings. Each potential location must be accessible for aircraft to taxi to and from other areas of the Airport and have sufficient roadway access to allow ground vehicles to reach each location without entering any aircraft movement areas. External roadway access must also be considered as the surrounding roads will likely be affected by the increase of vehicles traveling to or from the storage facilities on the Airport.

Conventional and T-Hangar buildings will need appropriate utilities (e.g., electricity, sewer, water, and gas), while aprons and tie downs will need appropriate drainage infrastructure. Aircraft storage areas should also ideally be accessible to primary amenities (fueling facilities, restrooms, ground transportation) with as few runway crossings as possible to reduce the risk for runway incursions.