4-69
Aircraft Storage Facility Development Locations
Nine potential locations for aircraft storage facility development at WVI are depicted in Figure 4-21. The details of each potential location are discussed below. It is important to note Area 9 is only applicable if the Runway 27 is shifted 1,993 feet west to resolve RVZ compliance issues and overlaps a portion of Area 3, which could be constructed regardless of the status of Runway 9-27. If Runway 9-27 was closed for any reason, Areas 4 and 5 could be expanded to the south to include the land currently occupied by the runway and Taxiway C (shown as Area 5-B). Runway 9-27 is not recommended to be closed to increase land available for aircraft storage facilities. The yellow shading represents areas of known tarplant growth on the airfield. As discussed in Appendix A the Airport would need to coordinate with the California Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop a strategy to appropriately mitigate damage to critical habitats prior to development of any area with known tarplant growth.
4-70
Figure 4-21: Potential Aircraft Storage Facility Locations
4-71
Potential Aircraft Storage Facility Layouts
Figure 4-22 through Figure 4-25 depict potential arrangements for aircraft storage areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. As shown, some of these areas have significant flexibility as they have the necessary space, accessibility, and utility availability to support either conventional hangars, T-hangars, or aircraft tie downs. Some locations, such as Area 4, have adequate space to accommodate a mix of uses. The exact use and configuration of each aircraft storage facility will largely depend on the desires and funding availability of the developer (Airport or private). As such, the actual layouts of these areas may vary from what is presented in the below figures and ALP. Regardless of the developer’s needs, the layout of each location must meet all applicable FAA design standards unless specifically addressed as part of the tenant’s lease with the Airport.
Table 4-8 summarizes the characteristics of the nine potential storage areas at WVI, including the size of the available area, the percent of the area affected by tarplant, and the recommended use for each area. In general, larger areas provide greater flexibility as one or more types of storage facilities can be accommodated. However, larger areas are predominantly undeveloped, which presents added challenges to address accessibility, utility availability, and environmental concerns, particularly relating to tarplant habitat. Some areas are limited in flexibility regardless of their size due to airspace and land use restrictions that may preclude certain buildings or facilities being built.
Table 4-8: Aircraft Storage Areas Summary
Storage Area
Location
Available Land
Area (Sq Ft)
Available Land
Area (Acres)
Percent of Area Affected
by Tarplant Habitat Recommended Use
Area 1 49,229 1.1 None Tie downs/Conventional Hangars
Area 2 132,645 3.0 None T-hangars/Conventional Hangars
Area 3 53,630 1.2 21% Tie downs
Area 4 460,354 10.6 53% Mixed
Area 4-B 211,412 4.9 <1% T-hangars/Conventional Hangars Area 5 548,842 12.8 26% Mixed
Area 5-B* 577,048 13.2 14% Mixed
Area 6 254,014 5.8 1% Mixed
Area 6-B 475,431 10.9 1% Mixed
Area 7 93,870 2.2 None Tie downs/Conventional Hangar
Area 8 31,236 0.7 None Tie downs/Conventional Hangar
Area 9* 303,356 7.0 17% Tie downs
*Areas 5B and 9 are only applicable if Runway 9-27 is closed. **Area 6-B is only applicable if existing PLA is relocated and proposed land swap does not occur.
Source: Kimley-Horn
4-72
Figure 4-22: Aircraft Storage Area 1 - Potential Configurations
4-73
Figure 4-23: Aircraft Storage Area 2 - Potential Configuration
4-74
Figure 4-24: Aircraft Storage Area 3 - Potential Configuration
4-75
Figure 4-25: Aircraft Storage Area 4 - Potential Configuration
4-76
Areas 4 and 4-B is the largest potential development area that can be developed in the airfield’s current configuration, with more than 15 acres available for a mixed development of aircraft storage facilities and other support facilities such as an aircraft fuel island and wash rack. However, development of Area 4 would face significant environmental challenges as more than half of the land has been identified as tarplant habitat. Tarplant primarily effects the undeveloped land in areas 3, 4, 5, 5- B, 6, and 9. The actual amount of developable land may be reduced if the Airport and California FWS cannot agree on a plan to allow development of known tarplant areas. In this event, Areas 3 and 4 would be infeasible as tarplant blocks access from the area to the existing airfield pavements. Areas 5, 5-B, and 6 would also need to be significantly modified to avoid all known tarplant. Areas 1 and 2, meanwhile, sit on previously-developed land and could be developed with little to no environmental impacts.
Although the land swap discussed in Chapter 3 is currently planned to occur as an assumption of this MPU, if for any reason it does not, the area would become available for development of aircraft storage facilities. This area is noted as Area 6-B.
According to the 2020 Tarplant Survey, the proposed land swap area does not contain known tarplant growth, making it a potential location for aircraft storage facilities without the environmental impacts of other areas on the airfield. However, development of this area for aircraft storage facilities would also require relocation of the PLA, which would impact the amount of available land in this area. Additionally, the ultimate condition of Runway 9-27 will impact the dimensions of the RVZ, which will also impact the amount of land available. It is recommended the Airport conduct an assessment at the time of a proposed development (if the land swap is not completed) to identify the location of tarplant and RVZ to determine if the area would be most suitable for the PLA or aircraft storage facilities. It should be noted that if Areas 6 and 6-B were both developed, another suitable location for the PLA would need to be identified. As Area 9 would replace the developed land of Runway 9-27, less of the available land is affected by tarplant habitat. Area 9 has sufficient space to accommodate a mix of storage facilities but would be limited to only aircraft tie downs or single-story structures as it sits within Caltrans Safety Zone 2 and below the Part 77 Approach Surface of the shortened Runway 9-27. Area 8 would also be limited in its flexibility due to the Part 77 Transitional Surface, which limits building height to approximately 21 feet. Area 3 can only be developed as aircraft tie downs due its small size and proximity to imaginary airspace surfaces at the runway end. Area 3 could also be developed as an open-air aircraft wash facility if the locations presented in the Section 4.5.3 are deemed insufficient.
Area 2 would be suitable for T-hangars or conventional hangars but would require the removal of 23 tie downs from the east transient ramp. These tie downs would have to be replaced to meet demand if the tie downs are removed for RVZ compliance issues. Areas 1 and 8 could be initially developed as aircraft tie downs and then reconfigured to include T-hangars or a conventional hangar. Due to the small size, both of these spaces would not provide an adequate number of aircraft storage spots to satisfy projected demand.
Areas 4 through 7 would all require new vehicle access roads to be constructed, creating additional traffic impacts for surface streets on the north and west sides of the Airport. As the roads surrounding WVI are predominantly residential, any new access point may create adverse impacts for the local community. Areas 6 and 7 may have additional challenges due to steep terrain on the west side of Airport property. Development of Area 7 may also necessitate the demolition of the Airport firing range and the relocation of the perimeter access road. Areas 4-7 would also necessitate the development of new taxiways and utility connections to access runways and other airfield infrastructure. Conversely, areas 1-3, 8, and 9 would easily integrate into the existing network of pavement and utilities, reducing the cost and complexity of development.
Aircraft Storage Evaluation
An evaluation of the nine potential aircraft storage areas identified in the previous section is presented in Table 4-9. The nine areas were compared against the following four evaluation criteria:
o Satisfy Future Demand: Provides enough space to meet forecast storage needs
4-77
o Environmental Considerations: Minimizes negative impacts to the natural environment on-airport and the community
o Flexibility: Can be modified to suit developer needs
o Integration: Can be easily connected to existing roadway, utility, and airfield infrastructure Areas 1 and 2 receive the highest overall scores as they are in previously-developed areas that can easily integrate with existing facilities. Area 9 scored third highest as it provides ample space to meet forecasted demand, however, it is only applicable if certain RVZ conditions are met. Areas 4, 5, and 6 all received similar overall scores (fourth most) as they could support a mix of facilities but have significant environmental and integrational challenges associated. Areas 3 and 8 also receive a similar overall score because of a lack of flexibility and small size. Area 7 receives the lowest overall score as it would require significant changes to existing infrastructure and access points to be developed while it does not have enough available space to meet forecast demand.
Table 4-9: Aircraft Storage Area Evaluation
Storage Area
Location
Satisfy Future
Demand
Environmental
Considerations Flexibility Minimize Onairport Impacts Total Score Area 1 2 3 3 3 11
Area 2 3 3 3 2 11
Area 3 1 3 2 3 9
Area 4 3 1 3 2 9
Area 5 3 1 3 2 9
Area 6 3 2 2 2 9
Area 7 2 2 2 2 8
Area 8 1 3 2 3 9
Area 9* 3 2 2 3 10
*Location 9 is only applicable if the Runway 27 threshold is shifted 1,993 feet west Source: Kimley-Horn
Given the results of the above evaluation, it is recommended the Airport pursue development of areas 1, 3, 4, and 8. The actual design and configuration of these areas will likely differ from those presented in Figure 4-22 through Figure 4-25.
Completion of these improvements will be phased to meet activity demand and may allow certain areas to be temporarily developed before reaching their ultimate configuration. The phasing and implementation plan for aircraft storage facilities in these locations are discussed in Chapter 5.
4.5.3 Support Facilities
Aviation support facilities help facilitate aeronautical activities and provide amenities for the continuous efficient operation of the Airport. Chapter 3 identified the need for the development of three new types of support facilities. These include two new
4-78
aboveground fuel tanks (AGTs) to replace the existing underground facilities, a new fuel truck parking area that integrates with the AGTs, and a new Airport MES building to house the Airport’s Street Sweeper, tractor, mowing equipment, and maintenance vehicles. As described in the previous chapter, each of these facilities should be designed to meet size and characteristic recommendations derived from local requirements and industry best practices. The recommended sizes and configurations of the three support facilities are depicted in Figure 4-26, while the following subsections provide a description of the recommended attributes of each facility.
Aircraft Fuel Storage Tanks
As noted, WVI currently has adequate aviation fuel storage capacity to meet forecast demand during the planning period. The existing USTs are nearing the end of their useful life and will need to be replaced during the planning period. The FAA recommends all new fuel tanks be installed above ground for ease of construction, maintenance, and containment in the event of a fuel leak. Two 12,000-gallon AGTs would be installed to replace the USTs, each of which would measure 35 feet long by approximately 10 feet wide. ACRP Report 113 recommends AGTs be separated by 10 feet and sit in a containment area that extends five feet around beyond the AGT. With two collocated AGTs, the total dimensions of the containment pad would measure 40 feet by 45 feet. A 15-foot Hazard Clear Area would surround the pad to ensure appropriate separation between the tanks and other facilities, providing a total facility area size of 5,250 square feet (70 feet by 75 feet).
The Airport should consider several factors when developing and placing aircraft fuel storage facilities, including access to electrical and wastewater drainage utilities for self-service fueling and hazardous material containment. Fuel storage facilities must have sufficient roadway access for fueling delivery trucks, preferably without the trucks entering the aircraft operating area. The AGTs should also be located near fuel truck parking area and aircraft fueling island to minimize length for underground/aboveground fuel lines and/or minimize response times to fueling requests. The self-service fueling island should be accessible to aircraft, but the AGTs should be placed in an area that is accessible to not interfere with aircraft operating or safety areas.
Airport Fuel Truck Parking
The fuel truck parking area currently sits on top of the existing USTs and may have to be relocated when the USTs are decommissioned. The existing parking area measures approximately 90 feet wide by 40 feet deep. The area currently has curbs and wastewater drainage to ensure appropriate containment in the event of a hazardous material spill. It is recommended the parking area be fitted with similar features per federal, state, and local standards. The fuel truck parking area is recommended to be located near the fuel storage facility to allow trucks to be easily and quickly refilled. The Airport could install a separate fuel dispenser in the parking area and connect to the AGTs via underground fuel lines. Water and electric utilities could be extended to the parking area to provide nighttime lighting and allow for the area to be cleaned.
Airport Maintenance Equipment Storage (MES) Building
The Airport MES building is recommended to be 4,050 square feet according to ACRP Report 113 which is based on the overall land area occupied by the Airport. The building is recommended to have four 18-foot by 45-foot vehicle bays to hold large trucks and tractors and one 18-foot by 45-foot area to hold miscellaneous equipment and material and provide an office for Airport staff. When arranged linearly, the overall dimensions of the MES building measure 90 feet long by 45 feet wide.
However, the vehicle bays, storage area and office could be configured in another fashion to fit within the available space and meet Airport needs. It is recommended the MES building be located near the Airport administrative building, fueling facilities, and major utility infrastructure to ensure rapid response to maintenance or operational requests. The MES building will need to be connected to utilities and may require climate control to store temperature-sensitive materials.
4-79
Potential Support Facility Development Areas
Three areas were identified on the terminal apron that would be suitable for the placement of the necessary support facilities.
These locations are depicted in Figure 4-27.
Area 1 sits on the east of the GA terminal building and provides 6,192 square feet of space (86 feet by 72 feet). This would provide adequate space for any one of the three support facilities with limited changes to the area. Development of a support facility in Area 1 would likely require the parking area for airport operations vehicles to be moved, either to a different location within Area 1 or to a separate area depending on which facility is developed. Area 1 could hold the MES building or the fuel truck parking area in their proposed designs, but the fence between the terminal patio and the apron would need to be shifted approximately four feet west. Alternatively, the design of both facilities could be easily adjusted to fit into the existing available space.
Area 2 is located along Aviation Way south of the existing fuel island in the current location of the fuel truck parking. Area 2 is approximately 7,650 square feet in size, large enough to hold any of the three support facilities with little changes to the surrounding area. The area could be configured to hold both the MES building and the fuel truck parking but would likely necessitate a reconfiguration for the adjacent parking lot to allow Airport vehicles to access both sides of the facilities. Area 2 sits on top to the existing USTs. If the Airport is required to remove the USTs at the time of decommissioning, Area 2 may be temporarily unavailable for another support facility. The Airport could phase the improvements to remove the USTs prior to development of a support facility; however, if AGTs were placed in this area, there would be an overlapping period when the fuel would have to be stored in a separate temporary location.
Area 3 is the largest space available for support facilities (10,440 sq ft), but due to the irregular shape, its flexibility is limited.
Area 3 would not be able to accommodate the fuel storage facility as the hazard clear area would not meet design standards.
Depending on the facility type, development of Area 3 may necessitate relocation of the Airport Operation center and adjacent parking lot. The fuel truck parking area and the MES building could be placed on the west side of the existing Airport Operations Center, requiring removal of the equipment storage shed (which would be replaced by the MES building). The Airport Operations Center would need to be shifted to accommodate the support facilities without interfering with the leasehold at 60 Aviation Way.
Given the dimensions of the available areas and the location of existing facilities, it is recommended the Airport construct a fuel truck parking area in Area 1, two 12,000-gallon AGTs in Area 2, and a 4,000 square-foot MES Building on the west side of Area 3. Although this configuration is recommended, these facilities are relatively flexible and can be reconfigured during a later design study if the Airport wishes to relocate the GA terminal building, aircraft fuel island, or Airport Operations Center.
4-80
Figure 4-26: Support Facility Recommended Dimensions
4-81
Figure 4-27: Potential Support Facility Development Areas AREA 1
AREA 2
AREA 3
4-82
Aircraft Wash Facility
As noted in Chapter 3, ACRP Report 113 recommends a wash rack be built at WVI in one of the following three configurations: open-air with a valved drainage system that only opens during wash events, covered (roof with open sides), and enclosed (hangar with or without door). While a covered or enclosed facility would provide better containment of wastewater, an open-air aircraft wash facility with valved drainage meets the needs of the Airport and local environmental standards at a significantly lower cost. The recommended size of the wash rack is 70 feet by 70 feet with a 10-foot clear area on all sides to accommodate the Beechcraft King Air 350, the critical aircraft at WVI. However, Airport staff and stakeholders reported that smaller single- and multi-engine aircraft primarily use the existing unpaved wash area. As such, the wash rack may be smaller and still be able to serve the majority of aircraft that will use it. It is recommended the Airport determine the ideal size of the wash rack by surveying tenants to identify the types of aircraft that most commonly use the wash rack.
Airport stakeholders have also expressed a desire for a wash rack that aircraft can taxi into and out of without the need for aircraft tugs or towbars. This would require two entrance or exit points from the wash rack, whereas the existing unpaved facility only have one access point. A taxi-through wash rack would present additional design and operational challenges for containing wastewater as regulations require wastewater to be separated from stormwater and treated before being released.
It would preclude the construction of an enclosed facility and would likely require a covered facility to be wider to ensure wingtip clearance. Furthermore, a taxi-through wash rack may be considered a taxilane, which would require the wash rack and entrance taxilanes to meet appropriate safety and obstacle clearance areas. This would require the wash rack to have a clear area width of at least 79 feet (ADG I standards).
Figure 4-28 depicts two potential locations for a paved wash rack facility designed to comply with ACRP recommendations within the existing layout of the airfield and associated infrastructure. It should be noted that during any future development or reconfiguration of an aircraft storage area the inclusion of a wash rack that allows aircraft to taxi in and out be considered.
Location 1 sits in the spot currently occupied by the existing wash rack on the east side of T-hangar buildings “W” and “X”, while Location 2 would place the wash rack adjacent to the Airport operations building along the south side of the east transient apron. Location 1 is shown with a 45-foot by 45-foot wash rack (green) capable of serving small single-engine aircraft such as the Piper PA-28 Archer and a 55-foot by 55-foot wash rack (blue) able to serve larger aircraft such as the Cessna 340. There is limited space in Location 2, so it is shown with only a 45-foot by 45-foot wash rack. However, this size is still expected to be able to accommodate the majority of aircraft currently using the existing wash facility.
Both areas are able to accommodate a 45-foot by 45-foot wash rack facility with one entrance or exit taxiway. Location 1’s comparatively remote placement would lessen the potential for aircraft using the wash rack to interfere with other aircraft movements on the Airport, a trait recommended by the ACRP report. Conversely, Location 2 is situated near the fuel farm and the terminal apron, which is one of the busiest areas of the Airport. In either location, aircraft would not have the ability to taxi in and out of the area under their own power as there would not be room for aircraft to complete a turn inside the wash rack if the FAA design standards were utilized.
4-83
Figure 4-28: Potential Aircraft Wash Rack Configurations LOCATION 1 LOCATION 2
4-84
Location 1 could utilize the existing water connection present in the area as it would replace the existing unpaved wash facility.
Electricity could be extended from the W Hangar building to provide power for washers and vacuums. If the wash rack is built as an open facility with a valved drainage system, drainpipes could be connected from the wash rack to the stormwater drain lines along Airport Boulevard. Wastewater drainage could be connected from an open air, covered, or enclosed wash facility to existing sewer lines running under Aviation Way. However, the distance between Location 1 and other Airport facilities would require the Airport to implement a secondary stormwater collection point to meet state environmental requirements.
Location 2 sits above a sewer line and adjacent to water and electrical utilities, allowing appropriate utilities to be connected to a wash rack with minimal complexity. Additionally, Location 2’s proximity to the existing Airport operations center would enable Airport staff to quickly access the wash rack if maintenance or service is needed for the facility. Location 2 is also close enough to the fuel farm that a secondary stormwater collection point would not be necessary. Construction of a wash rack in Location 2 would necessitate the addition of a taxilane to guide aircraft to and from the apron. As shown, the taxilane would require the removal of a tiedown on the east transient ramp to maintain taxilane object free area standards for ADG I aircraft.
Location 2 also sits in the space proposed for Airport support facilities in the previous section of this analysis. As discussed, proposed support facility Area 3 overlaps with wash rack Location 2, and it is recommended the Airport construct the fuel truck parking facility in this area. If a wash rack was constructed in Location 2, the Airport would need to relocate the proposed fuel truck parking area to a different location at the Airport, which may be undesirable for Airport staff accessing the Airport Operations Center and the trucks to fuel aircraft.
Given the minimal impacts that construction of a wash rack in Location 1 would have on other existing and proposed Airport facilities compared to Location 2, it is recommended the Airport pursue construction of a paved, open-air wash rack with valved drainage and appropriate utilities in Location 1. It is important to note that the locations presented above could provide a temporary location for the wash rack until another suitable facility is developed. As mentioned in Section 4.5.2, some of the potential aircraft storage development areas are flexible in their configuration and could include an aircraft wash rack. It is recommended the Airport investigate the benefits of constructing a replacement or supplementary wash rack facility when it completes the design of future aircraft storage facilities.
4.6 Recommended Development Plan
The various preferred alternatives described in previous sections of this chapter were combined with the facility improvements that did not require in-depth analysis and the pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction projects from the Airport’s 2021 pavement management and maintenance plan (PMMP)16 into a Recommended Development Plan (RDP), shown in and listed in Table 4-10. Through the evaluation process, each preferred alternative was reviewed relative to how the alternative interacted with all other alternatives. This analysis resulted in minor tweaks to individual improvements to ensure that all standards were still met while confirming the selection of one preferred alternative did not create unintended consequences for another.
The RDP represents ultimate conditions of WVI for the 20-year planning period and beyond, which are also depicted on the ALP. As previously noted, the RDP is intended to identify solutions for the facility requirements outlined in Chapter 3 to ensure that the Airport remains consistent with FAA guidelines and standards and achieves the short- and long-term goals of WVI.
The need for long-term flexibility to be able to react to changing guidance and financial constraints was kept at the forefront as 16 It should be noted that project quantities and costs identified in the PMMP have been re-evaluated and updated as some of those projects are impacted by recommended improvements presented in this Master Plan Update.
4-85
the individual projects of the RDP were combined. The RDP also includes a number of improvements that are currently in progress (design or construction) and are scheduled to be completed in the next 12 to 24 months. These improvements are marked in Table 4-10 with an asterisk.
A phased implementation plan for these improvements as well as cost estimates and potential funding sources are presented in Chapter 5. The RDP cannot and does not need to be implemented immediately, rather, improvements should be staggered over the short-, medium-, and long-term planning periods. This can be seen through the changes of the taxiways, where the change of the existing runway entrance taxiway angle and relocation of the direct access taxiways would be recommended as part of the next pavement rehabilitation project (short term), but those specific taxiway connectors may ultimately be removed and replaced with another connector as part of a future runway extension (long term). It will be important for WVI to discuss the latest FAA guidance as implementation planning is initiated for each project to confirm the recommendations made in this MPU are applicable at the time of implementation.
In addition to the individual projects listed in Table 4-10, there are several items the Airport should continue to investigate the feasibility of through coordination with the FAA as new technologies emerge and guidance changes. Many of these are discussed further in Section 4.3 and includes such things as:
• Coordinate with Airport Stakeholders and FAA FSDO to conduct a safety assessment to determine feasibility of a turf landing area in the unpaved portion of the RSA
• Investigate feasibility and FAA eligibility of MALSF system for Runway 2 • Develop strategy for engaging in national policy discussion on FAA eligibility of non-primary runways • Continue to coordinate with FAA regarding maintenance of the on-airport localizer and existing APV, VOR, and LOC approach procedures
• Continue to coordinate with FAA to investigate feasibility of GPS-based IAP to Runway 20 as technologies improve • Continue to follow guidance in the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to manage and monitor wildlife in the vicinity • Improve ground handling services for jet aircraft (e.g., lavatory cart, catering cart, GPU) • Coordinate with Airport users and tenants to mitigate excess dumping of non-aviation solid waste • Conduct Airport rates and charges analysis for aeronautical and non-aeronautical land parcels and uses • Extend Airport utilities as needed for future development • Coordinate with USFWS and CDFW to designate critical tarplant habitat area
4-86
Table 4-10: Individual Projects of the Recommended Development Plan Number Individual Projects of the Recommended Development Plan Runways
1 Extend Runway 2-20 by 680 feet to achieve full length of 5,181 feet* 2 Acquire fee-simple property or avigation and land use easement for RPZs to Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 3 Relocate Runway 27 threshold 870 feet to the west to meet Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards 3A Extend Runway 9-27 255 feet west
Taxiways
4 Reconfigure Fence line along Taxiway A to meet ADG-II taxiway separation to fixed or moveable object standards 5 Widen existing paved shoulders on Taxiway C to meet ADG-II design standards if continuing to provide paved shoulders
6 Reconfigure Taxiways A and C to address non-standard runway intersection angles and acute-angle runway entrance taxiways
7 Reconfigure Taxiway A to modify wide expanse of pavement at Runway 20 entrance 8 Reconfigure Taxiways B, C, and D to eliminate taxiways with direct access from apron to runways 9 Reconfigure apron and hangar area taxilanes to meet TDG-2 and ADG-II design and separation standards 10 Reconfigure apron for Specialized Helicopters**
11 Install traffic pattern indicators around segmented circle** 12 Update designations of Taxiways B, D, and E; and runway entrance Taxiways A and C 25 Construction new taxilane to existing hangar development Parachute Landing Area (PLA)
13 Continue to coordinate with Nordic Naturals on land swap agreement** 14 Coordinate relocation of PLA while maintaining USPA standards** Airspace
15 Remove on-airport FAR Part 77 obstacles and coordinate with adjacent property owners to remove or mitigate obstacles to the approach and transitional surfaces
16 Coordinate with adjacent property owners to remove obstacles from the Runway 20 Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) in order to remove 590-foot displaced threshold
General Aviation Facilities
17 Expand GA Terminal Building to meet Airport and users’ needs 18 Develop hangars as demand arises and financial conditions allow
4-87
Number Individual Projects of the Recommended Development Plan Security
19 Enhance restricted access gates**
Support Facilities
20 Construct Maintenance Equipment Storage (MES) building based on guidance from ACRP Report 113 21 Construct aircraft wash rack based on guidance from ACRP Report 113 22 Improve airfield drainage based on findings of 2010 WVI Drainage and Utilities Master Plan 23 Install aboveground fuel facilities to replace underground tanks 24 Install aboveground water reservoir**
26 Relocate Compass Rose*
27 Vehicle Service Road (VSR) Extension
28 Future Tarplant Outplanting Location
* Improvement recommended to be completed outside 20-year planning period ** Improvement currently in progress and scheduled to be completed within 12-24 months; as of date of publication project may have been completed
Source: Kimley-Horn
4-88
Figure 4-29: Recommended Development Plan
5-1
5 Implementation Plan
The purpose of this chapter is to outline the project phasing and sources of funding for the Recommended Development Plan (RDP) presented in Chapter 4. The RDP represents ultimate conditions of WVI for the 20-year planning period and beyond. The RDP is intended to identify solutions for the facility requirements outlined in Chapter 3 to ensure that the Airport remains consistent with the FAA guidelines and standards and achieve the short- and long-term goals of WVI. The need for long-term flexibility to be able to react to changing guidance and financial constraints was kept at the forefront as the RDP was developed. It should be noted that the Master Plan Update (MPU) effort began in 2020, with the Recommended Development Plan finalized in 2022, and the MPU published in 2023.
5.1Introduction
All airports receiving federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding are required to maintain a current Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) with the FAA. The ACIP identifies specific projects intended to be undertaken at an airport over a specified period of time – typically a 10-year horizon. This plan further estimates the order of implementation as well as total project costs and anticipated funding sources. The actual timing or phasing of specific projects, or project elements, will likely change in response to tenant/user demands, unforeseen business opportunities, changes in the regulatory environment and availability of federal, state, and local funds. Actual project costs may also vary from initial ACIP estimates as project designs progress and detailed engineering estimates are developed. For these reasons, airport sponsors coordinate updated five-year ACIPs with the FAA on an annual basis.
In developing the ACIP, care must also be taken to provide adequate lead-time for detailed planning, permitting, and construction to ensure that the proposed facilities are operational when warranted by the user demands. It is also important to minimize any disruptive scheduling where a portion of one facility may become inoperative due to construction of another, and to prevent extra costs resulting from improper project scheduling.
5.1.1 Sources of Funding
Potential funding sources for any proposed improvements at WVI primarily come in the form of federal and state grants, City funds and Airport revenue, and third-party investment. The amount of funding available from these sources will depend primarily on future levels of aviation activity at WVI and future federal and state funding reauthorizations. The following is a brief description of these sources.
Federal Programs
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
AIP grants, administered by the FAA, are a critical capital funding source to implement the projects recommended in this MPU.
Although the future status of the AIP is somewhat uncertain, for the purpose of this MPU, it is assumed that the AIP will continue to be authorized and appropriated at levels consistent with H.R. 302, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
As a public-use, general aviation airport in the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), WVI is eligible to receive AIP funding in the form of Non-Primary Entitlements (NPE) and Discretionary Grants. NPE are currently allocated to eligible airports at $150,000 per year. These can be accumulated, or saved, for up to three years in order to support a larger overall project.
WVI is also eligible to receive Discretionary AIP Grants based on a competitive priority rating system with most other airports in the NPIAS, with safety related projects receiving the highest priority. The FAA allocates certain discretionary funding to specific airport types and set-aside categories such as noise, reliever airports, military airport program and projects relating to capacity, safety, security, and noise. However, the FAA has some discretion in funding specific projects within these discretionary funding
5-2
set-aside categories. The FAA approves discretionary funds for use on specific projects, after consideration of project priority and other selection criteria.
Under the current AIP formula, the Airport is able to receive up to 90 percent funding for AIP-eligible projects. AIP funds can be used for most Airport improvement needs, but not operating costs, and typically not for revenue-generating projects. Since 2006, WVI has received approximately $4.11 million in AIP funds for projects such as runway and taxiway improvements and planning studies. To be conservative and ensure the airport sponsor is prepared for future development costs, the following ACIP assumes an entitlement of $150,000 annually throughout the planning horizon.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), signed into law on November 15, 2021, aims to modernize infrastructure through investment in a sustainable and equitable transportation system. The BIL allocated $25 billion in funds to be invested in the national air transportation system over the course of five years. Fifteen billion dollar of funds will be distributed to airports for infrastructure projects to improve airport safety and capacity ($3 billion per year) while $5 billion will be allocated for replacing outdated air traffic facilities (NAVAIDS) and the remaining $5 billion will be used to replace or improve aging airport terminals and control towers. The $15 billion Airport Infrastructure Program will be dispersed to all classified airports in the NPIAS. Of this, $500 million will be distributed annually to non-primary NPIAS airports such as WVI through Airport Infrastructure Grants with formula allocations (AIG Allocated) based on each airport’s NPIAS Role (National, Regional, Local, Basic). 1 Similar to AIP grants, the Airport can use AIG Allocated funds to cover up to 90 percent of eligible project costs. AIG Allocated funds can be used for most airport improvement projects under the same guidelines as AIP grants. As a Regional NPIAS airport, WVI is eligible to receive $295,000 in AIG Allocated funding annually starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022. AIG funding is expected to extend through FY 2026 and remain the same each year unless WVI’s role is reclassified in a future version of the NPIAS. As such, the following ACIP assumes $295,000 annually throughout the first five years.
State Programs
California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) mission in aviation is to foster and promote the development of a safe, efficient, dependable, and environmentally compatible air transportation system. As such, they provide funding through grants and loans as funds are available. The State funding programs are supported by the Aeronautics Account in the State Transportation Fund which is financed through taxes on fuel.
Annual Credit
Caltrans provides up to $10,000 annually for each eligible airport. Per Public Utilities Code (21682-21683.2), the Annual Credit is the first priority for distributing available funds. As a GA airport, WVI is eligible for and utilizes this annual credit.
State Matching Grant
Caltrans provides matching grants up to five percent of the FAA share of the project cost on a first come, first serve basis to the FAA AIP grants. Grant applications may be submitted once the FAA Grant Offer Letter has been received by the City. As a GA airport, WVI is eligible for this matching this grant.
Acquisition & Development (A&D) Grants
A&D Grants provide up to 90 percent for eligible safety, capacity, and security construction projects from $20,000 to $500,000.
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) may also be funded through A&D grants. WVI would be eligible for this program. As this program is funded after state operations, annual credits, and AIP matching grants have been funded, it has not been considered 1 The BIL Airport Infrastructure Program will also distribute $20 million to airports annually through a competitive Notice of Funding Opportunity process (AIG Competitive). However, AIG Competitive funds are only available to airports participating the Federal Contract Tower Program. As such, WVI is not eligible to receive AIG Competitive funds.
5-3
as a funding source in this ACIP. WVI may apply for inclusion for specific projects to assist with funding projects ahead of FAA funding or for projects that may not be eligible for FAA AIP funding.
California Airport Loan Program
Caltrans provides discretionary loans to eligible airports for construction and land acquisition projects that benefit an airport and/or improve its self-sufficiency. Projects may be a revenue-producing project. The amount of the loan will depend on the funds available and are required to be paid back within 17 years. The interest rate would be the same as State general obligation bonds.
Local City and Airport Funds
The Airport generates revenue primarily through ground and facility leases and fuel flowage fees as outlined in Section 5.3. While such revenues are used to cover operating and maintenance expenses, any surplus revenues can be applied directly to the ACIP. The Airport strives to be financially self-sufficient and is operated through an enterprise fund. While the historical political climate makes it unlikely, the City is able to also support Airport expenses with allocations from its General Fund as needed.
Bonds are another financial mechanism commonly used by municipalities to finance long-term capital projects. There are three main type of airports-related bonds:
o General Obligation (GO) – Backed by the creditworthiness and taxing power of the sponsor that usually require voter approval. GO bonds typically have lower interest rates due to their high level of security. o General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARB) – These are typically used at larger or commercial service airports that have high activity levels and multiple revenue streams. The bond is based on the sponsor’s revenues to repay the debt. GARBs are popular choices when revenue is available as they do not place debt on the taxpayers or affect the bonding capacity of the sponsor. Interest rates may be higher than GO bonds due to their higher risk. o Special Facility Revenue Bonds (SFB) – Customarily issued for construction of a facility and backed by the future revenue generated at the facility. SFBs are useful in developing special use or revenue producing facilities that are typically not eligible for federal funding.
Third Party Investment
Many airports use private third-party investment when the planned improvements will be primarily used by a private business or other organization as such projects are not ordinarily eligible for or compete well for federal funding. Projects of this kind typically include hangars, fixed-based operator facilities, GA terminals, fuel storage, exclusive-use aircraft parking aprons, industrial aviation-use facilities, non-aviation office/commercial/industrial developments and other similar projects. Private development proposals or improvements made for specific tenants for WVI would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Often, airport funds for enabling infrastructure, preliminary site work and site access are required to facilitate private development projects on airport property. Even if the project is not funded by the FAA, the development must be in accordance with the approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and be consistent with FAA airport design and airspace protection criteria.
5.1.2 Proposed Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP)
For WVI, the 20-year Master Plan ACIP includes projects resulting from the Recommended Development Plan (RDP) presented in Chapter 4. Table 5-1 presents those projects in three time periods, short- (0 to 5 years), mid- (6 to 11 years), and long-term (12 to 20 years) with their anticipated funding sources. When appropriate, projects may be combined or shifted between years to maximize resources and minimize airfield disruptions.
The funding distribution assumes the maximum FAA and State participation which would be considered a “best case” funding scenario. This includes the eligibility of modifications made to Runway 09-27 as a solution to the non-standard RVZ. The cost estimates are in 2021 dollars and include contingencies and construction management costs as applicable. The ACIP does not include all expenditures the Airport may incur on other projects, routine maintenance and repair, or daily operating expenses.
5-4
As shown in Table 5-1, out of the 20-year, $163.9 million budget, approximately $107.0 million could be funded by the AIP and $6.3 million by State Grants. The remaining $50.5 million balance of needed funds would be provided by the Airport. Of this, $29.0 million would be directly funded by the Airport while $21.5 million would be initially provided by the California Local Airport Loan Program and repaid by the Airport. It should be noted that projects 10, 11, 13, 14, and 24 are not included in the overall project costs in the ACIP below as they are already in progress or will be completed by a third party rather than the Airport.
Additionally, there are a number of recommendations discussed in Section 4.6 related to policy rather than airport development which have been omitted from the ACIP as they have no associated cost.
The details of the Airport’s 5-year ACIP including funding sources and the anticipated starting year for each project are presented in Table 5-2. While a 20-year ACIP identifies anticipated needs throughout the planning horizon, projects identified within a 5-year timeframe typically reflect more immediate airport needs or facilities where potential funding has already been secured.
Approximately $3.2 million of capital projects are estimated to be completed within the short-term planning period. Of this, approximately $2.9 million is expected to be eligible for federal funding. The 5-year ACIP is anticipated to require $209,356 from the Airport, or the local share, beyond costs for routine maintenance and operating expenses of WVI.
When the Airport implements the ACIP it is important to review the individual projects for which of them could be completed or grouped as a single project. This is especially important when looking at eligibility and AIP funding obligations. A prime example of this is Taxiway A, which has five individual recommendations (#4, 6, 7, 8, and 12). Each of these projects could be completed separately, but ideally would be completed as a single project. The projects could be designed as a single project and depending on the overall cost and anticipated funding, the project would be phased into appropriate bid packages. General Aviation airports regularly design projects with a base bid that includes the primary components of the projects and several additive alternatives that would be completed if enough funding was received. Alternatively, the project could be designed to be constructed in multiple phases in separate years. For the case of Taxiway A signage (#12), the MPU recommends upgrading the individual connector taxiway designations to A1, A2, and A3. If the entire grouping of projects could not be completed as one construction project, then it would be recommended that the signage be completed for all three connectors with the initial phase. If the new signs needed to be relocated in a future phase as part of the taxiway reconfiguration, the stipulation that the new signage be salvaged and reinstalled in the new location can be placed into the construction documents in order to maximize funds and maintain compliance with AIP funding obligations.
It should also be noted that while projects in the proposed ACIP are programmed in the short-, medium, and long-term periods, some projects will likely be programmed when sufficient activity levels are achieved. Specifically, aircraft storage facility projects (Project 18 A-E) scheduled in the medium- and long-term periods may shift forward or backward in the ACIP depending on the actual and forecasted level of activity (based aircraft) near the time the projects are planned to be completed. The years listed in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 are the fiscal years that the project is anticipated to be funded in, whether by the FAA, State, or Local, and the actual project may be completed within the subsequent calendar years.
5-5
Table 5-1: 20-year Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) Term Fiscal
Year
Project
Number Project Description
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
FAA Grant State Grant State Loan Airport Share
Short Term (Years 0-5)
2023 ACIP1 Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Pilot Program $100,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $10,000 2023 ACIP
(19)
Upgrade Airport Vehicles and Pedestrian Security
Gates $495,000 $445,500 $0 $0 $49,500
2024 3
Environmental - Relocate Runway 27 Threshold and
reconfigure Apron markings and Taxiway B & C to
meet Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards
(assumes NEPA EA)
$320,000 $288,000 $14,400 $0 $17,600
2024 18B Design South Tie downs $110,000 $99,000 $4,950 $0 $6,050 2025 18B Construction South Side Tie downs $860,000 $774,000 $38,700 $0 $47,300 2026 3
Design - Relocate Runway 27 Threshold and
reconfigure Apron markings and Taxiway B & C to
meet Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards
$110,000 $99,000 $0 $0 $11,000
2026 22 Design - Rehabilitate Drainage Serving Existing East G.A. Apron and Hangars $150,000 $135,000 $6,750 $0 $8,250 2026 9 Design - Rehabilitate Apron A7 Pavements $200,000 $180,000 $9,000 $0 $11,000 2027 3
Construction - Relocate Runway 27 Threshold and
reconfigure Apron markings and Taxiway B & C to
meet Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards
$884,650 $796,185 $39,809 $0 $48,656
Total Short Term $3,229,650 $2,906,685 $113,609 $0 $209,356 Mid Term
(Years 6-11)
9 Construction - Rehabilitate Permanent Tie Down Apron
(Area A7) $2,320,500 $2,088,450 $104,423 $0 $127,628
9/22
CATEX/Permitting - Apron A7 Pavements
Rehabilitation and East G.A. Apron and Hangars
Drainage
$150,000 $135,000 $6,750 $0 $8,250
5-6
Term Fiscal
Year
Project
Number Project Description
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
FAA Grant State Grant State Loan Airport Share
Mid Term (Years 6-11)
22 Construction - East G.A.T-Hangar Drainage $1,995,413 $1,795,872 $89,794 $0 $109,748 PMMP2 Reconstruct Corporate Hangar Taxilane $1,055,280 $105,528 $474,876 $0 $474,876 23 Install above ground fuel facilities to replace
underground tanks $1,227,150 $0 $0 $613,575 $613,575
21A Construct aircraft wash rack in Location 1 $338,147 $0 $0 $169,074 $169,074 16 Remove obstacles from the Runway 20 Threshold
Siting Surface (TSS) in order to remove 590-foot
displaced threshold
$4,278,000 $3,850,200 $192,510 $0 $235,290
PMMP Reconstruct Taxiway C (East) $1,581,800 $1,423,620 $71,181 $0 $86,999 18A Design/Construct East T-hangars in Area 2 $1,503,285 $0 $0 $751,643 $751,643 21B Construct aircraft wash rack in Location 2 $338,147 $304,333 $15,217 $0 $18,598 PMMP Design/Reconstruct South T-hangar Taxilane $1,940,000 $776,000 $582,000 $0 $582,000 4 Reconfigure Fenceline along Taxiway A to meet ADG-II
taxiway separation to fixed or moveable object
standards
$469,400 $422,460 $21,123 $0 $25,817
7 Reconfigure Taxiway A to modify wide expanse of
pavement at Runway 20 entrance $1,553,000 $1,397,700 $69,885 $0 $85,415 6 Reconfigure Taxiways A & C to address non-standard
runway intersection angles and runway entrance
taxiways
$3,281,600 $2,953,440 $147,672 $0 $180,488
5 Widen existing paved shoulders on Taxiway C to meet
ADG-II design standards $714,500 $643,050 $32,153 $0 $39,298
5-7
Term Fiscal
Year
Project
Number Project Description
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
FAA Grant State Grant State Loan Airport Share
Mid Term
20 Construct Maintenance Equipment Storage (MES)
building based on guidance from ACRP Report 113 $1,985,000 $0 $0 $992,500 $992,500 15 Evaluate and design FAR Part 77 obstruction removal3 $50,000 $45,000 $2,250 $0 $2,750 Total Medium Term $24,781,223 $15,940,652 $1,809,832 $2,526,791 $4,503,947 Long Term (Year 12+)
8 Reconfigure Taxiway D to eliminate taxiways with
direct access from apron to runways $856,400 $770,760 $38,538 $0 $47,102 12 Update designations of Taxiways B, D, and E and
runway entrance Taxiways A and C $134,000 $120,600 $6,030 $0 $7,370 22 Area D & G Drainage $2,049,500 $1,844,550 $92,228 $0 $112,723 18C Develop hangars Storage Area 8 $1,891,500 $0 $0 $945,750 $945,750 17 Expand GA Terminal Building to meet Airport and
users’ needs $4,894,000 $4,404,600 $220,230 $0 $269,170 15 Remove on-airport FAR Part 77 obstacles $8,067,500 $7,260,750 $363,038 $0 $443,712 2 Acquire fee-simple property or avigation and land use easement for RPZs to Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 $74,558,5344 $67,102,681 $3,355,134 $0 $4,100,719 18D Develop hangars in Storage Area 3 $1,569,000 $0 $0 $784,500 $784,500 18E Develop hangars in Storage Area 4 $34,427,000 $0 $0 $17,213,500 $17,213,500 1 Extend Runway 2-20 by 680’ to achieve full length of
5,181' $5,539,000 $4,985,100 $249,255 $0 $304,645
3A Extend Runway 9-27 by 255 feet $1,891,500 $1,702,350 $85,118 $0 $104,033 Total Long Term $135,877,934 $88,191,391 $4,409,570 $18,943,750 $24,333,224 Total 20-year Program $163,888,807 $107,038,728 $6,333,011 $21,470,541 $29,046,527
5-8
Term Fiscal
Year
Project
Number Project Description
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
FAA Grant State Grant State Loan Airport Share
1 ACIP: Project included in 2022 version of Airport Capital Improvement Program and is not reevaluated as a part of AMPU 2 PMMP: Project included in 2022 Pavement Maintenance / Management Plan. Project quantities and costs identified in the PMMP have been re-evaluated and updated as some of those projects are impacted by recommended improvements presented in this Master Plan Update. 3 An in-depth evaluation of Part 77 obstructions will be completed as the first phase of Project 15, which recommends the removal of on-airport obstructions 4 Costs assume fee-simple acquisition of all non-airport property in RPZs. Actual costs may be lower if avigation easements can be established.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding
Sources: Kimley-Horn, 2022 Pavement Maintenance / Management Plan
5-9
Table 5-2: Detailed 5-Year (Short-term) ACIP
Project
Number Project Description Estimated Project Cost
FAA Grant
State Grant Airport Share AIP Entitlement AIP Discretionary AIG Allocated 2023
ACIP1 Zero Emission Vehicle and
Infrastructure Pilot Program $100,000 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $10,000 ACIP
(!9)
Upgrade Airport Vehicles and
Pedestrian Security Gates $495,000 $0 $0 $445,500 $0 $49,500 Total 2023 $595,000 $0 $0 $535,500 $0 $59,500
2024
3 Environmental - Relocate Runway 27
Threshold and reconfigure Apron
markings and Taxiway B & C to meet
Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards
(assumes NEPA EA)
$320,000 $288,000 $0 $0 $14,400 $17,600
18B Design South Tie-downs $110,000 $0 $99,000 $0 $4,950 $6,050 Total 2024 $430,000 $288,000 $99,000 $0 $19,350 $23,650 2025
ACIP Construction South Side Tie-downs $860,000 $462,000 $312,000 $0 $47,300 $47,300 Total 2025 $860,000 $462,000 $312,000 $0 $38,700 $47,300 2026
9 Design - Relocate Runway 27
Threshold and reconfigure Apron
markings and Taxiway B & C to meet
Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards
$110,000 $0 $0 $99,000 $0 $11,000
5-10
Project
Number Project Description Estimated Project Cost
FAA Grant
State Grant Airport Share AIP Entitlement AIP Discretionary AIG Allocated Design - Rehabilitate Drainage Serving
Existing East G.A. Apron and Hangars
$150,000 $0 $0 $135,000 $6,750 $8,250
9 Design - Rehabilitate Apron A7
Pavements
$200,000 $180,000 $0 $0 $9,000 $11,000
Total 2026 $460,000 $180,000 $0 $234,000 $15,750 $30,250 2027
9 Construction - Relocate Runway 27
Threshold and reconfigure Apron
markings and Taxiway B & C to meet
Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards
$884,650 $90,685 $0 $705,500 $39,809 $48,656
Total 2027 $884,650 $90,685 $0 $705,500 $39,809 $48,656 Total 5-Year Program 2023-2027 $3,229,650 $1,020,685 $411,000 $1,475,000 $113,609 $209,356 1ACIP: Project included in 2022 version of Airport Capital Improvement Program and is not reevaluated as a part of AMPU Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding
Source: Kimley-Horn
5-11
5.1.3 Environmental Process
Due to the FAA’s participation in airport planning and development projects, airport owners are obligated to incorporate the evaluation of environmental concerns affecting both the human and natural environments into their development programs.
Before issuing funding for federal and state projects, various environmental analyses must be completed for the RDP to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appendix B of this MPU provides a desktop review of the existing environmental considerations for WVI, which was reviewed in conjunction with the ACIP outlined in Table 5-1 to determine a long-term strategy for the subsequent environmental analyses required to implement each project component.
Santa Cruz Tarplant
As noted in Section B.1.7, the entire airport is currently designated as a critical habitat for the Santa Cruz Tarplant with one of the region’s largest populations found on the airport. As part of the MPU, several discussions took place with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to discuss the designation of the airport and potential mitigation strategies for the RDP.
There have been two projects that have involved the Santa Cruz Tarplant, including the 2012 Taxiway Reconstruction and the 2015 Precision Approach Path Indication (PAPIs). The taxiway project included mitigation measures such as confining the construction footprint, establishing a management and monitoring program, and designate areas within the airport that would be developed. It also included a replacement ratio of 1:1 if any impact were to take place as part of the project. The project also deemed that maintenance mowing is considered acceptable with the Tarplant. The PAPI project had more direct effects to the Tarplant that included trenching on unpaved surfaces with soil disturbance. The mitigation measures included replacing 64 square feet of reduced habitat at a 1:1 ratio and monitoring the restoration area to determine if the techniques utilized were successful. Documentation related to these past biological opinions and mitigation measures can be found in Appendix E.
There is limited information that has been compiled on the size and health of the population within the larger region, which could make a difference on the overall impact to the species if a portion of the Airport population were disturbed. It was noted by the USFWS that there are 19 populations in the Greater Bay Area with only 4 in good shape. While not conducted as part of this MPU, the regional population information could be obtained from other local organizations. By conducting field surveys from 2013 through 2018 and again starting in 2020, WVI has been able to successfully monitor the changes in the Tarplant population as well as the locations it is present on the airfield. In general, the Tarplant has continued to maintain its population within the same general areas on the airfield as shown in Exhibit B-8, in Appendix B.
It is expected that seven to eight acres of Tarplant would be impacted if the projects were developed as shown in the MPU Recommended Development Plan. This acreage is intended to account for grading and construction staging. During the July 2022 Tarplant survey these potential areas of impact were reviewed for plant abundance, what other species are growing within these areas, and if there were other suitable areas on-airport. Within this area the population density would be between 20,000 to 72,000 plants per an acre.
The CDFW would ideally like to establish an easement in perpetuity as part of any future mitigation. As the entire airport is federally obligated, this would need to be approved by the FAA to ensure WVI remains compliant with their grant assurances as the airport sponsor. Additionally, a pilot program for an outplanting of Tarplant to another location on airport property was discussed. If this were pursued the program would need to be developed in conjunction with the CDFW and USFWS to ensure the program was developed in such a way to obtain the information necessary for future outplanting. Approval for seed collection to start the pilot program would need to be obtained.
5-12
While both agencies believe the effort undertaken by the Airport to preserve the population is excellent considering its status as a threatened species, they would need to conduct more investigation prior to any disturbance taking place through the standard environmental process. Generally, it is recommended to:
• Better determine the overall regional population size of the Santa Cruz Tarplant by collecting data from local organizations.
• Review the soil conditions of on- and off-airport sites for potential mitigation locations. • Research the lifespan of dormant, underground seeds to determine if currently uninhabited areas could be developed by the Airport as this may determine if the designated critical habitat could be reduced2 .
• Continue with existing monitoring and maintenance plan. • Develop and conduct a pilot program for outplanting of seeds at an on-airport site such as the Runway 2 RPZ3. • Continue discussions with FAA, CFWS, and USFWS regarding easements on airport property for future mitigation measures.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
In order for the MPU to be adopted by the City of Watsonville, the plan must undergo CEQA environmental review. The prior Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the last Master Plan was reviewed as part of the determination of the long-term strategy of this MPU. The majority of the projects listed in the RDP are covered under the certified 2003 Master Plan EIR. Of the projects not covered in the EIR, only one (i.e., the changes to Runway 9-27) would result in a change in the Airport’s noise contours. The remainder are small projects that, by themselves, would likely be eligible for a Categorical Exemption (CE) under CEQA. The majority of the projects in the RDP are related to safety and bringing WVI up to current FAA design standards. As a result, the recommended CEQA approach is preparation of an Addendum to the 2003 Master Plan EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of the newly proposed projects which were not considered in the previous EIR. This approach would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
In the future, if a new EIR is required because it can be demonstrated that there is new information of substantial importance that “was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162), or because one of the newly proposed projects would result in a significant unavoidable impact, there would need to be updated analysis on the proposed projects to reflect current conditions and requirements and include additional analysis for traffic, noise, air quality, energy, geology, visual, cultural, utilities, hydrology, paleontology, biology, and hazardous materials. Fieldwork, supplemented by recent studies undertaken by the Airport, would be required. Some fieldwork, such as determining the presence of certain flora, would require a survey at defined times of the year. It is important to note that many of the technical studies that may be required are only valid for a certain number of years. When they are no longer valid, they will need to be recompleted or updated depending on the specific study. Examples of this include cultural resources and hazardous materials, which generally need to be reviewed to ensure there is not new available information within the past five years.
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
Unlike CEQA, NEPA is typically completed for individual projects, or grouped with similar projects or within a phase, just prior to the project design and construction. The environmental review under NEPA can involve three different levels of analysis:
2 It should be noted that the potential lifespan of dormant seeds should not be a final qualifier through environmental clearance for development in areas of the Airport that do not currently have Tarplant. 3 If a pilot program is conducted, the Airport should receive agreement from the state and federal agencies that it would count towards any future mitigation requirements.
5-13
o Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) - A federal action may be "categorically excluded" from a detailed environmental analysis when the federal action normally does not have a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.1(d)).
o Environmental Assessment (EA) / Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) - The EA determines whether or not a federal action has the potential to cause significant environmental effects. If the agency determines that the action will not have significant environmental impacts, the agency will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A FONSI is a document that presents the reasons why the agency has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts projected to occur upon implementation of the action. o Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – An EIS is prepared if a proposed major federal action is determined to significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
If an EA is required for a project, a similar level of analysis as noted for a CEQA EIR would need to be completed.
Table 5-3: Anticipated Environmental Approval Needed by Project Term Project
Number Project Description CEQA NEPA
Short Term (Years 0-5)
ACIP Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure
Pilot Program Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion ACIP Upgrade Airport Vehicles and Pedestrian
Security Gates Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion
ACIP AMPU CEQA - -
ACIP (22) Rehabilitate Drainage Serving Existing East
G.A. Apron and Hangars Categorical Exclusion* Categorical Exclusion* 9 Rehabilitate Apron A7 Pavements 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 22 Rehabilitate East G.A.T-Hangar Drainage Categorical Exclusion* Categorical Exclusion* 18B Develop South Tie Downs 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion Mid Term (Years 6-11)
23 Install above ground fuel facilities to replace
underground tanks 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 21A Construct aircraft wash rack in Location 1 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 16 Remove obstacles from the Runway 20
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) in order to
remove 590-foot displaced threshold
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
PMMP Reconstruct Taxiway C (East) 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 18A Design/Construct East T-hangars in Area 2 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion PMMP Reconstruct Corporate Hangar Taxilane 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 21B Construct aircraft wash rack in Location 2 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion PMMP Reconstruct South T-hangar Taxilane 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 4 Reconfigure fence line near Taxiway A to
meet ADG-II taxiway separation to fixed or
moveable object standards
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
5-14
Term Project
Number Project Description CEQA NEPA
Mid Term (Years 6-11)
7 Reconfigure Taxiway A to modify wide
expanse of pavement at Runway 20
entrance
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
6 Reconfigure Taxiways A & C to address
non-standard runway intersection angles
and runway entrance taxiways
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
5 Widen existing paved shoulders on Taxiway
C to meet ADG-II design standards 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 20 Construct Maintenance Equipment Storage
(MES) building based on guidance from
ACRP Report 113
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
3 Relocated Runway 27 threshold 870 feet
west and reconfigure Taxiway C to meet
Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards**
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
Long Term (Year 12+)
8 Reconfigure Taxiways B, C, and D to
eliminate taxiways with direct access from
apron to runways
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
12 Update designations of Taxiways B, D, and
E and runway entrance Taxiways A and C 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 22 Areas D & G Drainage per Drainage Master
Plan Categorical Exclusion* Categorical Exclusion*
18C Develop hangars Storage Area 8 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 17 Expand GA Terminal Building to meet
Airport and users’ needs 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 15 Remove on-airport FAR Part 77 obstacles 2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion 2 Acquire fee-simple property or avigation and
land use easement for RPZs to Runway 2-
20 and Runway 9-27
2022 EIR Amendment Categorical Exclusion
18D Develop hangars in Storage Area 3 2022 EIR Amendment Environmental Assessment 18E Develop hangars in Storage Area 4 2022 EIR Amendment Environmental Assessment 1 Extend Runway 2-20 by 680’ to achieve full
length of 5,181' 2022 EIR Amendment Environmental Assessment 3A Extend Runway 9-27 by 255 feet 2022 EIR Amendment Environmental Assessment *The application of a categorical exclusion for this project will need to be analyzed further based on the final project design and likely discussed with the FAA. This project is intended to be environmentally cleared through CEQA separate from the EIR Amendment. ** The impact of the new taxiway connector on the Santa Cruz Tarplant may not allow a portion of this project to be environmentally cleared through a Categorical Exclusion. This will need to be discussed with the FAA, CFWS, and USFWS.
Source: Kimley-Horn
5-15
5.2 Financial Projections
This section presents the anticipated funding plan for implementation of projects identified in the ACIP and assesses the Airport’s ability to fund these projects. While an implementation schedule has been developed, the actual execution of specific projects and the resulting financial requirements may change based on local economic conditions, actual aviation-related activity, or other factors.
5.2.1 Airport Expenses and Revenues
The Airport Fund (730, Division 560), classified as an Enterprise fund, represents the activities at the Airport and the receipt of Federal and State Aviation Agency grants. The fund is supported by the fees the Airport collects from fuel sales, lease revenues, and facility use fees. This account, separate from the City’s General Fund, allows for tracking of airport revenues to maintain compliance with federal obligations. The Airport’s budget and recent record of revenues and expenses is included in the City’s Biennial Final Budget.
The City classifies the airport fuel and hangars as enterprise revenues within the Airport Enterprise fund:
o Airport Fuel - Aviation fuel demand continues to be inelastic and seasonal. The Airport owns and maintains sole fuel concession (fuel farm, self-service island and refueler vehicles), supplying aviation grade fuel to the flying public.
Aviation fuel is the second highest operational cost which fluctuates based on market condition. Given current and projected fuel prices fuel revenues are expected to slightly increase over the next fiscal year. o Airport Hangar Leases - The Airport has a fixed number of hangars and has increased the rates charged for them over the past few years, commensurate with aviation storage unit fees in the area. Aviation Storage Unit (ASU) revenues are reviewed on a biennial basis and as such, revenues are expected to slightly increase over the next fiscal year aligned with regional airports. Aeronautical and non-aeronautical leases are captured under this Enterprise Fund.
The Airport also generates revenues through a variety of other sources including long term-vehicle parking fees, gate card fees, hangar waiting list reservations, and miscellaneous revenues. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-20234 Biennial Final Budget outlines a series of Performance Measures and Related Goals specific to the Airport as noted in Table 5-4. These reflect items such as the amount of revenue related to different sources such as the FAA, fuel, operations, and leases as well as the Fund balance and annual events or projects that take place at the Airport. 4 July 1, 2021 -June 30, 2023
5-16
Table 5-4: Airport Performance Measures and Related Goals Performance Measures and Related
Goals FY 2020 (Actual) FY 21 (Budget) FY 22 (Budget) FY 23 (projected) Financially Self-Sustaining operations,
revenues and expenses of an enterprise
fund resulting in a positive Fund Balance.
$565,192 $513,357 $500,000 $500,000
Federal Aviation Administration ACIP
grant awards
$1,200,000
$397,753 $660,000 $120,000 $150,000
Total Flight Operations 60,000 50,500 55,000 61,000
Total Fuel Purchased / Sold $589,590 /
$1,083,967
$569,957 /
$865,000
$695,000 /
$920,000
$695,000 /
$920,000
Total Leaseholds
Aviation Storage Unit
Leaseholds/Revenue 218 / $1.5m 218 / $967,559 218 /$1,072,872 218 /
$1,072,872
Commercial Aviation Leaseholds/
Revenue 10 / $304,475 10 / 242,022 10 / $295,670 10/ $295,670 Non-Aviation Leaseholds/Revenue 21 / $920,601 21 / $856,663 21 / $869,988 21 / $869,988 Number of special projects completed:
Such as: Open House, Car Show, Blood
Drive, Model Rocketry, Kids Fly Free,
Historical Aircraft Displays, Senior
Citizens Tours, Organic Farming, 4th
grade fieldtrips.
5 8 6 6
Source: 2021-2023 City of Watsonville Biennial Final Budget Table 5-5 provides a summary of the Airport’s revenue and expenses, including the actual 2019-2020 costs and annual budgeted amount for 2020 through 2023. The total revenues in 2020 were $3.7 million with $1.2 million from leases (buildings, towers, and ground leases), $1.1 million from fuel sales, and $1.4 million from other sources. 5 The airport’s budgeted revenues between 2021
and 2023 range from $2.9 million to $4.0 million based on anticipated increases in fuel sales and storage revenue. Annual expenses are made up of payroll, ranging between approximately $1.2 and $1.4 million, and operation expenses, approximately $1.7 to $2.2 million. Operation costs consist of services and commodities such as utilities, office supplies, training, maintenance equipment, special events, fees and permits. The current revenues and expenses result in a small annual surplus through the 2023 budget period.
5 The FY 2021-2023 Biennial Final Budget included $714,413 of revenue from state and federal grants (including CARES Act funding) in FY2020. This analysis considers grant funding as an external source of funding and is therefore not included in the AMPU cashflow analysis.
5-17
Table 5-5: Actual and Budgeted Operated Revenues and Expenses Category
Year*
Actual Budgeted
2020 2021 2022 2023
Operating Revenues
Lease Revenue $1,245,062 $1,012,276 $1,290,737 $1,289,237 Fuel Revenues $1,083,967 $846,000 $1,209,800 $1,234,800 Other Revenues $1,395,658 $1,020,012 $1,450,939 $1,197,939 Total Revenues $3,724,687 $2,878,288 $3,951,476 $3,721,976 Operating Expenses
Operating Expenses $2,181,696 $1,708,961 $2,127,456 $2,158,165 Payroll $1,244,090 $1,154,417 $1,329,019 $1,398,566
Total Expenses $3,425,786 $2,863,378 $3,456,475 $3,556,731 Operating Income/(Loss) $298,901 $14,910 $495,001 $165,245 *Fiscal Year (July 1-June 30)
Source: 2021-2023 City of Watsonville Biennial Final Budget
5.2.2 Cash Flow Analysis
The cash flow analysis compares existing and forecast Airport revenues and expenses based on the assumptions identified in the previous section and identifies projected net operating income or loss. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5-6. The Airport is expected to earn an annual net operating income ranging between $14,910 and $1.5 million during the 20-year planning period, with an average annual income of $640,647.
In the short-term, the Airport is projected to earn an average annual net income of $268,074. Conversely, the local share of the planned capital improvements included in Table 5-2 will require an average of $41,871 from the Airport Fund per year through between 2023 and 2027. As such, it is expected that the Airport will be able to fund all scheduled projects in the short-term planning period without having significant burden on the Airport Fund balance. Larger projects in the long-term planning period between 2035 and 2040 may exceed Airport annual net revenues due to large-scale projects to construct aircraft storage facilities with limited assistance from federal and state grants. However, the Airport may be able to pursue funding from alternate sources (third party investments or other state grants) or phase these projects to reduce the annual financial burden of the local cost of the project.
5-18
Table 5-6: Cashflow Analysis
Category
Year
Forecast
2024 2025 2026 2027 2030 2035 2040
Operating Revenues
Lease Revenue $1,268,283 $1,292,381 $1,316,936 $1,341,958 $1,542,910 $1,695,163 $2,222,662 Fuel Revenues $1,230,648 $1,313,970 $1,402,934 $1,497,921 $1,822,858 $2,529,992 $3,510,348 Other Revenues $1,206,500 $1,229,234 $1,252,399 $1,276,005 $1,349,547 $1,481,732 $1,626,034 Total Revenues $3,705,432 $3,835,585 $3,972,270 $4,115,884 $4,715,315 $5,706,887 $7,359,045 Operating Expenses
Operating Expenses $2,136,944 $2,214,217 $2,295,442 $2,380,862 $2,688,104 $3,275,944 $4,081,531 Payroll $1,318,587 $1,343,640 $1,369,169 $1,395,183 $1,476,229 $1,621,902 $1,726,881 Total Expenses $3,455,530 $3,557,857 $3,664,611 $3,776,045 $4,164,333 $4,897,847 $5,808,413 Operating Income/
(Loss) $249,902 $277,728 $307,658 $339,839 $550,981 $809,040 $1,550,632 *Fiscal Year (July 1-June 30)
Note: Fuel revenues were projected over planning period using 20-year (2000-2019) historic fuel price growth rate (4.04%). Lease and other revenues, payroll, and operating expenses were projected using 20-year historic average inflation rate (1.9%)
Sources: Kimley-Horn
Cash Flow Scenario – No Federal Funding
When airport owners or sponsors, planning agencies, or other organizations accept funds from FAA-administered airport financial assistance programs, they must agree to certain obligations (or assurances). These obligations require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. As discussed throughout this MPU, it is vitally important that the Airport and its sponsor continue to adhere to its grant assurances in order to receive federal funding.
Federal funding is only available to airport sponsors when they can demonstrate that they are making every effort available to adhere with the federal grant assurances. This scenario reviews the impact to the short-term ACIP if federal funding were not available due to lack of compliance with the federal grant assurances.
As shown in Table 5-2, the first five years of projects require $3.2 million to complete, with 90 percent or $2.9 million, being funded by the FAA. In a scenario where the FAA was to no longer provide funds, it is unlikely that WVI would be able to complete these anticipated projects. Table 5-7 provides a simplified cashflow analysis that displays the anticipated funding shortfall for capital projects in just the short-term if federal funding and the associated state matching were not received. There would be funding shortfalls ranging from $152,000 to $582,000 depending on the year, thus requiring the Airport to find alternative sources of funding or resulting in projects not being completed.
5-19
Table 5-7: Anticipated Deficit without Federal Funding
Category 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Total WVI Revenues $3,721,976 $3,705,432 $3,835,585 $3,972,270 $4,115,884 Total WVI Expenses $3,556,731 $3,455,530 $3,557,857 $3,664,611 $3,776,045 Operating
Income/(Loss) $165,245 $249,902 $277,728 $307,658 $339,839 Capital Project Cost $595,000 $430,000 $860,000 $460,000 $884,650 Anticipated
Surplus/Deficit -$429,755 -$180,098 -$582,272 -$152,342 -$544,811 *Fiscal Year (ending June 30)
Sources: 2021-2023 City of Watsonville Biennial Final Budget, Kimley-Horn
Appendix A – Arrival and
Departure Procedures
October 2022 | Final
Prepared for
City of Watsonville
Prepared by
Chan 120
117.3 SNS
SALINAS
202
285
264
0.7%UP
0.4% UP
P
P
P
4501X149
3998X98
2 02
27 9
ELEV
108.3
APP CRS 4501
163
CATEGORY A B C D
LOC RWY 2
LOC RWY 2
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
(WVI)
(WVI)
WATSONVILLE MUNI
WATSONVILLE MUNI
AL-805 (FAA)
163
LOC I-AYN
Knots 60 90 120 150 180
Min:Sec
FAF to MAP 6.3 NM
6:18 4:12 3:09 2:31 2:06
CIRCLING
720-2
557 (600-2)
3000
2200
Remain
within 10 NM
TCH 48
6.3 NM
5000 SNS
L
L
293
11 °
3°
(16.5)
293°
4000
R-293
S-2
SNS 16.5
NALLS INT
RADAR
(IAF)
SNS 29.5
SANTY
3.02°
TDZE
36°56'N-121°47'W
LOCALIZER 108.3
I-AYN
152
018°
from FAF
018° 6.3 NM
198°
018°
198°
243°
063°
018°
152
700-1 548 (600-1 )
MSASNS25NM
040°
130°
280°
6300
4200
5200
20030
ASOS
132.275
NORCAL APP CON
127.15 307.125
UNICOM
122.8(CTAF) L
700-1 548 (600-1) 5
8 5
8 700-1 537 (600-1)
700-1 5
8 537 (600-1 ) 5
8 x
(CFBRS)
4052
419
Apt Elev
TDZE
Rwy Idg
hold, continue climb-in-hold to 5000.
turn to 5000 direct SNS VORTAC and
MISSED APPROACH: Climbing right
1943
292
1980
1 8
1 8
3 4
A NA
T
572
471
336
(13)
113°
4000
NALLS INT
RADAR
SNS 16.5
MIRL Rwy 2-20
REIL Rwy 2
Amdt 4C 30JAN20
below SM NA.
and S-2 Cat D SM. Circling NA west of Rwy 2-20. Rwy 2 helicopter visibility Monterey altimeter setting and increase all MDAs 80 feet and visibility Cat C SM Circling Rwy 27 NA at night. When local altimeter setting not received, use H
SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
202
285
264
0.7%UP
0.4% UP
P
P
P
CATEGORY A B C D
4501X149
3998X98
2 02
27 9
WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
ELEV 163
L
L
TDZE
Apt Elev
TDZE
Rwy Idg 4501
163
APP CRS
CH 50144
W02A
WAAS
T
A
LPV DA
CIRCLING
VNAV
LNAV/
DA
LNAV MDA
1100-3
937 (1000-3)
3000
2000
UNICOM
122.8(CTAF) L
ASOS
132.275
NORCAL APP CON
127.15 307.125
RNAV (GPS) RWY 2
RNAV (GPS) RWY 2
SANTY
5600
7.2 NM
RW02
018° to
152
152
018°
MSARW0225NM
439
1980
GP 3.00°
TCH 56
36°56'N-121°47'W
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
*
*
LNAV only
RW02
1.6 NM to
3 4
AL-805 (FAA)
C
448- 296 (300- ) 7
8 7
8 772-1 3
4 3
4 700-1 548 (600-1) 700-1 5
8 5
8 700-1 537 (600-1)
700-1 5
8 4.1 NM
20030
Amdt 2 30JAN20
RNP APCH.
and hold, continue climb-in-hold to 6000.
Climb to 700 then climbing left turn to 6000 direct SHOEY MISSED APPROACH: (Do not exceed 185K until SHOEY)
572
471
336
Circling NA west of Rwy 2-20.
systems, LNAV/VNAV NA below -2°C or above 54°C .
reduction below SM NA. For uncompensated Baro-VNAV
Circling Rwy 27 NA at night. Rwy 2 helicopter visibility (10.3)
162°
4000
292
RW02
FOXOV
(FAF)
(7.2
2 )
000
018°
(6.8)
108°
3000
(6.8)
288°
3000
SHOEY
5 NM 308°
128°
(10.6)
264°
4000 SNS
SALINAS
LEPWU
(IAF)
210K
IFAFY
(IF)
180K
RISPE
(IAF)
210K
airway radials 264 CW 293.
Procedure NA for arrival on SNS VORTAC
(VGSI Angle 3.00/TCH 43).
VGSI and RNAV glidepath not coincident 700 6000 SHOEY
FOXOV
IFAFY
018°
2000
RW02
1.6 NM
620 (700-1 )
548 (600-1 )
537 (600-1 ) 5
8 MIRL Rwy 2-20
REIL Rwy 2
H
SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
202
285
264
0.7%UP
0.4% UP
P
P
P
4501X149
3998X98
2 02
27 9
APP CRS
CATEGORY A B C D
Apt Elev
TDZE
Rwy Idg
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
314°
T
132.275
CIRCLING
1300-1 1
2 1
2 5000 SNS
MSASNS25NM
4200
6300
5200
L
L
VORTAC SNS
Chan 120
117.3
1300-3
1137 (1200-1 )
1300-1
1137 (1200-1 )
1137 (1200-3)
1 4
1 4
3700
2400
NA
Turn
Procedure
4.4 NM 6 NM
ASOS
SNS 8
314°
SNS 18.4
MARLC
280°
040°
130°
A
ELEV
UNICOM
122.8
N/A
N/A
163 WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
AL-805 (FAA)
163
(CTAF) L
113°
293°
R-314
R-293
R-011
R-264
314°
240
(
0 6)
IAF
SALINAS
Chan 120
3700
SNS
8 Arc
3700
SNS 8Arc
NORCAL APP CON
SNS 8
127.15 307.125
KENIW
(IF)
KENIW
36°56'N-121°47'W
20030
4052
VOR-A
VOR-A Amdt 1B 30JAN20
3482
1943
292
2640
1980
3274
continue climb-in-hold to 5000.
to 5000 direct SNS VORTAC and hold,
MISSED APPROACH: Climbing left turn
572
471
336
SNS 18.4
MARLC
SNS 14
DYNER
SNS 8
JEJMA
(IAF)
SNS 8
JEJZE
(IAF)
314° (8)
3700 to KENIW
SNS 14
DYNER
MIRL Rwy 2-20
REIL Rwy 2
from FAF
314° 4.4 NM
DME required. Circling Rwy 27 NA at night.
use Monterey altimeter setting and increase all MDAs 80 feet.
Circling NA west of Rwy 2-20. When local altimeter setting not received, H
SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
(OBSTACLE)
L-3,H-3
213°
1000
(WVI4.WVI) AL-805 (FAA)
WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
129°
R-309
R-293
175°
293°
NOTE: Chart not to scale.
DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIPTION
(WVI4.WVI)
(OBSTACLE) WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
113°
WATSONVILLE FOUR DEPARTURE
WATSONVILLE FOUR DEPARTURE
MEA/MCA for route of flight.
. . . . continue climb in SNS holding pattern to cross SNS VORTAC at or above SNS VORTAC R-293 to SNS VORTAC, thence . . . .
TAKEOFF RUNWAY 20: Climb heading 213° to 1000, then climbing left turn to intercept VORTAC R-309 to SNS VORTAC, thence . . . .
TAKEOFF RUNWAYS 2 and 9: Climbing right turn on heading 175° to intercept SNS climb of 270' per NM to 400.
Rwy 9: 300-1 or standard with minimum
of 500' per NM to 2600.
Rwy 2: Standard with minimum climb
Rwy 20: Standard.
Rwy 27: NA - Airport Obstacles.
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS
Rwy 20:
Rwy 9:
Rwy 2:
MSL. Tree 1337' from DER, 46' right of centerline, 192' MSL. Tree 2201' from DER, 776' right of centerline, 240' MSL. line beginning 1267' from DER, 318' left of centerline, up to 203' MSL. Tree 1336' from DER, 7' right of centerline, 177' right of centerline, 169' MSL. Tree 1207' from DER, 615' left of centerline, 197' MSL. Tree, building and transmission Tree and transmission line beginning 919' from DER, 520' left of centerline, up to 190' MSL. Tree 1153' from DER, 286' of centerline, up to 50' AGL/183' MSL. Transmission line 848' from DER, 505' left of centerline, 44' AGL/184' MSL.
Pole 95' from DER, 467' left of centerline, 175' MSL. Pole, vehicles on road and tree beginning 96' from DER, 377' left Tree 57' from DER, 500' left of centerline, 153' MSL. Fence 57' from DER, 268' right of centerline, 7' AGL/143' MSL. left of centerline, 215' MSL. Tower 4697' from DER, 1365' right of centerline, 189' AGL/292' MSL.
MSL. Trees beginning 915' from DER, 146' right of centerline, up to 197' MSL. Tree 1815' from DER, 365' centerline, up to 173' MSL. Tower, pole and tree beginning 828' from DER, 136' left of centerline, up to 52' AGL/181' Pole 231' from DER, 250' right of centerline, 32' AGL/153' MSL. Trees beginning 312' from DER, 560' right of up to 160' MSL. Pole, tree, building, tank and stack beginning 210' from DER, 139' left of centerline, up to 177' MSL. 31' AGL/148' MSL. Tree, fence, building, vehicles on road and pole beginning 74' from DER, 251' left of centerline, Tree and pole beginning 1' from DER, 152' left of centerline, up to 157' MSL. Pole 65' from DER, 301' right of centerline, from DER, 320' left of centerline, 236' MSL. Tree 2249' from DER, 371' left of centerline, 264' MSL. centerline, 57' AGL/224' MSL. Trees beginning 1275' from DER, 298' right of centerline, up to 242' MSL. Tree 1345' transmission line beginning 1021' from DER, 137' right of centerline, up to 222' MSL. Pole 1174' from DER, 328' right of MSL. Pole, building and tree beginning 808' from DER, 22' right of centerline, up to 40' AGL/198' MSL. Tree and MSL. Pole, vehicles on road, stack, tree and building beginning 429' from DER, 157' left of centerline, up to 58' AGL/220' DER, 322' left of centerline, up to 50' AGL/213' MSL. Trees beginning 278' from DER, 414' right of centerline, up to 188' Pole 14' from DER, 349' left of centerline, 205' MSL. Pole, building, vehicles on road, tree and fence beginning 15' from Lighting 8' from DER, 84' left of centerline, 1' AGL/159' MSL. Lighting 9' from DER, 84' right of centerline, 158' MSL.
TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES
117.3 SNS
N36°39.83'-W121°36.19'
SALINAS
Chan 120
18256
13SEP18
122.8
CTAF
127.15 307.125
NORCAL DEP CON
132.275
ASOS
SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
AL-805 (FAA)
WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
NOTE: Chart not to scale.
WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
WATSONVILLE MUNI(WVI)
GARLK ONE DEPARTURE
GARLK ONE DEPARTURE
(RNAV)
(RNAV)
(GARLK1.GARLK)
(GARLK1.GARLK)
5000
TOP ALTITUDE:
127.15 307.125
NORCAL DEP CON
122.8
CTAF
132.275
ASOS
climb of 270' per NM to 400'.
Rwy 9: 300-1 or standard with minimum
Rwy 20: Standard.
Rwy 2, 27: NA - ATC.
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS
SAPID
CHAWZ
*
317°
5000
240
(1
0 6)
348°
(18)
5000
LISSY
*
295°
500
22 0
00 (12)
207°
(6)
CHAAN
GARLK
5000
500
29 0
0 11
0 7°
*
(13)
WIFII
3200
(10)
*
061°
5000
SNS
SALINAS
105°
6700
(24)
WIGGL
144°
7100
(29)
DUBSS
700
086°
198°
700
DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIPTION
WIGGL TRANSITION (GARLK1.WIGGL)
SAPID TRANSITION (GARLK1.SAPID)
SALINAS TRANSITION (GARLK1.SNS)
DUBSS TRANSITION (GARLK1.DUBSS)
CHAWZ TRANSITION (GARLK1.CHAWZ)
T
. . . . on track 207° to cross GARLK at or above 5000, then on (transition).
TAKEOFF RUNWAY 9: Climb heading 086° to 700, then right turn direct CHAAN, thence. . . .
TAKEOFF RUNWAY 20: Climb heading 198° to 700, then direct CHAAN, thence. . . .
NOTE: RADAR required for non-GPS equipped aircraft.
OSI DMEs must be operational.
NOTE: For non-GPS equipped aircraft, SNS and
NOTE: DME/DME/IRU or GPS required.
NOTE: RNAV 1.
13SEP18
18256
SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020SW-2, 08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
ALTERNATE MINS
20254
M1
SW-2
20254 M1
A A
A ALTERNATE MINS A
NAME ALTERNATE MINIMUMS NAME ALTERNATE MINIMUMS
ALTURAS, CA
ALTURAS
MUNI (AAT).………............….RNAV (GPS) Rwy 31
Category B, 900-2.
ARCATA/EUREKA, CA
CALIFORNIA REDWOOD COAST-HUMBOLDT
COUNTY (ACV).………………RNAV (GPS) Rwy 11
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 322
1Categories A, B, 900-2; Category C, 900-2½;
Category D, 900-2¾.
2 Category D, 800-2¼.
ATWATER, CA
CASTLE (MER).……….……….ILS or LOC Rwy 31
NA when local weather not available.
NA when control tower closed.
AUBURN, CA
AUBURN MUNI (AUN).…….....RNAV (GPS) Rwy 7
Category B, 900-2.
BISHOP, CA
BISHOP (BIH)..……………..…………LDA Rwy 171
RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 122
RNAV (GPS) Z Rwy 123
1 Categories A, B, 2300-2; Categories C, D, 2300-3.
2 Categories A, B 2500-2; Category C, 2500-3.
3 Categories A, B, 2300-2; Category C, 2300-3.
BYRON, CA
BYRON (C83).………..………RNAV (GPS) Rwy 30
Category D, 800-2½.
CHICO, CA
CHICO MUNI (CIC)…...………ILS or LOC Rwy 13L
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 13L
NA when local weather not available.
A
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS
IFR ALTERNATE AIRPORT MINIMUMS
Standard alternate minimums for non-precision approaches and approaches with vertical guidance [NDB, VOR, LOC, TACAN, LDA, SDF, VOR/DME, ASR, RNAV (GPS) or RNAV (RNP)] are 800-2. Standard alternate minimums for precision approaches (ILS, PAR, or GLS) are 600-2. Airports within this geographical area that require alternate minimums other than standard or alternate minimums with restrictions are listed below. NA - means alternate minimums are not authorized due to unmonitored facility, absence of weather reporting service, or lack of adequate navigation coverage. Civil pilots see FAR
91. IFR Alternate Minimums: Ceiling and Visibility Minimums not applicable to USA/USN/USAF. Pilots must review the IFR Alternate Minimums Notes for alternate airfield suitability.
CONCORD, CA
BUCHANAN
FIELD (CCR)...………………..…….LDA Rwy 19R12
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 19R3
VOR Rwy 19R3
1 NA when control tower closed.
2 Category C, 1000-2¾; Category D, 1300-3.
3 Categories A, B, 1000-2; Category C, 1000-3;
Category D, 1300-3.
COLUMBIA, CA
COLUMBIA (O22)..…………RNAV (GPS) Rwy 35
NA when local weather not available.
Categories A, B, 1100-2; Category C, 1100-3.
CRESCENT CITY, CA
JACK MC NAMARA
FIELD (CEC).…………………RNAV (GPS) Rwy 12
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 36
VOR Rwy 12
VOR/DME Rwy 12
VOR/DME Rwy 36
NA when local weather not available.
FRESNO, CA
FRESNO CHANDLER
EXECUTIVE (FCH).…...…….RNAV (GPS) Rwy 12
NA when local weather not available.
FRESNO YOSEMITE
INTL (FAT)…........………ILS Y or LOC Y Rwy 29R1
LOC Y Rwy 11L2
TACAN Rwy 11L3
TACAN Rwy 29R2
1 LOC, Category E, 900-2¾.
2 Category E, 900-2¾. 3
Category E, 900-2.
GRASS VALLEY, CA
NEVADA
COUNTY (GOO)..…………...…RNAV (GPS) Rwy 7
Category D, 800-2¼.
08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 202008 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
ALTERNATE MINS
20254
M4
SW-2
20254 M4
A A
A ALTERNATE MINS A
NAME ALTERNATE MINIMUMS NAME ALTERNATE
TRUCKEE, CA
TRUCKEE-TAHOE
(TRK).…………………....................RNAV (GPS)-A1
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 112
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 203
NA when local weather not available.
1 Categories A, B, 1600-2; Category C, 1800-3.
2 Categories A, B, 1900-2; Category C, 1900-3.
3 Category A, 1300-2; Category B, 1400-2;
Category C, 1800-3.
UKIAH, CA
UKIAH MUNI (UKI).………...………RNAV (GPS)-B1
VOR-A2
1 Categories A, B, 2000-2; Categories C, D, 2000-3.
2 Categories A, B, 2800-2; Categories C, D, 2800-3.
VACAVILLE, CA
NUT TREE (VCB).…………RNAV (GPS) Rwy 201
VOR-A2
1 Category C, 900-2½; Category D, 1300-3.
2 Categories A, B, 900-2; Category C, 900-2½;
Category D, 1300-3.
VISALIA, CA
VISALIA
MUNI (VIS)…......................……ILS or LOC Rwy 30
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 12
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 30
VOR Rwy 12
NA when local weather not available.
WATSONVILLE, CA
WATSONVILLE
MUNI (WVI).…………………RNAV (GPS) Rwy 21
VOR-A23
1 Category D, 1000-3.
2 NA when local weather not available.
3 Categories A, B, 1200-2; Categories C, D, 1200-3.
08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 202008 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
20198
L1
20198 SW-2 L1
T T
T T
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS, (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES, AND
DIVERSE VECTOR AREA (RADAR VECTORS)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS, (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES, AND
DIVERSE VECTOR AREA (RADAR VECTORS)
ALTURAS, CA
ALTURAS MUNI (AAT)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
AMDT 2 10APR08 (08101) (FAA)
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:
Use BACHS DEPARTURE.
AMEDEE AAF (KAHC)
HERLONG, CA
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
AMDT 2 30JAN20 (20030)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS:
Rwy 9, std. w/min. climb of 350’ per NM to 9500, or 4100-3 for VCOA.
Rwy 27, std. w/min. climb of 390’ per NM to 8500, or 4100-3 for VCOA.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:
Rwy 9, climbing right turn on a heading between 086° CW to 266° from DER.
Rwy 27, climbing left turn on a heading between 086° CW 266° from DER.
VCOA:
All runways, obtain ATC approval for VCOA When requesting IFR clearance. Climb in visual Conditions to cross AMEDEE AAF at or above 8000 before proceeding on course.
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS
IFR TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES Civil Airports and Selected Military Airports
ALL USERS: Airports that have Departure Procedures (DPs) designed specifically to assist pilots in avoiding obstacles during the climb to the minimum enroute altitude, and/or airports that have civil IFR takeoff minimums other than standard, are listed below.
Takeoff Minimums and Departure Procedures apply to all runways unless otherwise specified. An entry may also be listed that contains only Takeoff Obstacle Notes. Altitudes, unless otherwise indicated, are minimum altitudes in MSL.
DPs specifically designed for obstacle avoidance are referred to as Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) and are textually described below, or published separately as a graphic procedure. If the ODP is published as a graphic procedure, its name will be listed below, and it can be found in either this volume (civil), or the applicable military volume, as appropriate. Users will recognize graphic obstacle DPs by the term "(OBSTACLE)" included in the procedure title; e.g., TETON TWO (OBSTACLE). If not specifically assigned an ODP, SID, or radar vector as part of an IFR clearance, an ODP may be required to be flown for obstacle clearance, even though not specifically stated in the IFR clearance. When doing so in this manner, ATC should be informed when the ODP being used contains a specified route to be flown, restrictions before turning, and/or altitude restrictions.
Some ODPs, which are established solely for obstacle avoidance, require a climb in visual conditions to cross the airport, a fix, or a NAVAID in a specified direction, at or above a specified altitude. These procedures are called Visual Climb Over Airport (VCOA).
To ensure safe and efficient operations, the pilot must verbally request approval from ATC to fly the VCOA when requesting their IFR clearance.
At some locations where an ODP has been established, a diverse vector area (DVA) may be created to allow radar vectors to be used in lieu of an ODP. DVA information will state that headings will be as assigned by ATC and climb gradients, when applicable, will be published immediately following the specified departure procedure.
Graphic DPs designed by ATC to standardize traffic flows, ensure aircraft separation and enhance capacity are referred to as "Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs)". SIDs also provide obstacle clearance and are published under the appropriate airport section. ATC clearance must be received prior to flying a SID.
CIVIL USERS NOTE: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 prescribes standard takeoff rules and establishes takeoff minimums for certain operators as follows: (1) For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or less – one statute mile visibility. (2) For aircraft having more than two engines – one-half statute mile visibility. (3) For helicopters – one-half statute mile visibility. These standard minima apply in the absence of any different minima listed below.
MILITARY USERS NOTE: Civil (nonstandard) takeoff minima are published below. For military takeoff minima, refer to appropriate service directives.
T
08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 202008 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
20198
L32
20198 SW-2 L32
T T
T T
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS, (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES, AND
DIVERSE VECTOR AREA (RADAR VECTORS)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS, (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES, AND
DIVERSE VECTOR AREA (RADAR VECTORS)
WATSONVILLE, CA
WATSONVILLE MUNI (WVI)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
AMDT 5A 13SEP18 (18256) (FAA)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS:
Rwy 27, NA - airport obstacles.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:
Rwys 2, 9, 20, use WATSONVILLE DEPARTURE.
TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES:
Rwy 2, lighting 8’ from DER, 84’ left of centerline, 1’ AGL/159’ MSL.
Lighting 9’ from DER, 84’ right of centerline, 158’ MSL.
Pole 14’ from DER, 349’ left of centerline, 205’ MSL.
Pole, building, vehicles on road, tree and fence beginning 15’ from DER, 322’ left of centerline, up to 50’ AGL/213’ MSL.
Trees beginning 278’ from DER, 414’ right of centerline, up to 188’ MSL. pole, vehicles on road, stack, tree and building beginning 429’ from DER, 157’ left of centerline, up to 58’ AGL/220’ MSL. pole, building and tree beginning 808’ from DER, 22’ right of centerline, up to 40’ AGL/198’ MSL.
Tree and transmission line beginning 1021’ from DER, 137’ right of centerline, up to 222’ MSL.
Pole 1174’ from DER, 328’ right of centerline, 57’ AGL/224’ MSL.
Trees beginning 1275’ from DER, 298’ right of centerline, up to 242’ MSL.
Tree 1345’ from DER, 320’ left of centerline, 236’ MSL.
Tree 2249’ from DER, 371’ left of centerline, 264’ MSL.
Rwy 9, tree and pole beginning 1’ from DER, 152’ left of centerline, up to 157’ MSL.
Pole 65’ from DER, 301’ right of centerline, 31’ AGL/148’ MSL. tree, fence, building, vehicles on road and pole beginning 74’ from DER, 251’ left of centerline, up to 160’ MSL.
Pole, tree, building, tank and stack beginning 210’ from DER, 139’ left of centerline, up to 177’ MSL.
Pole 231’ from DER, 250’ right of centerline, 32’ AGL/153’ MSL.
Trees beginning 312’ from DER, 560’ right of centerline, up to 173’ MSL.
Tower, pole and tree beginning 828’ from DER, 136’ left of centerline, up to 52’ AGL/181’ MSL.
Trees beginning 915’ from DER, 146’ right of centerline, up to 197’ MSL.
Tree 1815’ from DER, 365’ left of centerline, 215’ MSL.
Tower 4697’ from DER, 1365’ right of centerline, 189’ AGL/292’ MSL.
Rwy 20, tree 57’ from DER, 500’ left of centerline, 153’ MSL.
Fence 57’ from DER, 268’ right of centerline, 7’ AGL/143’ MSL.
Pole 95’ from DER, 467’ left of centerline, 175’ MSL.
pole, vehicles on road and tree beginning 96’ from DER, 377’ left of centerline, up to 50’ AGL/183’ MSL.
Transmission line 848’ from DER, 505’ left of centerline, 44’ AGL/184’ MSL.
Tree and transmission line beginning 919’ from DER, 520’ left of centerline, up to 190’ MSL.
Tree 1153’ from DER, 286’ right of centerline, 169’ MSL.
Tree 1207’ from DER, 615’ left of centerline, 197’ MSL.
Tree, building and transmission line beginning 1267’ from DER, 318’ left of centerline, up to 203’ MSL.
Tree 1336’ from DER, 7’ right of centerline, 177’ MSL.
Tree 1337’ from DER, 46’ right of centerline, 192’ MSL.
Tree 2201’ from DER, 776’ right of centerline, 240’ MSL.
WEED, CA
WEED (O46)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
ORIG 22JUN17 (17173) (FAA)
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:
Use FOBRO (RNAV) DEPARTURE.
WILLITS, CA
ELLS FIELD-WILLITS MUNI (O28)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
AMDT 1 05AUG04 (04218) (FAA)
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:
Rwy 16, use MENDOCINO RNAV DEPARTURE.
Rwy 34, use FLUEN RNAV DEPARTURE.
08 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 202008 OCT 2020 to 05 NOV 2020
B-1
B Environmental Overview
As noted in the Inventory of Existing Conditions (Section 1.10 Environmental Overview),due to the FAA’s participation in airport planning and development projects, airport owners are obligated to incorporate the evaluation of environmental concerns affecting both the human and natural environments into their development programs. An environmental and land use inventory has been undertaken relative to Watsonville Municipal Airport (WVI)in concert with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans. The information was gathered through desktop review of existing environmental documents, agency databases, and previous studies. The overview also considers the enabling legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The appendix examines the local land use and environmental conditions to identify the applicable jurisdictional authorities and recognize environmental factors that could potentially be affected by future airport development. It is intended that the information is used to help guide and evaluate future facility development concepts.The research for this appendix was conducted in January 2021. Topics reviewed include:
o Land Use and Zoning
o Wildlife Hazard Attractants
o Water Resources
o Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources
o Air Quality
o Biotic Resources and Endangered Species
o Coastal Resources
o Farmlands
o Hazardous Materials
o Underground Storage Tanks
o Historic and Cultural Resources
o Environmental Justice
B.1 WVI Environmental Overview
B.1.1 Land Use and Zoning
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, the compatibility of existing and planned land uses near an airport is focused primarily on noise in the community and the safety of persons and property both on the ground and in the air. The FAA requires that airport owners seek compatible uses for the land surrounding an airport through appropriate positive control (fee-simple property or easement acquisition) and coordinated zoning and municipal planning efforts. The following describes the existing land uses surrounding WVI and various planning and zoning programs applicable to the Airport.
B.1.1.1 Zoning
Per Title 14 of the Watsonville Municipal Code, the airfield of WVI lies within the Public Facilities (PF) zone with the non - aviation parcels zoned as Industrial Park (IP) (see Figure B-1). PF zones contain the public facilities owned and operated by the City or County government agencies with uses that are available to the public. IP zoning is intended for light, non-nuisance industry, business, service, and research work, to promote an industrial business, service, and research area, to foster and encourage the development of specialized manufacturing, business, service, and research institutions, and to protect the district and surrounding area and any adjacent residential or commercial property from noise, illumination, glare, and unsightliness.
B-2
1 To the south is Coastal Zone-A (CZ-A) and -B (CZ-B), which ensure any development in these areas adheres to the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Implementation Program, as codified in Title 9, Chapter 5 of the Watsonville Municipal Code. To the east is a mix of Office (O), Institutional (N), Thoroughfare Commercial (CF).
Additionally, to the east and northeast there are areas of residential properties across Airport Boulevard including Multiple Residential-Medium Density (RM-2) with some Mobile Home Parks (R-MP) overlay, and Single Family Residential-Low Density (R-1).
Property to the north and west lie within the unincorporated community of Freedom. This are is zoned through the County, with residential – single family immediately to the west of the airport. Agriculture and Agriculture-Commercial dominate the land beyond the residential property to the west.
B.1.1.2 City of Watsonville General Plan
The City’s most current General Plan was developed in December 2005 (Watsonville 2005 General Plan, Adopted May 1994)0F
1 . The general plan looked to serve all of Watsonville’s residents with an emphasis on planning for the future of the existing population. A key theme was to make it possible for the existing population to remain within Watsonville. The City’s identity included its roles as:
o The center of agricultural support base of the Pajaro Valley o A provider of affordable living, particularly in comparison to that of the County and the region o A place with historic commitment to protection and management of wetlands, open space, and other environmental resources
o The evolving cultural center for the County’s Hispanic population o An employment center for the Pajaro Valley
The Airport is included within the City’s transportation network, which had goals focusing on minimizing the transportation related impacts of growth and on developing transportation options for movement of people and commodities. There are several goals, policies, and implementation measures within the General Plan that support the continued operation and protection of the Airport, including:
o Goal 10.6 Aviation Facilities: Maintain, protect, and improve the facilities and services of the Watsonville Municipal Airport as part of the regional transportation network. o Policy 10.Q Aviation Facilities: As the only general aviation airport in Santa Cruz County, the Watsonville Airport shall be protected from adjacent development which is incompatible with existing and future services as outlined in the Airport Master Plan and Regional Airport System Plan. o Implementation Measures:
• 10.Q.1 Cooperative Planning – The County of Santa Cruz and the City shall coordinate land use planning for parcels impacted by airport operation s. The City shall encourage the County to revise the Pajaro Valley General Plan to be consisten t with Watsonville : 2005.
• 10.Q.2 Zoning for Safety – The City shall maintain strict zoning and land use controls within the Airport Operation s Impact Area.
• 10.Q.3 State Guidelines – The City shall use the State’s guidelines to review and manage developmen t within the airport’s area of influence .
2) 1In 2012, the City completed an update to the General Plan, WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 and an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was challenged in court and ultimately not approved. As such, the 2005 General Plan was referenced for this Master Plan Update.
B-3
o Policy 10.R Airport Operations: The City shall continue to emphasize the economic important of airport operations to the Watsonville Planning Area and to the regional transportation system o Implementation Measures:
• 10.R.1 Airport Improve men ts – The City shall continue to seek available funding sources and make appropriate capital improve men ts consisten t with the recommend a tion s of the Airport Master Plan. • 10.R.2 Project Funding - The City shall work with the local transporta tion commission s, Californ ia Departme n t of Transporta tio n , and State Transporta tio n Commissio n to ensure that projects at the Watsonville Airport are given funding priority in the State Transporta tio n Improve men t Program. • 10.R.3 Master Plan Update – The City shall review the Airport Master Plan at least every five years, beginning with the 1994 update, to determin e the need for additional updating.
The Airport, as shown in Figure B-2, is primarily considered Transportation, Communication, and Utilities, which includes streets and roads, rail transportation; and other fixed guideway types of transportation corridors; and airports primarily intended for the transportation of people, goods and materials, liver stock, and agricultural products by pubic, quasi-public and/or private entities. Certain parcels on the east and west that are currently utilized by non-aviation uses are denoted as industrial. The north and west are low density residential. To the south is primarily agriculture use.
B-4
Figure B-1: Existing Zoning
B-5
Figure B-2: Existing Land Use
B-6
B.1.1.3 Airport Land Use Compatibility
Airport land use planning attempts to reconcile how land can be developed with consideration to the safety of those on the ground and onboard aircraft, as well as the noise tolerance of the surrounding community. Compatibility issues are generally defined as “any airport impact that adversely affects the livability of a surrounding community, as well as any community characteristic that can adversely affect the viability of an airport” (Shalk and Ward 2010, 39). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics developed the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans Handbook)to provide regulatory guidance and best practices for state-compliant and effective airport land use planning (Caltrans 2011). An Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) is intended to focus on the area outside of the airport property that is within its Airport Influence Area (AIA), while an airportmaster plan focuses on airport operations and the area under the control of the airport. There is a correlation between an ALUP and an airport master plan as ALUPs rely on the results of either an airport master plan or an airport layout plan that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport boundaries over a likely 20-year horizon.Changes to airport boundaries can impact an ALUP, however, not every airport master plan recommends expansion of an airport’s property. The City drafted a 2016 Administrative Draft of the ALUP, which is currently under review.
A key component of the Caltrans Handbook is the safety compatibility zones, as shown in Figure B-3 for WVI. The safety compatibility zones are intended to promote land use safety and compatibility beyond the FAA safety and protection zones.
There are two components to safety compatibility policies: identification of the locations where safety—that is, the risk of aircraft accidents—is a concern; and definition of appropriate land use measures addressing those risks. Table B-1 displays the allowable land use compatibility by zone including the population density, residential land use, and any special function s based on the 2016 Administrative Draft of the ALUP. As this document has not yet been approved it is shown as reference for the direction the City intends to take. Generally,the densities are the most restrictive based on the ranges from the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which are shown in Table B-2.
In 1970, the City adopted Title 9, Chapter 4, Airport Zoning: Height of Structures and Use of Airspace “…to regulate the use of airspace for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City and the County by preventing the creation or establishment of airport hazards, thereby protecting the lives and property of the uses of the WVI and of the occupants of the land in its vicinity and preventing destruction and impairment of the utility of the airport and the public investment therein.” This zoning protects for the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 surfaces as further described in subsequent chapters of this MPU.
An additional land use protection is in place south of WVI within Zone 3 through the Settlement Agreement and Conditional Release from September 13, 2017 between the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) and Watsonville Pilots Association (WPA). A non-development agreement was established which allowed PVUSD the ability to construct a new auditorium and athletic field without lighting, but not allow any constructionwithin a 10-acre site closer to the airport. The Airport was granted an avigation easement over the high school and funds to reduce vertical obstructions (i.e., trees, poles, and other similar objects), install additional approach lighting, or any other purpose which would enhance the lowering the current visibility minimums.
B-7
Table B-1: WVI 2016 Administration Draft ALUP Safety Compatibility Zones Zone
Number Location
Maximum
Densities
Residential
(du/acre)
Maximum
Intensities
Other Uses
(people/acre)
Average
Maximum
Intensities
Other Users
(people/acre)
Single-Acre
Required
Open
Land
Other Development
Conditions
1 Runway Protection
Zone and within
Building Restriction
Line
0 0 0
All
Remaining
Avigation easement
dedication
2 Inner
Approach/Departure
Zone
Rural: Maintain
Zoning
Suburban: 0.1
(1 du/20.0 ac.)
Rural: 10
Suburban: 40
Rural: 50
Suburban: 80
30%
Avigation easement
dedication
FAA “No Hazard”
airspace determination
required
3 Inner Turning Zone
Rural: Maintain
Zoning
Suburban: 0.2
(1 du/5.0 ac.)
Rural: 50
Suburban: 70
Rural: 150
Suburban: 210
20%
Avigation easement
dedication
FAA “No Hazard”
airspace determination
required
4 Outer
Approach/Departure
Zone
Rural: Maintain
Zoning
Suburban: 0.2
(1 du/5.0 ac.)
Rural: 70
Suburban: 100
Rural: 210
Suburban: 300
20%
Avigation easement
dedication
FAA “No Hazard”
airspace determination
required
5 Sideline Zone
Rural: Maintain
Zoning
Suburban: 0.5
(1 du/2.0 ac.)
Rural: 50
Suburban: 70
Rural: 150
Suburban: 210
30%
Avigation easement
dedication
FAA “No Hazard”
airspace determination
required
6 Traffic Pattern Zone No Limit
Rural: 150
Suburban: 200
Rural: 600
Suburban: 800
15%
Avigation easement
dedication
FAA “No Hazard”
airspace determination
required
Note: This information is currently in draft format and still under review.
Source: Watsonville Municipal Airport Land Use Plan, 2016 Administrative Draft
B-8
Table B-2: Caltrans Land Use Handbook Safety Compatibility Zones Zone
Number Location Population Density of Use
Residential Land
Use Special Functions Normally Allowed Uses
1 Runway protection
zone and within runway
object free area
adjacent to the runway
0-10/acre Prohibited Prohibited None
2 Inner
approach/departure
zone
40-60/acre 10 Acres/dwelling Prohibited
Agricultural,
storage, light
industrial
3 Inner turning zone 40-60/acre 2-10 Acres/dwelling Prohibited Agricultural,
storage, light
industrial
4 Outer
approach/departure
zone
60-100/acre 2-5 Acres/dwelling Avoided
Zone 3 plus
restaurants, retail,
and industrial
5 Sideline zone 40-60/acre 2-5 Acres/dwelling Avoid assemblies over 60/acre
Zone 4 plus
aviation-related
activities
6 Traffic pattern zone 150/acre 4-6 Acres/dwelling Avoid assemblies over 150/acre
Zone 5 plus
residential uses
Source: California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, Caltrans, 2011
B-9
Figure B-3: Watsonville Municipal Airport Influence Area and Safety Zones
B-10
B.1.1.4 Noise
Aircraft noise is generally one of the most prominent and controversial environmental issues associated with airport development and operation. Traditionally, the FAA requires uses a decibel (dB) based measure of noise exposure called the day-night average sound level (DNL) to describe community exposure to airport-related noise when conducting any federal planning or environmental study. In California, the FAA accepts the use of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in place of DNL. In simple terms, both CNEL and DNL represents the average noise level evaluated over a 24- hour period. For airport projects, the DNL/CNEL noise level is used to describe the noise from aircraft operations in the vicinity of the airport. It includes both peak aircraft noise events, as well as the times with no aircraft activity, averaged over a full day. In both metrics, a 10 dB penalty is added to each aircraft operation that occurs during the nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to account for people's increased sensitivity to noise while they are sleeping. Additionally, CNEL adds a three-times (approximately 5-dB) penalty for each aircraft operation occurring in the evening between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM.
The FAA’s Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program is the primary Federal regulation guiding and controlling planning for aviation noise compatibility around airports. Per Part 150 requirements, the extents of noise exposure have historically been modeled using a computer-based program called the integrated noise model (INM) to develop noise contours (Noise Exposure Maps – NEM). In 2015, the FAA replaced INM with new noise modeling software called the airport environmental design tool (AEDT). Using aircraft operation counts as well as the flight paths and profiles, and noise and performance information, the AEDT software identifies contours of the forecasted daily sound levels around the airfield.
CNEL has established 65 dB as the threshold above which aircraft noise is considered to be incompatible with residential areas. For residential areas that exceed 65 CNEL noise impact level, the Part 150 Program establishes procedures and criteria for making projects eligible for Federal funding for residential sound insulation programs to reduce indoor noise levels from aircraft operations. Generally speaking, all land uses are acceptable in areas with noise exposure less than 65 CNEL (i.e., beyond the limits of the 65 CNEL contour). Residences, schools, churches, and other noise-sensitive land uses are considered incompatible within the 65 and greater CNEL contours. Voluntary noise abatement procedures have been established at the Airport to minimize aircraft noise disturbances over the surrounding communities as outlined in Chapter 1.
For the noise contour analysis, the data from this MPU, Chapter 2, was utilized including existing and forecasted annual operations, aircraft fleet mix, runway utilization, peak operations, and times of day. WVI previously conducted noise studies in 2013, 2015, and 2017.
Base Year and Future Conditions Noise Contours
A noise assessment was performed to determine the CNEL noise contours at WVI for the 2020 Base Year as well as for the 2040 Recommended Development Plan (RDP) as depicted in Chapter 4. The RDP includes plan for the removal of the Runway 20 displaced threshold and shortening of Runway 27 by 870 feet but does not account for the extensions of Runway 2 or Runway 9 as they are planned to be completed beyond the 20-year planning period.
The 2020 65 CNEL noise contours generally reside on airport property, with minor extensions over the industrial area along Aviation Way. Table B-3 displays the acreage for the 65 and 70 CNEL contours along with the population and schools, churches, and hospitals located within each. Error! Reference source not found. depicts the 55, 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours for the Airport’s current configuration and operations. The 55 and 60 CNEL contours are shown for informational purposes and do not affect the determination of compatible land use surrounding the Airport. As shown, no 65 CNEL noise contours extend beyond airport property and the industrial area immediately adjacent to Aviation Way, so no incompatible land uses have been identified around WVI for the base year.
B-11
Table B-3: 2020 Noise Contour Information
Noise
Contour
Total
Acreage
OffAirport
Acreage
Population Residential
Properties Schools Churches Hospitals
65 41.89 1.79 0 0 0 0 0
70 11.74 0.59 0 0 0 0 0
Sources: Kimley-Horn, AEDT Modeling, ERSI
The 2040 65 CNEL noise contours are also mostly confined to airport property, though they extend into the industrial area east of the airport and into the residential area along Buena Vista Drive. Error! Reference source not found. displays the acreage for each noise contour along with the population and schools, churches, and hospitals located within each. As shown in Error! Reference source not found., the 65 CNEL contours extend to three residential properties along Buena Vista Drive but do not reach the homes on each property. As such, it is recommended the Airport continue to monitor noise in this area through the planning period in the event that the fleet mix and operational growth beyond 2040 places residential properties within the 65 CNEL contours.
Table B-4: 2040 Noise Contour Information
Noise
Contour Acreage
OffAirport
Acreage
Population*
Residential
Property Schools Churches Hospitals
65 62.38 3.49 11 3 0 0 0
70 22.81 1.09 11 3 0 0 0
*Note: Estimated population calculated using average 2016-2020 persons per household for Watsonville City as determined by the 2020 U.S. Census
Sources: Kimley-Horn, AEDT Modeling, ERSI, U.S. Census Bureau
B-12
Figure B-4: 2020 Noise Contours
B-13
Figure B-5: 2040 Noise Contours
B-14
B.1.2 Wildlife Hazard Attractants
Airport owners have a legal responsibility to ensure that airports maintain a safe operating environment. To address these federal mandates, the FAA has released a series of ACs to provide guidance and standards for airport owners. Key ACs utilized in the review for the MPU include:
o 150/5200-32B, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes
o 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports o 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports o 150/5200-36A, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports (Change 1) o 150/5220-25, Airport Avian Radar Systems (Change 1)
Based on the guidance described above, land use practices and habitats are the key factors in determining the wildlife species and populations that are attracted to airport environments. The FAA recommends a minimum separation distance of five statute miles between the farthest edge of an airport’s air operations area (AOA) and known hazardous wildlife attractants.
Land use practices that present the most acute threat to aircraft safety include waste disposal operations, water management facilities (including stormwater management facilities and wastewater treatment facilities), wetlands, and dredge spoil containment areas (if those areas include standing water or the spoils contain materials attractive to wildlife), agricultural activity, and golf courses (Clear & Dolbeer, 2005). While the FAA guidance states “even small facilities, such as fast food restaurants, taxicab staging areas, rental car facilities, aircraft viewing areas, and public parks, can produce substantial attractions for hazardous wildlife” different facilities may be more likely to contribute than others depending on the unique factors of the area. For WVI, pilots have reported that the landfills, slough, and Pinto Lake are the primarily attractant for birds within the traffic pattern at the Airport. It should be noted that the FAA Wildlife Strike Database lists 11 bird strikes since 1998 (accessed January 26, 2021). Table B-5 lists potential wildlife hazard attractants adjacent to the Airport.
Table B-5: Potential Wildlife Hazard Attractants Adjacent to WVI Map ID Wildlife Hazard Type Location
1 Pacific Golf Centers Golf Course 101 Ranport Rd
2 Casserly Par 3 Golf Course Golf Course 626 Casserly Rd 3 Spring Hills Golf Course Golf Course 501 Spring Hills Dr 4 Watsonville State Wildlife Area Park Lee Rd and Harkins Slough Rd 5 Pinto Lake City Park Park 451 Green Valley Rd
6 Pinto Lake County Park Park 757 Green Valley Rd
7 Mesa Village Park Park 790 Green Valley Road
8 Crestview Park Park Crestview Dr and Brewington Ave
9 Franich Park Park Vista Montana Dr and Menasco Dr
10 Atri Park Park Atri Ct and Delta Way
11 Linear Park Park E. Front St between Union St and Marchant St 12 Watsonville Plaza Park 358 Main St
13 Pajaro Park Park 24 San Juan Rd
14 Santa Cruz Long-Toed Salamander Ecological Reserve Park Peaceful Valley Dr
B-15
Map ID Wildlife Hazard Type Location
15 Castro Adobe State Historic Park Park 184 Old Adobe Rd 16 Ramsay Park Park 1301 Main St
17 Callaghan Park and Cultural Center Park 225 Sudden St 18 Marinovich Park Park 120 2nd St
19 Cherry Blossom Park Park 41 Loma Prieta Ave
20 Arista Park Park 52 Artisa Ct
21 Joyce-McKenzie Park Park 500 Joyce Dr
22 Bronte Park Park 615 Bronte Ave
23 Flodberg Park Park Between Alvarado St and Montecito St 24 Hope Drive Park Park 76 Hope Dr
25 Peace Drive Park Park 62 Peace Dr
26 Seaview Ranch Park Park 105 Lighthouse Dr
27 Las Brisas Park Park 1028 Nueva Vista Ave
28 Kelly Lake Water Body Between Cutter Dr and E. Lake Ave 29 Drew Lake Water Body Between Cutter Drive and Lakeview Rd 30 Warner Lake Water Body Between Salinas Rd and Garin Rd 31 Watsonville Slough Water Body Adjacent to W Beach St 32 Hanson Slough Water Body Adjacent to Lee Rd
33 Harkins Slough Water Body Adjacent to Larkin Valley Rd and Harkins Slough Rd
34 Gallighan Slough Water Body Between Buena Vista Dr and Harkins Slough 35 Monterey Bay Water Body Approximately 3 miles southwest of Airport 36 Struve Slough & West Branch Water Body From Whitney Dr to Watsonville Slough 37 Pajaro River Water Body Approximately 2.75 miles southeast of Airport 38 Salsipuedes Creek Water Body Approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Airport 39 Corralitos Creek Water Body Approximately 0.25 miles north of Airport 40 Pinto Lake Water Body Approximately 1.1 miles northeast of Airport 41 Corralitos Lagoon Water Body Approximately 2 miles northwest of Airport 42 Santa Cruz County Disposal Center (Slated for closure by 2034) Landfill 1231 Buena Vista Drive
43 City of Watsonville Landfill Landfill 730 San Andreas Road 44 City of Watsonville Wastewater Plant Wastewater 500 Clearwater Lane Agricultural Land Agriculture North, east, south, and west of Airport Source: Google Earth, City of Watsonville Parks and Recreation Facilities Finder (accessed on August 12, 2020)
B-16
Figure 6: Potential Wildlife Hazard Attractants Adjacent to WVI
B-17
WVI conducted a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA), which was reviewed by the FAA in 2015. Based on the WHA, the FAA determined that there was enough wildlife activity in the area to warrant the development of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP). As part of their review, the FAA want to highlight a few items they saw as well as recommend that WVI begin the process of obtaining the necessary permits to harass (non-lethal methods) and/or take (lethal methods) wildlife and complete the necessary training for that effort. Items noted by the FAA include:
o The Airport should begin improving and completing a proper perimeter fence. o The Airport needs to prevent the creation of new permanent water basins. o The Airport should inspect and maintain property/structures better to discourage loafing and nesting by birds.
The WHMP was completed in 2016 and include several actions for staff to following, including:
o Identifying staff for an Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Team o Wildlife Observation and Reporting Procedures
o Obtain the supplies necessary to control wildlife including permits, baits, pistol launchers, screamers, personal safety equipment, binoculars, identification guides, logbook, and cages o Modify habitats to make them less attractant to hazardous wildlife • Maintain height of grass and turf areas
• Remove trees and shrubs near northern airport boundary • Identify appropriate methods of stormwater management in new development area to avoid open water o Provide ongoing maintenance and inspection of perimeter fence o Install remaining perimeter fence on west fence
o Continue harassment methods including using vehicles, aerial pyrotechnics, whistlers, and squawk boxes B.1.3 Water Resources
Water resources on or near airport property have several implications for airport operations and development. In addition to the wildlife hazard risks associated with open sources of water, airport development can affect floodplains and the potential for flooding in a project’s vicinity; this includes federally protected waters of the U.S., wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and groundwater/stormwater management. Airport owners are thus obligated to evaluate how projects could impact regional hydrology and implement the appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to water resources.
B.1.3.1 Floodplains
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, defines a floodplain as an “area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year.” Federal agencies must “take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains” (FEMA, 2015). The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, provides the policies and procedures for implementing the Executive Order. The guidance is designed to minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts associated with floods and to avoid encroaching on the 100-year floodplain.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the federal agency charged with floodplain management. To support the National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA has published Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to delineate floodplains and show an area’s base flood elevations and floodplain boundaries. The California Department of Water Resources Floodplain Management Branch coordinates the state’s participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
B-18
The Airport is located on FEMA flood insurance rate map (FIRM) 06087C0391E, effective May 16, 2012, and (FIRM) 06087C0383E, effective May 16, 2012. As seen in Figure B-5, the FIRMs indicate that the Airport and the immediate surroundings are in an area of minimal flood hazard.
B.1.3.2 Wetlands/Waters of the U.S.
Wetlands and jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.” are protected under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. [CWA]) and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. The U.S. DOT developed Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, to provide additional guidance to transportation agencies regarding wetlands. These mandates require that Federal agencies avoid impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent possible. If impacts are unavoidable, the agencies must explain that no practical alternative exists and provide measures to mitigate the proposed development’s unavoidable impacts.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (U.S. ACE) is primarily responsible for protection, with additional jurisdictional authority provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Several state agencies, most notably the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) operating under the California Environmental Protection Agency (California EPA) also have authority over California’s wetland resources.
Figure B-5 illustrates wetlands on or near Airport property. As shown, there is a small area on the northeast corner of Airport property that is considered part of a 100-year floodplain, and a portion of the West branch Struve Slough runs into Airport property near the southern boundary. Along the slough, on the outside of southern boundary of the Airport property, there is a wetland area and a freshwater pond. There is another freshwater pond and riverine that runs outside of the western boundary of the Airport property. As a matter of note, this cursory inventory of wetlands has an inherent margin of error due to the nature of aerial imagery. A detailed ground inspection would be needed to confirm the presence and extent of any wetlands on or near the Airport.
B-19
Figure B-7: Floodplains and Wetlands at WVI
B-20
B.1.3.3 Groundwater and Stormwater Management
The California Water Boards (collectively referring to the SWRCB and the RWQCBs) and the U.S. EPA regulate runoff and the treatment of stormwater in California. The U.S. EPA delegated authority to the California Water Boards for the implementation of the CWA. Most notably, the California Water Boards are responsible for regulating stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Program. Additionally, California agencies, including the City of Watsonville Airport Department, are subject to the provisions of the California Water Code and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
The Airport presently complies with the State of California’s NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Industrial Activities (Order 2014-0057-DWQ as amended by Order 2015-0122-DWQ)(US EPA, 2020). The General Industrial Permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The General Industrial Permit also requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring plan.
Through the SWPPP, sources of pollutants are to be identified and the means to manage the sources to reduce stormwater pollution are described.
There are four offsite drainage inlets onto the Airport property. None of these offsite drainage inlets contributes water to the Airport’s industrial storm water monitored drainage area. All these offsite waters flow across non-industrial areas of the Airport.
There are seven drain outlets that discharge from the Airport. These outlets handle the majority of the storm water discharge from the Airport. There is a very small amount of storm water that sheets onto Aviation Way and into Harkins Slough. The only storm water exposed to industrial activity, Drainage Area L, discharges the Airport at Storm Water Sample Point KWVI 01 (City of Watsonville, 2020).
Industrial materials and activities at WVI that could contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff include aviation fuels, oil, grease, solvents, and coolant used for airplane maintenance; waste oil; batteries; and aircraft tires. The SWPPP does include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate the risk of stormwater pollution. BMPs include sweeping impervious surfaces with a regenerative air street sweeper once per month during the dry season and twice per month during the wet season, biannual stormwater presentations at monthly staff meetings, and vehicle inspections for leakage.
Water supply demands in the region are met by a “conjunctive use” system, where surface water and groundwater storage are used jointly. Groundwater is sourced from the Pajaro Valley Basin and is the primary water source. When available, surface water is used from the Corralitos and Browns Creeks. The City of Watsonville does not purchase or import water (City of Watsonville, 2016). The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency maintains active groundwater recharge programs, like the Harkins Slough Facility (Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, 2019).
Sewage is conveyed from the Airport to the Watsonville Wastewater Treatment Facility operated by the City of Watsonville.
Located in southwest Watsonville, this wastewater treatment facility treats approximately 6.7 million gallons per day. It has the permits to treat up to 12 million gallons per day (City of Watsonville, 2016).
According to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) water quality website, the area surrounding the Airport does contain waters listed in the CWA, Section 303(d) list (i.e., Impaired Waters List). The nearest body of water included on the Impaired Waters List is the Corralitos/Salsipuedes Creek, approximately 0.25 miles northeast of the Airport. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for fecal coliform concentrations was adopted by the U.S. EPA in 2012. A TMDL for nitrogen compounds and orthophosphate was adopted in 2016 (US EPA, 2016). The City of Watsonville and County of Santa Cruz are the responsible parties for revising their Stormwater Management Plans and monitoring receiving water and stormwater outfalls.
The Watsonville Slough, approximately 1.5 miles southeastof the Airport and its tributaries also have a TMDL for nitrate and orthophosphate (US EPA, 2016). In addition, the entire Pajaro River, approximately 2.75 miles southeast of the Airport, has a TMDL for additive toxicity, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform concentrations, nitrate, and orthophosphate, and sediment toxicity (US EPA, 2016).
B-21
B.1.3.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wild and scenic rivers are defined as having “remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic or cultural value.” The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) implement the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. Sections 1271-1287), which strives to balance river development with permanent protection of the country’s most outstanding, free-flowing rivers. In conjunction with the National Park Service (NPS), these agencies manage the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (WSRS) and the National River Inventory (NRI).
A segment of the Big Sur River, located within Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park approximately 45 miles south of the Airport, is designated as a wild and scenic river (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, n.d.). However, this river is not located within proximity of the Airport and would therefore not be at risk from Airport development.
B.1.4 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 (Title 49, U.S.C. Section 1653(f); amended and recodified in 49 U.S.C. Section 303) states that the Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of publicly-owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance unless there is no feasible alternative that would avoid such use and the program includes all possible planning efforts to minimize resultant harm.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (L&WCFA) (16 U.S.C. Section 4601 et. seq.; Title 36 C.F.R. Part 59) prohibits the conversion of lands purchased with L&WCFA funds to non-recreational uses without the explicit approval of the Secretary of the DOI through the NPS and the replacement of those lands with a reasonable equivalent. There are several public parks and recreation areas surrounding the Airport, including:
o Cherry Blossom Park, between Loma Prieta Avenue and Cherry Blossom Drive o Hope Drive Park, on Hope Drive
o Peace Drive Park, between Green Valley Road and Peace Drive o Arista Park, off Arista Lane
o Crestview Park, at the corner of Brewington Avenue and Crestview Drive o Flodberg Park, between Alvarado Street and Montecito Avenue o Pinto Lake City Park, off Green Valley Road between Dick Phelps Road and Behler Road o Pinto Lake County Park, between Green Valley Road and Kilewer Lane o Mesa Village Park, between Hathaway Avenue and Arroyo Drive on Green Valley Road o Franich Park, at the corner of Franich Drive and Vista Montana Drive o Joyce-McKenzie Park, between Joyce Drive and Secoya Street o Callaghan Park, between Sudden Street and Brennan Street on Freedom Boulevard o Marinovich Park, on 2nd Street
o Muzzio Park, at the corner of Rodriguez Street and Front Street o Linear Park, between Front Street and the Pajaro River o Pajaro Park, at the end of San Juan Road
o Berlanga Park, at the end of Stender Avenue
o Cayetano Park, at the corner of Florence Avenue and Cayetano Street o Seaview Ranch Park, between Bree Lane and Lighthouse Drive o Las Brisas Park, at the corner of Lighthouse Drive and Nueva Vista Avenue o Watsonville State Wildlife Area, at the corner of Harkins Slough Road and Cabrillo Highway o Castro Adobe State Historic Park, at the end of Old Adobe Road
B-22
Additional future research would be needed to determine if any L&WCFA funds were used in the development of these or other nearby recreational facilities. Future Airport development actions must consider the potential for direct and constructiveuse impacts to any local Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources.
B.1.5 Air Quality
The U.S. EPA is the federal agency that has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. Sections 7401-7671q) established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants. These six pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide. NAAQS compliance means that ambient outdoor levels of these pollutants are safe for public health and the environment. States with pollutant levels exceeding the NAAQS must prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to improve air quality.
In accordance with the 1989 Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 39607(e), the Air Resource Board (ARB) is responsible for California’s compliance with the CAA. In conjunction with the six pollutants regulated by the NAAQS, the ARB has established additional pollution standards for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. In general, the state standards established for California by the ARB are more rigorous than the NAAQS. These state-specific standards are known as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
WVI is within the North Central Coast Air Basin, which encompasses the counties of Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz.
The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is responsible for air quality in the North Central Coast Air Basin and is required to develop an attainment plan. Table B-6 provides the federal and state attainment status of the North Central Coast Air Basin, with all pollutants identified as within attainment for federal status but many are in nonattainment regarding state designation. It should be noted that although the North Central Coast Air Basinmeets Attainment standards for lead emissions, the Airport sells unleaded AvGas (UL94)to further reduce the lead emissions related to aviation activity. WVI received a letter of endorsement from the EPA’s regional office supporting the Airport’s efforts.
Table B-6: Attainment Status for the North Central Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment-Transitional Attainment
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Monterey County – Attainment Attainment
San Benito County – Unclassified Attainment
Santa Cruz County – Unclassified Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Source: MBARD Air Quality Management Plan 2012-2015 (Accessed on August 20, 2020) Note: Attainment = Meets federal/state standards; Nonattainment = Does not meet federal/state standards; Unclassified = no da ta available
B-23
Air quality regulations also focus on toxic air contaminants (TACs). In general, air toxics that may cause cancer have no threshold concentration below which risks do not occur. However, standards for carcinogenic air toxics are established to reflect increased risks of one-in-one million to one in 10,000, which are the values identified as de minimis by regulatory agencies. Both the U.S. EPA’s and California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and TACs typically reflect the de minimis risk levels noted above, while also generally requiring the use of either the maximum available control technology or best available control technology (BACT) to limit emissions (note: when BACT is applied to TACs, it is known as T-BACT).
At the federal level,Title III of the CAA amendments requires the U.S. EPA to circulate National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for the regulation of HAPs from stationary sources. Currently, there are over 125 different stationary sources types regulated under NESHAPs. The CAA amendments also required the U.S. EPA to issue vehicle or fuel standards containing reasonable requirements to control HAP emissions, applying at a minimum to benzene and formaldehyde. Performance criteria were established to limit HAPs mobile source emissions, including benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene. In addition, Section 219 of the CAA amendments also required the use of reformulated gasoline in selected U.S. cities (those with the most severe ozone nonattainment conditions) to further reduce mobile-source emissions, including air toxics emissions.
TACs in California are primarily regulated through the Tanner Air Toxics Act and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987, also known as the Hot Spots Act. The Tanner Act sets a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. To date, CARB has adopted the U.S. EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs, as well as identified more than 21 additional TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a concentration below which health effects are not likely to occur, the ATCM must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe concentration below which adverse health effects are not likely to occur, the measure must incorporate T-BACT to minimize emissions. The Hot Spots Act requires existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level to prepare a toxic emissions inventory; conduct a risk assessment if emissions are significant; notify the public of significant risk levels; and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB adopted a comprehensive Risk Reduction Plan in 2000 after identifying DPM as a TAC. Pursuant to this plan, CARB adopted diesel-exhaust control measures and stringent emissions standards for various on-road and off-road sources of diesel emissions. Rules include the Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule and Emissions Standards for New Urban Buses, the California Diesel Fuel Regulations, On - Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation, and the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.
B.1.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following discussion highlights and summarizes key policies and regulations regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that have been adopted at the international, federal, and state levels.
B.1.6.1 National and International Regulations
B.1.6.1.1 International Civil Aviation Organization
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)was created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. It sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity, as well as for aviation environmental protection. ICAO serves as the forum for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 193 Member States.
In October 2016, a global agreement reached by the 39th Session of the ICAO Assembly established the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). This agreement set an international aviation GHG emissions reduction target of 50% by 2050, relative to 2005 levels, with an overall goal of carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards.
Under CORSIA, and subject to phased implementation, airlines will be required to buy carbon offsets to compensate for their growth in CO2 emissions associated with international air travel.
B-24
B.1.6.1.2 U.S. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan The United States is committed to addressing the climate change impacts of commercial aviation and is pursuing a multipronged approach to achieve GHG emissions reductions.1F 2 The Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan, 2F 3,
3F
4which
was submitted to ICAO as the U.S. Action Plan, identifies actions and progress toward GHG emission reductions in each of the following areas:
o Aircraft and Engine Technology Improvement: There are multiple technology initiatives dedicated to developing technology with significantly improved fuel burn and lower GHG emissions. These include the FAA CLEEN program described below, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Environmentally Responsible Aviation and Advanced Air Transport Technology projects, and U.S. Air Force research and testing on vehicle efficiency improvements (e.g., through the Adaptive Engine Technology Development program) that can often transition into development of commercial products that are utilized by the civil fleet. o Operational Improvements: Implementation of the FAA’s NextGen plan will allow for more efficient aircraft operations and reduced GHG emissions through operational improvements. Many foundational and infrastructure elements are expected to be in place in the near-term, providing critical NextGen capabilities or infrastructure upon which future NextGen capabilities will be built. o Alternative Fuels Development and Deployment: The United States is actively supporting and facilitating the development and deployment of sustainable alternative jet fuels with lower life-cycle GHG emissions than conventional petroleum fuel. Thus far, the standard setting organization ASTM International has approved three alternative jet fuels for use in aviation. Research is ongoing to pursue additional approvals and also examine the viability of regional supply chains and chart a path for overcoming barriers to production. o Policies, Standards, and Measures: The United States is pursuing a variety of policies, standards, and measures that will supplement efforts on technology, operations and fuels to further reduce aviation emissions. The United States is focused on two items: (1) The development of a meaningful CO2 standard in ICAO for implementation in the United States, and (2) working with ICAO on the development of a proposal for a Global Market-Based Measure (GMBM) to serve as a gap filler to address international aviation GHG emissions. o Scientific Understanding and Modeling/Analysis: The FAA is continually improving its modeling and analysis tools to better understand and assess the environmental impacts of aviation.
B.1.6.1.3 Federal Aviation Administration
According to the 2014 United States Climate Action Report, the FAA is pursuing a comprehensive approach to reduce GHG emissions from commercial aviation through aircraft and engine technology development, operational improvements, development and deployment of sustainable alternative jet fuels, and additional policies and measures.4F 5 FAA’s Next
Generation Air Transportation System Plan, or NextGen, focuses its efforts on increasing efficient aircraft operations and reducing GHG emissions through airspace, operational, and infrastructure improvements.FAA funds diverse programs to 2 United States of America. 2012. U.S. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (2012) Submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization, June 2012.
Available at:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/media/Aviation_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Reduction_Plan.pdf.
Accessed: April 2019.
3 Ibid.
4 United States of America. 2015. U.S. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (2015) Submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization, June 2015.
Available at: https://crp.trb.org/acrp0267/united-states-aviation-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction-plan/. Accessed: April 2019. 5 United States of America. 2014 United States Climate Action Report. Available at: https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/us-climate-action-report-2014. Accessed:
April 2019.
B-25
improve aviation energy and emissions performance, and coordinates with other agencies as appropriate, including NASA The following are some examples of FAA programs:
o The Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) program is a collaborative partnership between the FAA and aviation manufacturers to develop technologies that will reduce emissions and fuel burn, as well as expedite the integration of these technologies into current aircraft. o The Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) is an FAA program that provides guidance to develop mitigation solutions based on state-of-the-art science results. ACCRI results are key to quantifying cost–benefit analyses of various policy options. ACCRI has reduced uncertainties, leading to overall improvement in understanding of aviation’s climate impacts. While ACCRI does not provide mitigation solutions on its own, recently completed ACCRI Phase II results can be used to help identify effective mitigation options. o The Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Program (VALE) is a grant program that encourages airport sponsors to use Airport Improvement Program funds and Passenger Facility Charges to finance low-emission vehicles, refueling and recharging stations, gate electrification, and other airport air quality improvements. Under FAA’s most recent reauthorization, VALE’s work is supplemented by new programs that reduce airport emissions. The FAA is creating a program where, following an assessment of airport energy requirements, the FAA may make capital grants for airports to increase energy efficiency. The FAA has also established a pilot program under which certain airports may acquire and operate zero-emission vehicles.
In addition, the FAA is a founding member of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). CAAFI is a public– private partnership established in 2006 with the objective of advancing alternative jet fuels with equivalent safety/performance (drop-in) and comparable cost, environmental improvement, and security of energy supply for aviation. Work through CAAFI has also expanded internationally. Fuel production capability is beginning to emerge, including a recently announced airline and fuel producer agreement.
B.1.6.2 State of California Regulations
Global Warming Solutions Act
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 and adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHG and a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.
In 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15,require CARB to ensure statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.
The Scoping Plan does not contain any language, targets, or measures related to aircraft emissions. However, the California Greenhouse Gas Inventory, upon which CARB relies for establishing baseline GHG emissions and tracking progress toward emissions targets, includes emissions from intrastate aircraft operations. The baseline emissions levels and 2030 emissions target addressed in the Scoping Plan, therefore, account for intrastate flights using the Airport but not interstate or international flights.5F
6 6 CARB. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017 - by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan, Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_sum_2000-17.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2019.
B-26
California Cap-and-Trade Program
AB 32 allowed, but did not require, CARB to include among the mechanisms intended to reduce GHG emissions a “system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits.” The legislation required CARB to develop a Scoping Plan to describe the various mechanisms that would be used. In turn, the Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 11, 2008, directed CARB staff to develop, among other programs, a cap-and-trade mechanism that would apply a declining aggregate cap on GHG emissions and provide a flexible compliance system using tradable instruments.
On October 20, 2011, CARB adopted the final cap-and-trade regulation. The program started on January 1, 2012 and will proceed in “compliance phases,” the first of which began on January 1, 2013. The program imposes a “cap” on the total GHG emissions from covered entities in the state and the quantity of emissions allowed under the cap decreases each year, ultimately reaching the goal of returning state-wide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
To encourage emission sources to emit less as the cap decreases, “allowances,” or permission to emit GHGs, are made available in decreasing quantities. Allowances are both freely allocated and auctioned off. The amount of freely give n allowances decreases over time, and the severity of the decrease varies by industrial sector, with those thought to be less vulnerable to out-of-state competition receiving fewer allowances more quickly. Similarly, the amount of allowances available for purchase at auction decreases. The intent is to make reducing GHG emissions more financially attractive as the number of available allowances decreases, making each allowance more costly.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008.
SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035, as compared to 2005 emissions levels. The per-capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area, which were updated by CARB in 2018, include a 10 percent reduction by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction by 2035.6F
7 Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area establishes a course for reducing per-capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compact, high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit.
Executive Order B-55-18
In September 2018, Governor Brown signed EO B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” B.1.7 Biotic Resources and Endangered Species
Biotic resources include the various types of flora (plants) and fauna (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, marine mammals, coral reefs, etc.) in a particular area. Biotic resources also include rivers, lakes, wetlands, forests, upland communities, and other habitat types supporting the identified flora and fauna.
Several statutes protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the U.S., including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. Section 661-667e), Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. Section 2901-2911), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. Section 703-712), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. Section 668-668c), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Section 1531, et seq.). The ESA, as amended, was enacted to provide a program for the preservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend for survival. The ESA requires federal agencies, including the FAA, to implement protection programs for listed species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. In California, agencies are also subject to the provisions of the 7 CARB, SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets, Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plantargets, Accessed October 13, 2019.
B-27
California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (Fish and Game Code Section 2050, et seq.) and the California Native Plan Protection Act of 1977 (Fish and Game Code Section 1900, et seq).
In March 2015, the USFWS entered into a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to carry out the duties of the ESA for the endangered,threatened,and candidate fish, wildlife, and plants in the state. Under this agreement, the USFWS and CDFW agree to cooperatively enforce the mandates of the ESA and related state statutes, including law enforcement activities, funding applications, listing processes, and the provision of scientific or technical expertise.
In total, the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database reports 222 state-listed and 186 federally listed plants in the state (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2020). The CDFW California Natural Diversity Database reports 94 state-listed and 128 federally listed animals in the state (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2020). Twenty-eight federally listed threatened or endangered species are known or believed to occur in Santa Cruz County. Within WVI property, there are an estimated 18 migratory birds of concern and nine endangered species. These are listed in Table B-7.
Table B-7: Protected Species Potentially Within the Airport Environs Common Name Scientific Name Status
Migratory Birds
Allen’s Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
Birds of Conservation Concern
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia
Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkia
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
Lawrence’s Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Nuttall’s Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clementae
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Willet Tringa semipalmata
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
Amphibians
California Red-Legged Frog Rana draytonii Threatened
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense Threatened
B-28
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Santa Cruz Long-Toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum Endangered Bird
California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni Endangered Least Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus Endangered Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus Threatened
Fish
Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi Endangered
Crustaceans
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Mammals
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Endangered
Reptiles
San Francisco Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia Endangered Plants
Marsh Sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered
Monterey Gilia Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Endangered Monterey Spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Threatened Santa Cruz Tarplant Holocarpha macradenia Threatened
Source: USFWS IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation (accessed August 20, 2020) Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but will be needed for its recovery. Critical habitat are areas considered essential for the conservation of a listed species. Federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWSon actions they carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that their actions will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. These areas provide notice to the public and land managers of the importance of these areas to the conservation of a listed species. Special protections and/or restrictions are possible in areas where Federal funding, permits, licenses, authorizations, or actions occur or are required.Of these endangered and threatened species, there are two critical habitats on and near the Airport which contain features essential for the conservation of two threatened species: the Santa Cruz tarplant and the California red-legged frog, as seen in Figure B-8.Figure B-9 displays the location of tarplant in 2013, 2016, and 2020. The Airport has worked extensively with California FWS on management of the tarplant located on the airfield and will continue to do as part of future development.
B-29
Figure B-8: Critical Habitats, including Santa Cruz Tarplant
B-30
Figure B-9: Santa Cruz Tarplant Mapping from 2013 to 2020
B-31
B.1.8 Coastal Resources
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1451 – 1464) provides for the management of the country’s coastal resources. The CZMA is managed by NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management. As a state-specific compendium of the CZMA, California passed the California Coastal Act (CCA) in 1976. Together, the CZMA and CCA manage and regulate all land and water in California’s coastal zone. Under the state’s federally approved Coastal Management Program, the California Coastal Commission manages development along the entire coast except the San Francisco Bay.
With few exceptions in urban and very rural areas, the California coastal zone is principally defined as 1,000 yards inland from the mean high-tide line (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for Coastal Management 2016). WVI is not located within the limits of the California coastal zone 7F 8 .
B.1.9 Farmlands
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (PL 90-542) authorizes the USDA to minimize federal programs’ contribution to unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Prime farmland, as defined by the USDA, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor and without intolerable soil erosion.
FPPA guidelines apply to farmland classified as prime or unique, or of state or local importance as determined by the appropriate government agency with concurrence by the Secretary of Agriculture. Lands already committed to urban development or water storage do not meet the definition of prime or unique farmland. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder, the Airport is considered Urban and Built-Up Land.
The majority of the soil on Airport property is classified by the USDA as ‘prime farmland if irrigated.’ However, because much of the land is already committed to urban development, the soil types are not able to meet the definition of prime or unique farmland. Figure B-10 illustrates the soils content within the vicinity of the Airport while Table B-8 describes the soil types and FPPA classifications.
8 The Airport Desk Reference notes that the agency responsible for the CZMA (i.e., California Coastal Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commission) can determine that actions outside of the coastal zone can nonetheless impact it. Thus, the FAA recommends consultation with the CZMA agency prior to any airport actions to ensure compliance.
B-32
Table B-8: WVI Soils Inventory Data
Soil Type Rating (FPPA) Area in Map
(Acres)
Area in Map
(%)
Pinto loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 134.4 46.3% Pinto loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 29.2 10.1% Pinto loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 0.4 0.1% Tierra-Watsonville complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Not prime farmland 12.5 4.3% Watsonville loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of Statewide Importance 97.3 33.6% Watsonville loam, thick surface, 2 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of Statewide Importance 16.3 5.6% Source: United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (accessed August 31, 2020)
B-33
Figure B-10: WVI Soil Types
B-34
B.1.10 Hazardous Materials
The term ‘hazardous material’ is generally associated with industrial wastes, petroleum products, dangerous goods or other contaminated substances. The statutory framework regarding hazardous materials in FAA actions is provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq. [RCRA]), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 [CERCLA]), and the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (Public Law [P.L.] 102-426). These statutes address the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and the environmental threats caused by mishandling these materials.
Additionally, California entities that handle hazardous materials in quantities equal to or greater than 55 gal lons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, or 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas; extremely hazardous substances above the threshold planning quantity defined by federal statutes; or certain radioactive materials are required to comply with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) program of the California HSC (Section 2550 – 25519). The Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Division administers the Business Plan Program in Santa Cruz County.
As a separate provision of the HSC (Sections 25531-25543.3), an owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance as defined by California Code of Regulations, Title 19 (Section 2770.5, Tables B-3) is also required to comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program. The CalARP requires covered entities to prepare a Risk Management Plan. This plan provides first responders with the information needed to prevent or mitigate damage to public health and safety and the environment from the release of hazardous materials while satisfying community right-to-know laws.
Hazardous substances in regular use at WVI include aircraft and vehicle fuels. Smaller amounts of hazardous substances are also stored on the Airport, including lubricants and solvents, used oils, filters, cleaning residues, and spent batteries, herbicides, fertilizers, paints, and de-icing fluids. Per the Airport’s Minimum Commercial Standards, SASOs are responsible for storage compliance, disposal, and care of fluids or spills. Further analyses would be needed to determine if the Airport or its tenants possess a threshold quantity of the regulated substances under the Hazardous Materials Business Plan or CalARP programs.
One of the primary facets of CERCLA was to establish a trust fund to finance emergency responses and site clean-ups for significant hazardous waste sites known as the Superfund. According to the EPA’s search tool 8F 9 , there are no locations on and
near WVI that are Superfund sites.
The U.S. EPA also requires several additional types of hazardous sites to be reported to the agency for monitoring. The SWRCB’s GeoTracker tool records sites that require remediation, U.S. Department of Defense sites, and other potentially hazardous locations. Figure B-11 depicts the existing and historical environmental remediation sites at and near WVI; site descriptions are provided in Table B-9.As shown, there are five environmental remediation sites on Airport property and six that are located off Airport property. Of the 11 remediation sites included in Figure B-11, only one of them is still open and it is not on Airport property.
9 USEPA Superfund Site Search, https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live, Accessed August 31, 2020.
B-35
Figure B-11: WVI Remediation / Cleanup Sites
B-36
Table B-9: Existing and Historical Environmental Remediation Sites near WVI Site Identification Location Potential Contaminants
of Concern Cleanup Status
1 Sakimoto Nursery 30 Bradford Rd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 11/18/2011) 2 Brothers Country Corner
Market 202 Buena Vista Dr
Benzene, ethylbenzene,
gasoline, MTBE/TBA/Other
fuel oxygenates, toluene,
xylene
Open (Eligible for closure as of
03/12/2020)
3 Quik Stop Market #41 2140 Freedom Blvd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 01/28/2009) 4 Monument Lumber Co. Inc. 2111 Freedom Blvd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 07/6/1988) 5 Schiavon Unlocal Station 2001 Freedom Blvd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 04/07/2015) 6 Watsonville Fire Department
Stat #2 370 Airport Blvd Heating oil/fuel oil Completed (Closed as of 07/23/1987) 7 Naval Auxiliary Airfield 100 Aviation Way Aviation related fuel Completed (Closed as of 04/07/2015) 8 Watsonville Airport 100 Aviation Way Aviation related fuel Completed (Closed as of 11/14/2005) 9 Former Exxon 7159 120 Aviation Way Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 10/3/2014) 10 City Building Maintenance 432 Airport Blvd Not listed Completed (Closed as of 01/27/1992) 11 7-Eleven Store #20608 455 Airport Blvd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 06/14/2013) 12 Pacific Bell 515 Chappel Rd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 12/2/1999) 13 Shikuma Farm 581 Airport Blvd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 09/09/2004) 14 Maggiora Bros Drilling Inc. 595 Airport Blvd Gasoline Completed (Closed as of 07/24/2015) Source: State Water Resources Control Boards “GeoTracker” database https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=WatsonvilleMuniAirport (Accessed November 6 2020)
B.1.11 Underground Storage Tanks
On July 15, 2015, the U.S. EPA issued revised underground storage tank (UST) regulations with specific provisions regarding field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems (40 C.F.R. Section 280). As WVI does have an underground aircraft fuel storage tank fueling system (City of Watsonville, 2020),the Airport and its tenants are also subject to California’s UST Regulations (CCR Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16), UST Cleanup Fund Regulations (CCR Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 18), and the Unified Program Regulations (CCR Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter 1, Sections 15100 - 15620).
B-37
Figure B-12: WVI Underground Storage Tank Locations
B-38
The Santa Cruz County Division of Environmental Health administers the UST program for WVI. This program is responsible for ensuring UST operators comply with applicable laws and regulations so hazardous materials are not released into the groundwater and the surrounding environment. Operators are required to obtain a Permit to Operate and have annual inspections conducted by a third-party technician.
Permitted USTs and leaking UST (LUST) cleanup program sites at and near WVI are depicted in Figure B-12. Known subsurface contamination or threat to groundwater quality resulting from the release of petroleum hydrocarbons at 12 of these LUST sites has been cleaned up through soil removal and remediation and are now closed. One site is eligible for closure.
B.1.12 Historic and Cultural Resources
The National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.R.F. Part 800 [NHPA]), as amended, provides for the preservation of cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA directs heads of Federal or independent agencies that have direct or indirect jurisdiction over a Federal or federally-assisted undertaking to “take into account the effect on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for the i nclusion in the National Register.”
Additionally, the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) defines three types of state-listed historical resources considered during a CEQA evaluation in accordance with Section 15064.5:
o California Historical Landmark (Landmark). Buildings, sites, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value.
o California Points of Historical Interest (Points). Buildings, sites, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value. o California Register of Historical Resources (Register). Buildings, sites, structures, objects and districts significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural records of California.
Public agencies are also required to comply with Sections 5024 and 5024.5 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), which mandates specific requirements for state-owned NRHP and Landmark sites. This mandate requires state agencies to act to ensure the preservation of state-owned historical resources, including evaluating resources for NRHP and Landmark eligibility, maintaining an inventory of eligible and listed resources, and managing those resources to retain their histo rical characteristics.
The NRHP does not currently include any listed sites on or near Airport property (National Park Service, 2020). A cursory search of available state resources did not reveal any California-designated historical resources at WVI. However, the state does not maintain a publicly available database of designated sites. Instead, data can be obtained by conducting a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory. A records search can be conducted by state staff members, third-party consultants, or by physically visiting an Information Center with prior approval and by appointment.
Because no comprehensive and current data are available about existing or potential historical sites at WVI, the Airport may need to conduct additional research, prior to development, to confirm that no state-regulated sites are located on the property.
The City of Watsonville also maintains a local Register of Historic Resources that includes buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts that have sufficient integrity and are significant in Watsonville’s history. No sites at WVI are included on the Local Register of Historic Resources (City of Watsonville, 2003).
B-39
B.1.13 Environmental Justice
Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involve of all people regardless of race, color, national ori gin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
This goal is considered to be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.
Created in 1992, the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) coordinates Agency efforts to address the needs of vulnerable populations by decreasing environmental burdens, increasing environmental benefits, and working collaboratively to build healthy, sustainable communities. For this MPU, the low to moderate income population by block group as developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was utilized. This identifies the U.S. Census Block Groups in which 51% or more of the households earn less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). As shown in Figure B-13, the Airport is primarily surrounded by a variety of income levels. Directly to the north there are communities where 71 to 80 percent of the population is classified as low to moderate income. To the northeast off the Runway 27 end, more than 90 percent of the population is considered low to moderate income. East of the Airport varies from less than 50 to up to 80 percent. The west and southeast, less than 50 percent of the population is classified as low to moderate income.
B-40
Figure B-13: Percentage of Population Earning Less than 80% of AMI
C-1
C Public Outreach
The success of a Master Plan Update (MPU) is largely dependent on input from Airport stakeholders as they often have first-hand experience and can easily identify and relay the strengths, challenges, and needs of the Airport to planning staff. The Watsonville Municipal Airport (WVI) MPU included several rounds of public outreach to different groups of stakeholders and public citizens, including the following:
o Planning Review Committee (PRC) Meetings - Four meetings o Public Meetings – Two meetings
o Watsonville Airport Advisory Committee (WAAC) Meetings – Planning staff provided status updates to WAAC members throughout the MPU process.
o City Council Meeting – The Airport will submit the final MPU technical report to the Watsonville City Council for adoption into the City’s official planning documents.
The following sections include meeting summaries or agendas, presentation and display materials, outreach materials, public survey results, and other documentation for the aforementioned meetings. Please note that, due to project scheduling, this report will be finalized prior to the completion of the City Council Meeting and will therefore not include documentation from the meeting.
C.1 Planning Review Committee (PRC) Meetings
The development of the MPU was guided by the Planning Review Committee (PRC), a non-voting body which reviewed the content of the MPU and provided input through additional insight, questions, and comments. The PRC was comprised of four members, listed below, representing a number of constituencies. Three of the PRC members also served on the Watsonville Airport Advisory Committee (WAAC) and were charged with conveying information about the MPU to other members of the WAAC.
PRC Members
o Rayvon Williams: Watsonville Municipal Airport Manager o Marjorie Bachman: WAAC Chair representing Monterey Bay Ninety-Nines chapter o Justin Meek: City of Watsonville Community Development Planner o Joe Shelton: WAAC member representing Airport Influence Area residents residing in City of Watsonville o Scott Randolph: WAAC Member representing Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Four virtual PRC meetings were held during the completion of the WVI MPU. The following subsections discuss the timing, attendees, and topics discussed at each of the four meetings.
PRC Meeting #1
The first PRC meeting was held on Thursday, January 28, 2021. At the time of the meeting, planning staff had completed the initial draft of Chapter 1: Inventory of Existing Conditions and were working to develop the Activity Forecasts. The following stakeholders and staff attended PRC Meeting #1:
• Rayvon Williams – Watsonville Municipal Airport/PRC
• Robert Roberston – Watsonville Municipal Airport
• Alexander Aguado – Watsonville Municipal Airport
• Marjorie Bachman – PRC
• Justin Meek - PRC
• Scott Randolph - PRC
• Joe Shelton - PRC
C-2
Several topics related to the MPU were discussed during PRC Meeting #1, the most significant of which are summarized below:
o Purpose of an MPU – Highlighted the importance of a 20-year development strategy that must be updated regularly. o Update on Progress – Described ongoing effort related to Activity Forecasts and initiation of Facility Requirements analysis
o PRC Comments – Addressed stakeholder comments on Inventory of Existing Conditions draft chapter. o Activity Forecasts – Outlined forecast development process, factors that influence forecasts and next steps for completion and approval of forecasts.
o Facility Requirements Primer – Introduced Facility Requirements analysis process, FAA design standards, and other planning considerations
o Major Study Components - engaged PRC members to identify other issues at the airport that should be addressed in the MPU, including aircraft storage, instrument approaches, and RVZ standards.
PRC Meeting #2
The second PRC meeting was held virtually on Wednesday, May 19, 2021 to discuss progress made on the MPU. PRC Meeting #2 attendees included the following stakeholders and stakeholders:
• Rayvon Williams – Watsonville Municipal Airport/PRC
• Alexander Aguado – Watsonville Municipal Airport
• Marjorie Bachman – PRC
• Justin Meek - PRC
• Scott Randolph - PRC
The main topics discussed during PRC meeting #2 are summarized in the bullets below:
o Update on Progress – Noted that the Activity Forecasts had been submitted for FAA approval and outlined ongoing work on Facility Requirements Analysis
o Public Meeting – Discussed Airport and planning staff’s plan to host in-person public meeting (See Section C.2.1).
PRC members offered suggestions for meeting topics and format. o Activity Forecasts – Reiterated results of the Activity Forecasts and the process of FAA approval . o Critical Aircraft – Defined what a critical aircraft is and identified critical aircraft type for each runway. Explained the critical aircraft’s influence on Facility Requirements analysis. o Facility Requirements – Described process of how Facility Requirements are determined and how airport needs are identified. Summarized results of Facility Requirements related to major study components including the Runway 2- 20 and 9-27 design standards, RVZ, PLA and Nordic Naturals land swap, and other miscellaneous airfield items. PRC members provided comments and input on results.
o Introduction to Alternatives Development – introduced evaluation criteria and process for analyzing alternatives.
PRC Meeting #3
PRC Meeting #3 was held on Thursday, November 4, 2021, to discuss the results of the Alternatives Development Analysis. The following Airport stakeholders and staff attended the virtual meeting:
• Rayvon Williams – Watsonville Municipal Airport/PRC
• Alexander Aguado – Watsonville Municipal Airport
• Marjorie Bachman – PRC
• Justin Meek - PRC
• Joe Shelton - PRC
• Scott Randolph – PRC
The major topics covered in the meeting include:
C-3
o Update on Progress – Described results of Public Meeting #1 and introduced plan and topics for Public Meeting #2 (see Section C.2.2).
o Alternatives Analysis – Refreshed alternatives analysis process, evaluation criteria, and scoring system. Introduced development alternatives for major study components including runway 2-20 extension, RVZ, turf runway, Nordic Naturals land swap and PLA, aircraft storage, instrument approach procedures, taxiway modifications, support facilities, and no-analysis alternatives. PRC members provided feedback on each topic and alternatives.
PRC Meeting #4
The fourth PRC meeting was held virtually on Thursday, June 23, 2022. At the time of the meeting the project team had completed a draft of the Recommended Development Plan (RDP) and the Implementation Plan. Meeting attendees included the following:
• Rayvon Williams – Watsonville Municipal Airport/PRC
• Alexander Aguado – Watsonville Municipal Airport
• Marjorie Bachman – PRC
• Justin Meek - PRC
• Scott Randolph – PRC
The following bullets summarize the main topics discussed during PRC Meeting #4 o Update on Progress – Summarized work done on the RDP, Implementation Plan, and the draft Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set. Presented results of Public Meeting #2 survey and highlighted key takeaways from the project team and Airport’s discussions with FAA and state staff regarding MPU completion. o Alternatives Analysis - Familiarized stakeholders with alternatives analysis process, evaluation criteria, and scoring. o Recommended Development Plan – Presented airport development recommendations based on findings from the Alternatives Development analysis including list of recommended projects and policy discussions. o Implementation Plan – Described main components of Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) including project phasing, cost estimates, and environmental strategy. Presented 20-year WVI ACIP and detailed 5-year ACIP with anticipated funding sources.
o Environmental Strategy – Explained the process for obtaining California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval for the MPU. Outlined initial airport strategy for Santa Cruz Tarplant mitigation.
o Cash Flow Analysis – Presented results of analysis to project future Airport revenues and expenses (cash flow) in both a “best-case’ (full FAA funding) and ‘worst-case’ (no FAA funding) scenario.
C.2 Public Meetings
Public Meetings are the primary avenue for members of the public to provide comments to the Airport regarding the development of the MPU. The Airport hosted two public meetings during the completion of the MPU. The following sections describe the details of each gathering.
Public Meeting #1
The first public meeting for the WVI MPU was held on Wednesday, August 11 at the Watsonville Aviation Education Center on the grounds of WVI. The WVI MPU Public Meeting #1 included several different components meant to maximize the input received from Airport stakeholders. The following subsections will provide an overview of the following components:
o Public Outreach
o Meeting Presentation and Display Materials
o Meeting Attendee List
C-4
o Public Survey Results
o SWOT Analysis
o Airport Development Desires
C.2.1.1 Public Outreach
The Airport and planning staff notified stakeholders and members of the public of the meeting through several forms of public outreach. An informational flyer was posted on the Airport website one month prior to the meeting and distributed to subscribers to the Airport’s Email Alert List, special interest groups such as the Watsonville Pilots Association (WPA), EAA, and Monterey Bay Ninety-Nines; and representatives of on-airport businesses. The Airport also posted the flyer shown in Figure C-1 on the City’s social media outlets and placed an advertisement in the local newspaper one week prior to the meeting. An online public survey was also distributed to gather public input regarding the priorities and goals of the MPU. The results of this survey are summarized in Section C.2.1.3.
Figure C-1. Public Meeting #1 Online Flyer
Source: Kimley-Horn
C.2.1.2 Meeting Attendance List
Table C-1 summarizes the lists of attendees and their affiliation to the Airport.
Table C-1: Public Meeting #1 Attendance
Name Airport Affiliation Name Airport Affiliation
Jamn Hamllesh On-Airport Business Michael Baker Tenant
Tom Hail Tenant Sarah Chauvet Tenant
Derek T Brutle NP Tracy Laws Tenant/EAA
Jacob Boracca EAA/PVAA Scott Randolph PRC/EAA/Tenant
Marjorie Bachman PRC/99s/WPA/Tenant Ryan Ramirez Tenant/WPA
C-5
Bonifacio Gomez Freedom Resident/ Sandy
Sanchez David Lombard Tenant
John Supan Tenant Scott Williams NP
Kirk Schnittger NP Bravlio Peralta NP
Kimberly Schnittger NP Jeffrey Cherin AIA Resident
Ron Thompson AIA Resident Kevni Dueck Tenant
Roger Repp NP Glen Ceresa WAAC
Justin Meek City of Watsonville Phil Stotts NP
Jill Sweeney NP Alan Grantz Tenant
Anne Robinson NP Orry Korb Tenant/WPA
Dave Guerrieri On-Airport Business Kenneth Paddon Tenant David French On-Airport Business Lowell Hurst AIA Resident Source: Kimley-Horn
C.2.1.3 Public Survey Results
The following figures present the results of the public survey disseminated prior to the meeting. It is important to note that some respondents registered for the meeting but did not attend the in-person meeting, therefore, the number of survey respondents exceeds the number of meeting attendees listed in the section above. Figure C-2 presents the breakdown of the registered attendees of the public meeting. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they lived in the Airport Influence Area (AIA), leased a hangar, based an aircraft at WVI, represented an on-airport aviation business, represented a non-aviation business on or near the airport, or had another affiliation to the airport. Figure C-3 presents the list of MPU priorities selected by Airport stakeholders. Stakeholders were asked to rank the top five items from a list of 12 that they would like the Airport and planning staff to prioritize during the MPU. Figure C-4 shows breakdown of stakeholder preferences related to federal funding expenditures at the Airport. Respondents were asked to indicate if they would prefer that the Airport use federal grant funding to expand facilities such as Runway 02-20 and ramp area, if they would prefer to use the funds on maintenance of existing airfield pavements and facilities, or if they had no preference.
Figure C-2. Public Meeting #1 Attendee Demographics
Sources: Survey Monkey, Kimley-Horn
Airport Influence
Area (AIA) Resident
Airport tenant, user,
or aviation business
representative
non-aviation
business
representative
Other
0 10
20 30
40 50
60
C-6
Figure C-3: Top Priorities of WVI Airport Stakeholders
Sources: Survey Monkey, Kimley-Horn
8 9
19 19
21 21
24 30
33 33
35 38
Attract more jet/corporate operations
Minimize impact to environmental considerations during future development
Extend Runway 02-20 to at least 5,000'
Expand GA terminal facilities and amenities
Maintain existing runway lengths for both runways
Expand instrument approach capabilities
Increase aircraft storage capabilities
Maximize financial sustainability of the airport
Implement a realistic develop plan
Coordinate with adjacent property owners to maintain land use compatibly
Meet FAA design standards to ensure FAA funding stability Continue to prioritize service to existing airport users 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
C-7
Figure C-4: Airport Stakeholder Federal Spending Preferences Sources: Survey Monkey, Kimley-Horn
C.2.1.4 SWOT Analysis
Participants at the Public Meeting were asked to identify the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) present at the airport. The results of the evaluation are presented in Figure C-5 while the individual written responses are documented in Table C-2.
Runway extension and growth
related improvements
Maintenance of existing
infrastructure (e.g.,
pavement, drainage, etc.)
No preference
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40
C-8
Figure C-5: SWOT Analysis
Source: Kimley-Horn
Table C-2 SWOT Analysis Written Responses
Strengths Weaknesses
• Aviation Organizations
• Location in City
• Good opportunity to grow that education and interest
• Relative absence of conflicting land development. Active Pilot community working to save airport.
• Youth Programs: Young Eagles, Civil Air Patrol (CAP), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
• Jet noise for neighbors
• City Efforts to approve land development without strict adherence to court rulings in Watsonville Pilot’s Association (WPA) litigation
• Noise Impacts to community – Educate Pilots
• Helicopters fly over houses at 100-150 feet towards hospital • Noise from planes turning at/or before the end of the runway and pilots that circle around 6-8 times, usually very low Opportunities Threats
C-9
• Hotel/hospitality
• Events
• More community
• Increase business development around airport
• Bring back air show
• Public safety lighting
• More retail services
• What happened to the fly-in? Car week in Monterey
continues to draw money to airport. A classic fly-in would do the same
• Gentrification: Outpricing current tenants with new tenants • Accident in housing area – bad relation to community
• Noise Complaints: Would hangars on far side of Runway 27 block some noise? Other mitigations?
Source: Kimley-Horn
C.2.1.5 Development Desires
Airport stakeholders were asked to place sticky-notes on an aerial image of the airport to indicate their desires for future Airport development. Figure C-6 presents the results of the exercise while the individual stakeholder responses are summarized below. • Make a deal with these landowners to swap land to aeronautical use land to airport • City should buy or swap for lumber yard land and expand water reservoirs there rather than give up aeronautical use property
• Shift Runway 09-27 west. Fill/extend Runway Safety Area (RSA) • Manfre Road drainage – rainwater from Airport and north-south avenue feed across airport. Is it possible to make retention pond to meter water leaving Airport property?
• Ground squirrel abatement
• Taxi-thru aircraft wash rack
• Runway extension towards Highway 1
• Taxiway onto 27 at departure point. “One-way” sign past that • Buy property along Runway 02-20
C-10
Figure C-6. Airport Development Desires Analysis
Source: Kimley-Horn
C.2.1.6 Public Comments
Airport Stakeholders were asked to provide any additional comments regarding the MPU. Four comments were received and are included in this appendix.
Public Meeting #2
The second public meeting for the Watsonville Municipal Airport MPU was held virtually The WVI MPU Public Meeting #1 included several different components meant to maximize the input received from Airport stakeholders. The following section will provide an overview of the following components:
o Public Outreach
o Meeting Summary and Comments
o Post Meeting Survey Results
C.2.2.1 Public Outreach
Similar to Public Meeting #1, the Airport and the project team notified stakeholders and members of the public of the meeting through several forms of public outreach. An informational flyer was posted on the Airport website and Facebook page two weeks prior to the meeting and distributed to subscribers to the Airport’s Email Alert List, special interest groups such as the Watsonville Pilots Association (WPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and Monterey Bay Ninety-Nines; and representatives of onPage 1082 of 1168 C-11
airport businesses. An online public survey was also distributed with the flyer to gather public input regarding the development alternatives analysis. The results of this survey are summarized in C.2.2.2 Meeting Summary and Comments
The meeting was held as a Zoom teleconference, with planning staff presenting on various topics related to development alternatives. The meeting was split into several segments that focused on specific topics and allowed members of the public to ask questions or provide comments on development alternatives. Topics covered in the meeting consisted of the following:
o Project status update
o Introduction to alternatives analysis
o Runway 2-20 extension
o Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ)
o Potential turf runway
o Nordic Naturals land swap
o Instrument approach procedures
o Next steps
The entirety of the virtual meeting was recorded and posted to the Airport website, allowing stakeholders who were unable to attend the meeting to learn about development alternatives and provide feedback. Airport stakeholders provided questions and comments during the meeting which are summarized in Table C-3. Questions and comments are divided into the meeting segments in which they were presented, as noted in the grey subtitle rows.
Table C-3: Public Meeting #2 Stakeholder Comments/Questions Stakeholder Question/Comment
Runway 2-20 Extension
Based on the King Air, is any runway extension indicated? Would this increase safety and reduce residential noise? What constitutes a “safety zone” There were houses in the other graphic Granite Construction and Driscoll’s have both bought Falcon 2000LX aircraft. Why doesn’t the airport committee include business interest?
When do you estimate that the updates to the ALP be final /approved? Based on the King Air, is any runway extension indicated? Would this increase safety and reduce residential noise? What constitutes a “safety zone” There were houses in the other graphic Is there any concern that extending the runway would extend protection zone 3 into the high school? (zone 3 is the inner turning zone).
When will the ALP Drawing Set (Draft) be completed before going to the FAA for review? Can we see it before it goes for review? Runway Visibility Zone
Runway 09/27 is critical because of the local fog pattern that affects runway 20. Restricting runway 27 has decreased safety in this regard. This needs to be reversed. The FAA is wrong by viewing this through their myopic view.
C-12
Do you have any other details regarding why the FAA is not considering fog/marine layers in their calculation? WVI is very unique compared to the other airports you've shown in because of its location near the ocean.
Did I understand that there is an MOS in place that prohibits departures in the first 800 feet of 27 in the current condition? Or are ALL departures prohibited?
Just wanted to make sure I heard correctly, the red visibility zones need to be clear of hangars AND tiedowns? Just want to clarify there is not an abundance of tie downs, there is a waiting list for tie downs.
I do like the option of shortening 27 so that it doesn't intersect with 02/20. How long would that make 27 and would that free up land on the north side for new hangars/other airport uses?
Turf Runway
Have you contacted the multitude of airports around the state and country that allow these operations without having a dedicated runway? These operations occur routinely. We are really talking about big tired STOL aircraft here.
Meeting the design criteria of the FAA is so that WVI can get AIP funds. Not required if not seeking FAA funds? Nordic Naturals Land Swap
Why does the 35’ building restriction line look closer to 20 than to 9? Have you considered shifting the PLA farther north, perhaps north of the shooting range? Were there any deed restrictions established when the airport was transferred to the City? I just want to go on record that the parachute operator is requesting to be asked for input on the PLA relocation. There are other things like turbulence, obstacles, parachute landing safety etc. etc. that need to be considered. I have no reason to believe that this will not happen, and I do believe that a relocation can accomplished that is as safe and as efficient as the current location. We have proposals.
By not owning all of Zone 5, the developer is still controlled by Part 77, so why consider allowing a building so close to the approach end of Runway 9 with a land swap and moving the PLA closer to Runway 20? If the building was built in Zone 5, there are controls by Part 77.
Reid Hillview is not taking FAA funds anymore and continues to operate. Why shouldn’t WVI? Instrument Approach Procedures
The instrument approaches should be taken into consideration in reference to the PLA and Nordic Naturals land swap. Is this being considered? Often aircraft are flying according to IFR rules.
Project Next Steps
The instrument approaches should be taken into consideration in reference to the PLA and Nordic Naturals land swap. Is this being considered? Often aircraft are flying according to IFR rules.
If a sponsor of an airport mismanages an airport, can an authority such as Caltrans or FAA or the County require the sponsor to give up the airport to another entity to manage it? Or does the City “own” the airport so it can’t be taken away from it? As the Chief Pilot for Granite Construction, public/private options were rejected by airport administration.
Will the FAA accept public input after Kimley-Horn submits the master plan update? Source: Kimley-Horn
C.2.2.3 Post-meeting Survey Results
An online survey was disseminated to stakeholders via email and the Airport website two weeks prior to the meeting. The survey offered meeting attendees and those who watched the meeting recording to provide input on the airport development alternatives presented in the meeting. The survey asked stakeholder to indicate their preferred alternative for each development topic and to
C-13
provide thoughts or reasoning for their selection. The summarized results of the survey are presented in the tables below. The individual written responses in the survey were recorded and addressed by the project team, however, they are not included in this appendix. Further information on each of the following topics is presented in Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis.
Figure C-7 presents the result of the survey question regarding a potential extension of Runway 2-20. As shown, the majority of stakeholders are in favor of extending the runway by either 619 or 680 feet to the south, while only 11 percent of respondents indicated they are not in favor of an extension.
Figure C-7: Airport Stakeholder Preference – Runway 2-20 Extension Source: Survey Monkey, Kimley-Horn
Figure C-8 presents the survey results relating to the eight alternatives for solving the nonstandard RVZ at the airport. Maintaining current conditions scored as the most preferential alternative while closure of Runway 9-27 scored as the least favorable.
In Favor Not In Favor No Preference
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Response
Percent of Total Responses
C-14
Figure C-8: Airport Stakeholder Preferences - RVZ Alternatives Source: Survey Monkey, Kimley-Horn
Figure C-9 presents the results of the question asking if stakeholders would be in favor of the Airport deferring other airfield maintenance to complete an extension of Runway 9 by 255 feet if Runway 9-27 must be shortened to meet FAA RVZ Standards.
Half of the respondents indicated they are in favor of the extension, while roughly 10 percent of respondents are not in favor and 40 percent have no preference.
Figure C-9: Airport Stakeholder Preference - Airport Deferring Other Airfield Maintenance to Extend Runway 9 by 255 feet in the Event of RVZ-related Runway Shortening Source: Survey Monkey, Kimley-Horn
2 3.33
3.33 3.57
4.57 6.29
6.43 6.86
Close Runway 09-27
Construct Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
Shift Runway 09-27 west by 1,993’
Shorten Runway 09-27 to 2,005’ (No tiedown/hangar impact) Shorten Runway 09-27 to 2,140’ (No runway intersection) Relocate Impacted Infrastructure (Tiedowns & T-hangars) Shorten Runway 09-27 to 3,198’ (No hangar impact)
Maintain Current Conditions (Runway 27 not available for takeoffs)
0 2 4 6 8
RVZ Alternative
Total Score
In Favor Not In Favor No Preference
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Response
Percent of Respondants
C-15
Figure C-10 presents the preferences of stakeholders regarding the proposed land swap with Nordic Naturals to ensure a building is not constructed in Caltrans Safety Zone 5. Only 12 percent of stakeholders indicated they are in favor of completing the land swap while half of the respondents were not in favor. Approximately 35 percent of respondents have no preference.
Figure C-10: Airport Stakeholder Preference – Land Swap with Nordic Naturals Source: Survey Monkey, Kimley-Horn
C.3 Watsonville Airport Advisory Committee (WAAC)
Meetings
Planning staff and PRC members provided updates to the WAAC throughout the completion of the MPU. Planning staff participated in three WAAC meetings during completion of the MPU to provide general information about the MPU and project progress. The following bullets summarize the key points from each WAAC meeting. o The first WAAC meeting with MPU participation was held on Wednesday, July 29, 2020, prior top the kickoff of the MPU. Planning staff provided an overview of the project team, explained the MMPU process and presented the planned project schedule.
o The second WAAC meeting planning staff participated in was held on Wednesday, October 28, 2020. Planning staff provided an update on progress and summarized the contents of the draft of Chapter 1: Inventory of Existing Conditions.
o At the time of this writing, the third WAAC meeting has not been completed. Airport and planning staff plan to present the final draft of the MPU and ALP to the WAAC as an informational item. It is expected this meeting will take place in Fall 2022.
In Favor Not In Favor No Preference
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Response
Percent of Respondants
C-16
C.4 Summary
As shown, the Watsonville Municipal Airport MPU included several avenues for airport stakeholders and members of the public to provide input and guidance for the long-term development of the airport. Public input was an integral factor in the successful completion of the MPU and will continue to play a role in the future development of the Airport.
10 S. Almaden Blvd
Suite 1250
San Jose, CA 95113
669.800.4130 | www.kimley-horn.com
1 Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 102423
RESOLUTION NO. _________ (CM)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WATSONVILLE APPROVING AND ADOPTING IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL 2023 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
WHEREAS, in August 2020 the Municipal Airport commenced an effort to update the Airport Layout Plan; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Watsonville Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is to serve as a critical planning tool depicting both existing facilities and planned development for an airport; and
WHEREAS, an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is a scaled, graphical presentation of the existing and future airport facilities, their location on the airport campus, and pertinent clearance and dimensional information; and
WHEREAS, the Watsonville Municipal Airport’s 2023 ALP update is a major product of the 2023 Master Plan Update which contains information used by the FAA to program future funding assistance and to monitor the airport’s compliance with design standards and grant assurances; and
WHEREAS, the Watsonville Municipal Airport’s ALP allows the FAA to anticipate budgetary and procedural needs, and to protect the airspace required for facility or aircraft approach procedure improvements; and
WHEREAS, the up-to-date FAA-approved ALP that ensures the safety, utility, and efficiency of the Airport is required for the Airport to receive financial assistance under the terms of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AIP).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:
2 Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 102423
That the Watsonville Municipal Airport Layout Plan update, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City clerk is accurate, comprehensive and complete and is hereby approved and adopted.
******************************
AIRPORT BLVD MONUMENT AVE LONE PINE AVE MEMORIAL AVE COFFEY LN EMME ST. BURCHELL AVE AIRPORT BLVD
NORTH DR
CALABASAS RD
SOUTH DR
VALDEZ LN
BUENA VISTA DR BOWKER RD BRADFORD RD PAULINE DR
BUENA VISTA DR
BARBARA WAY
MILLER AVE
FREEDOM BLVD
MANFRE RD
LUCERNE AVE MANFRE RD
MANFRE RD
ZURICH AVE
JENNINGS WAY
AVIATION WAY
HANGAR WAY
HOLM RD
AIRPORT RD LOMA PRIETA AVE C 2022 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 ALMADEN BLVD, SUITE #1250 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 2023-07-18 RJH SNKGH DATE 312NO. 4 THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA). ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAW. 5 REVISIONS BY APPR. 21 CITY OF WATSONVILLE WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA DESIGNED APPROVED SHEET OF DRAWN CHECKED WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (WVI) DATE: JOB NO. RJH 097007027 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. CITY OF WATSONVILLE WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (WVI) WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA JULY 2023 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN LOCATION MAP WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT VICINITY MAP NORTH COVER SHEET COUNTY MAP CITY OF WATSONVILLE APPROVED DATE 1 WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENE MENDEZ, CITY MANAGER NORTH NORTH SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. TITLE DATE 1 COVER SHEET 07/18/2023 2 AIRPORT DATA SHEET 07/18/2023 3 EXISTING AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 07/18/2023 4 FUTURE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 07/18/2023 5 ULTIMATE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 07/18/2023 6 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING 07/18/2023 7 AIRPORT AIRSPACE TABLE 07/18/2023 9 INNER APPROACH SURFACE RUNWAY 20 07/18/2023 8 INNER APPROACH SURFACE RUNWAY 2 07/18/2023 10 INNER APPROACH SURFACE RUNWAY 9 07/18/2023 11 INNER APPROACH SURFACE RUNWAY 27 07/18/2023 12 INNER APPROACH SURFACE TABLE 10/3/2022 13 DEPARTURE SURFACE RUNWAY 2 07/18/2023 14 DEPARTURE SURFACE RUNWAY 20 07/18/2023 15 DEPARTURE SURFACE RUNWAY 9 07/18/2023 16 RUNWAY DEPARTURE SURFACE TABLE 07/18/2023 17 TERMINAL AREA PLAN 1 07/18/2023 18 TERMINAL AREA PLAN 2 07/18/2023 19 AIRPORT LAND USE DRAWING 07/18/2023 20 EXHIBIT A - AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP 07/18/2023 21 SENSITIVE RESOURCES IMPACT MAP 07/18/2023 FAA APPROVAL DATE: DocuSign Envelope ID: 04BC6ADB-D804-48C5-B573-7521DC616F6F 7/19/2023
CITY OF WATSONVILLE LIMITS LIMITS OF UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY OF FREEDOM
AIRPORT BLVD
AVIATION WAY
MONUMENT AVE
LONE PINE AVE MEMORIAL AVE
COFFEY LN
EMME ST.
BURCHELL AVE AIRPORT BLVD CARLENE CT
CALABASAS RD NORTH DR
SOUTH DR
VALDEZ LN
BUENA VISTA DR
BOWKER RD
BUENA VISTA DR
MILLER AVE
FREEDOM BLVD
MANFRE RD
LUCERNE
AVE
MANFRE RD
MANFRE RD
ZURICH AVE
RANPORT RD AIRPORT BLVD
LOCARNO
WAY
JENNINGS WAY
JENNINGS DR
AVIATION WAY CABRILLO HIGHWAY 1 CITY OF WATSONVILLE C 2022 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 ALMADEN BLVD, SUITE #1250 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 2023-07-18 RJH SNKGH DATE 312NO. 4 THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA). ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAW. 5 REVISIONS BY APPR. 21 CITY OF WATSONVILLE WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA DESIGNED APPROVED SHEET OF DRAWN CHECKED WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (WVI) DATE: JOB NO. RJH 097007027 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. EXHIBIT A - AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP 20 SPONSOR APPROVAL DATE: WATSONVILLE AIRPORT PROPERTY NO. PARCEL # PROPERTY AREA (ACRES) ZONING ACQUIRED FAA ACIP FAA FUNDED SHARE NOTE 1 015-221-01 100 AVIATION WAY 232.0800 CITY: PUBLIC USAGE 1948 N/A N/A AIRPORT 015-221-01 FIRING RANGE 1.3000 CITY: PUBLIC USAGE 1948 N/A N/A FIRING RANGE 015-221-01 580 AIRPORT BLVD 0.8800 CITY: PUBLIC USAGE 1948 N/A N/A ANIMAL SHELTER 2 015-221-02 200 AIRPORT BLVD 43.9250 CITY: PUBLIC USAGE 1948 N/A N/A AIRPORT NORTH 3 015-221-03 125 AVIATION WAY 2.5840 CITY: PUBLIC USAGE UNKNOWN N/A N/A COMMERCIAL DEV 4 015-221-04 790 AIRPORT BLVD 11.8000 CITY: PUBLIC USAGE 1976 ADAP 06-05-0272-05 UNKNOWN RWY 20 EXIT 5 015-151-04 195 AIRPORT BLVD 2.2140 CITY: PUBLIC USAGE 1976 ADAP 06-05-0272-05 UNKNOWN CLEAR ZONE EAST OF RWY 27 6 049-261-36 505 BUENA VISTA DR 4.9080 COUNTY: PUBLIC USAGE 1994 NONE KNOWN NONE KNOWN CLEAR ZONE WEST OF RWY 9 7 052-011-46 852 AIRPORT BLVD 10.7340 COUNTY: COASTAL ZONE 1996 03-06-272-07 $856,533.00 OLD LANDFILL/DUMP 8 018-351-04 852 AIRPORT BLVD 15.7520 $179,510.00 DRIVING RANGE 018-351-04 852 AIRPORT BLVD 1.5510 $15,490.00 FARM LAND 9 052-011-29 WEST OF 852 AIRPORT BLVD 16.2300 COUNTY: COASTAL ZONE 1996 03-06-272-07 $195,000.00 COASTAL ZONE PROPERTY 10 052-011-57 LEGEND DESCRIPTION EXISTING FUTURE CITY LIMITS NO CHANGE AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE PARCEL BOUNDARY NO CHANGE RUNWAY MARKINGS NO CHANGE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT PAVEMENT DEMOLITION NONE ON - AIRPORT HANGARS OFF - AIRPORT BUILDINGS NO CHANGE APPROACH/DEPARTURE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ) AVIGATION EASEMENT AND ACQUISITION AREA NONE NOTES: 1. BEARING AND DISTANCES REFERENCE 2013 ALP SHEET AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 24, 2013. MAGNETIC DECLINATION 12.93° E (2022) ANNUAL CHANGE 0.08° W NTRUE NORTH 12.93°' NOTES 1 ALL LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: · HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83) · VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88) · COORDINATE SYSTEM CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE - ZONE III (US FEET) DocuSign Envelope ID: 04BC6ADB-D804-48C5-B573-7521DC616F6F 7/19/2023
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 04BC6ADBD80448C5B5737521DC616F6F Status: Sent Subject: Complete with DocuSign: 230718-WVI_ALP_pg1_20.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 2 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Tish Peterson
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
401 Fayetteville St.
Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27601
[email protected]
IP Address: 134.238.198.140
Record Tracking
Status: Original
7/18/2023 5:43:08 PM
Holder: Tish Peterson
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Rene Mendez
[email protected]
City Manager
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.51.14.4
Sent: 7/18/2023 5:52:20 PM
Resent: 7/18/2023 7:08:40 PM
Viewed: 7/19/2023 12:32:42 PM
Signed: 7/19/2023 2:16:41 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Rayvon Williams
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None) Using IP Address: 174.160.85.141
Sent: 7/19/2023 2:16:43 PM
Viewed: 7/19/2023 2:20:29 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Erin Sheelen
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 7/19/2023 2:20:30 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/18/2023 5:52:20 PM
Signing Complete Security Checked 7/19/2023 2:16:41 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
From: Glynn Falcon
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: UNITED FLIGHT SERVICES OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED AIRPORT MASTER PLAN & NOTICE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IF IT IS ADOPTED.
Date: Friday, October 20, 2023 12:02:41 PM
Attachments: Letter to City re Contempt of Court v1.pdf Please find attached the October 20, 2023 letter from UFS's attorney regarding the Airport Master Plan violating the Court's Judgment of August 23, 2021.
Sincerely,
Glynn Falcon
Glynn P. Falcon
Attorney at Law
Law Office of Glynn Falcon
900 East Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100
Campbell, CA 95008
Phone: 650-400-1523
[email protected]
This confidential email may be subject to the attorney/client privilege. It, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me via return e-mail and via telephone at 650-400-1523 and permanently delete the original and any printouts thereof. Please be advised that there is a risk that a third party may gain access when sending, or receiving, electronic communications using a computer or other device, or e-mail account.
Glynn P. Falcon
ATTORNEY AT LAW
October 20, 2023
Watsonville City Council
Watsonville May o r VIA EMAIL ONLY TO AVOID DELAY
Watsonville City Manager
Watsonville City Attorney ALSO POSTED IN COMMENTS TO THE AGENDA Watsonville Airport Director
Re: Objections to October 24, 2023 Agenda Item # 11.b re: Airport Master Plan NOTICE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT if AMP Approved.
Dear City Officials:
This letter of Objection to Agenda Item # 11.b regarding the Airport Master Plan (”AMP”) is to put the City on notice that if the proposed AMP, as currently presented, is approved and adopted by the City Council, it will be in direct contempt and violation of Superior Court’s Judgment rendered by the Hon. Judge Volkmann against the City in the litigation of United Flight Services (“UFS”) versus Rayvon Williams and the City of Watsonville.
Should theAMP be approved as presentlyconstituted, UFS will immediatelybringContempt of Court proceeding against both Mr. Williams and the City of Watsonville for knowingly and intentionally attempting to violate the Court’s Order and Judgment.
Mr. Williams has been very active, vocal, and contemptuous in attempting to utilize his personal friendship with the FAA’s ADO Director Suttmeier to misrepresent federal airport funding being threatened as a result of the Court’s finding in favor of UFS for both an Express and Implied Easement to the litigated access ramp at the rear of UFS’s leasehold. He has openly stated his intent to violate the Judgment (see attached letter from Williams to Suttmeier dated November 7, 2022) wherein Williams states: “Thank you for your July 22, 2022 letter responding to our proposal to halt vehicles traversing the transient ramp, as a shortcut to United Flight Services (UFS).” Mr. Williams continues with his contemptuous statements by stating (he uses the royal “we” instead of admitting it is only Mr. Williams and no one else on this planet):
“We
1 continue to believe United Flight Services’ continued use of the transient ramp is a safety issue that cannot and should not be ignored regardless of the Superior Court’s decision, which we believe does not consider the grant assurance requirements.” 2
Mr. Williams ignores the express findings by the Court that there was no safety issue by UFS 1 Mr. Williams repeatedly uses the royal “we” when it actually should be “I”, as it is only Mr. Williams that is included within the word “we”.
2 See attached 11/7/22 letter
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 900 E. Hamilton Ave., Ste. 100
Campbell, California 95008
[email protected] Phones: (650) 400-1523 (831) 251-5151
using its transient access ramp, as this was only existed in Mr. Williams’ mind, and never corroborated by anyone else at the airport over the decades of its historical usage. In the two years since entryof the Judgment, and contraryto Mr. Williams’ assertions, there has been no traffic safety issues by UFS using that litigated access ramp.
We have found Mr. Williams to be very vindictive and retaliatoryto anyone that opposes Mr.
Williams views or ideas, and this is especially true as to his attempts to violate the Superior Court Judgment that UFS fought so hard to achieve, and which Williams’ unwarranted and needless barricading of the access ramp, ultimatelycost the Airport over $800,000 in litigation expenses. This money was taken from the Airport Enterprise Fund - - - a fund mostly derived from the rents from airport tenants, and it is money that was needed, but now lost, for both FAA funded and unfunded airport improvements and much needed new airport hangars.
As the City will discern from Mr. Williams’ proposed Project 11 (at 3.2.2) and at Agenda Packet page 687, Mr. Williams has relocated the Compass Rose (therebyremoving a dozen revenueproducing, aircraft tie-downs) in order to facilitate his proposed violation of the Court’s Judgment, and the breach of UFS’s leasehold. His current “alternate” plan was presented to the Court during the trial, and rejected. It would cause UFS’s motor vehicle traffic to travel into the most heavily used taxilane/taxiway at the Airport, which Mr. Williams knows to create a severely dangerous potential for a catastrophic accident between aircraft and motor vehicles, for which the City would be liable.
It would also be spending public funds for what will be basically a private use taxilane onto UFS’s leasehold. It will create confusion to transient aircraft who may mistakenly think the Compass Rose extension leads to Taxiway Alpha or to runway 2-20. The extension will just deadend at the UFS property. Aircraft arriving at the dead-end taxilane will then have great difficulty in turning around to go back - - - with severe prop wash damage to UFS parked aircraft and endangering UFS customers and employees. It will also result in the loss of revenue producing aircraft tie-down spaces for UFS and its customer’s aircraft. Mr. Williams is the sole proponent of this, not for safety, but for retaliation. He even admits that in his recent email to his FAA friend, Ms Suttmeier on March 9, 2023 as he states: “. . . (3) the relocation [of the compass rose] supports the pending taxilane construction providing an alternative to vehicles traversing the transient ramp.” 3 We also object to the AMP process, as the AMP has been kept under wraps by the Airport Director, without time for public comment and review. It was never submitted to the WAAC or any of the airport interest groups. The proposed AMP was first revealed by Mr. Williams onlyTODAY, October 20, 2023 as the part of the 1080 page City Council Agenda Packet! Since the AMP outlines plans for the Airport for the next 10 to 20 years, the public, and especially the airport users, should be given sufficient and adequate additional time to meet, confer, and comment on the proposed AMP BEFORE the Council is asked to approve it. 4 days is not adequate or sufficient time for consideration of such an important document.
CONCLUSION
3 See attached email from Williams to Suttmeier date March 9, 2023. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 900 E. Hamilton Ave., Ste. 100
Campbell, California 95008
[email protected] Phones: (650) 400-1523 (831) 251-5151
If the proposed AMP is approved without redaction of Project 11, then please be advised that UFS will immediately file contempt charges against the City and the Airport Director along with a new legal action for breach of its Lease.
If the council has any doubt about Mr. Williams’ motives in this matter, it should consider the admissions against interests and acknowledgments made by Mr. Williams in his attached April 5, 2022 email to the FAA4
. He admits there is no threat created by the UFS Judgment to federal funding in the Grant Assurances (“Airport management consulted with City Management and our Legal counsel. As a result it's the sponsor's perspective that [the royal] we find nothing in the trial record that raises the issue of the airport property being subject to FAA grant assurances, . . .”) He admits contempt for the trial judge (“. . .which [again using the royal] we find an absolute failure of the judge to comprehend.”)
Mr. Williams admits that the FAA does not support his plan (“Using that same logic and knowing full well the FAA would not support us (in fact they sent a letter saying so) then why even try to appeal.”),
Finally, Mr. Williams admits that the Judgment is binding upon him and the City (“Because the decision was not appealed, the City is bound by the judgment.”) UFS hopes that the Council will take heed of this Notice of Contempt of Court if it proceeds to approve the AMP as currently presented. UFS requests instead, that the City delay taking any on the AMP until the Airport Master Plan can be fully reviewed, discussed and commented upon by the interested public.
Best regards,
Glynn P. Falcon
Attorney for Monterey Bay Aviation, Inc., dba Untied Flight Services Attachments in chronological order:
1. April 5, 2022 email from Williams to FAA
2. May 9, 2022 email from Williams to FAA (ref: item #5)
3. November 7, 2022 letter from Williams to FAA Suttmeier.
4. March 9, 2023 email from Williams to FAA.
Also attached for ease of reference is the Superior Court Judgment. 4 It appears Mr. Williams has been planning this retaliation against UFS for quite some time. See his attached email to the FAA dated April 5, 2022. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 900 E. Hamilton Ave., Ste. 100
Campbell, California 95008
[email protected] Phones: (650) 400-1523 (831) 251-5151
From: Rayvon Williams
To: Richards, Thomas E (FAA); Bob Zimmerer
Cc: Tamara Vides; Samantha Zutler
Bcc: Messinger, Robert F.; Sam Rosas; Alexandra Aguado; Brenda Prado Castillo Subject: Re: WVI - Receiving a federal grant
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:31:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Tom/Bob...sorry for the tardy response; appreciate your patience here.
Airport management consulted with City Management and our Legal counsel. As a result it's the sponsor's perspective that we find nothing in the trial record that raises the issue of the airport property being subject to FAA grant assurances, which we find an absolute failure of the judge to comprehend.
The relevant portion of the judge’s decision from page 9, commencing at line 8, is as follows:
“The Plaintiff is, additionally, entitled to an Implied Easement founded upon all issues described, above. The Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff regarding these issues. As a result, this Court declares that the Plaintiff possesses a valid, existing easement to go to and from the transient ramp, for both air and ground vehicles, through the "barricaded area." The usage of this easement will be consistent with the historical use of the subject area from a scope, time, purpose, and location perspective. Historical use is defined by the manner in which this area was used over the past fifty-plus years, including the time during and since the expansion of the Plaintiff's building.” (Emphasis added.)
Last July, when asked by the attorneys representing the airport, if we wanted to appeal, my response was "Based on what?" Our primary argument for this action was documented written guidance from the ADO stating we were in the right. Using that same logic and knowing full well the FAA would not support us (in fact they sent a letter saying so) then why even try to appeal.
Because the decision was not appealed, the City is bound by the judgment. Please advise.
Rayvon Williams, C.M., C.A.E.
Municipal Airport Director
(831) 768-3574
www.watsonvilleairport.com
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:32 PM Richards, Thomas E (FAA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Rayvon,
Before we can send you any letter, your legal team needs to send us their legal opinion.
Then we’d have something to comment on.
Tom Richards, Civil Engineer/Program Manager
San Francisco Airport District Office (SFO-ADO)Q
1000 Marina Boulevard
Brisbane, CA 94005
(405) 666-1072
www.faa.gov/airports/western_pacific/
Our Vision is advancing the safest, most efficient airport system in the world NOTICE: THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY, PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS E-MAIL (ALONG WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS), AND DESTROY ANY PRINTOUTS.
(831) 768-3574
www.watsonvilleairport.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rayvon Williams <[email protected]> Date: Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:11 AM
Subject: UPDATE: FAA ADO and Watsonville Muni checkpoint call To: Laurie Suttmeier, District Mgr <[email protected]>, Bob Zimmerer <[email protected]>
Cc: Pam Keidel-Adams <[email protected]>, Heaton, Patrick <[email protected]>, Hamilton Bob <bob.hamilton@kimleyhorn.com>, Beau Kayser <[email protected]>, Alexandra Aguado <[email protected]>
Laurie and Bob....it's been three weeks since our call recapping a number of outstanding actions and agreeing to next steps. Here's an update and a few follow-up questions:
1,2 - WVI Master Plan update/highlights is tracking towards completion. WVI forecast has been OK'ed and we are sharing the Alternatives Chapter with the Project Review Committee (Users and members of Advisory Council) next month. Our current plan is no formal City Council adoption of the MPU until CEQA is completed, which may be in 2023. Next steps: WVI and K-H continue the update.
3 - Proposed Land Swap/PLA relocation via a FAA Land Release. ADO requested the airport provide a detailed review of the proposal's Pro and Cons. Airport will provide this Pro/Con document by the end of May. Again we understand once the ADO has this information, and in consideration of the work completed to date on the Master Plan, an approval to move forward with the formal process, or not, will be recommended. Next steps: WVI creates Pros/Cons document for ADO review and subsequent determination. 4 - City Public Works Water Tank - Section 163. WVI Airport management believes Section 163 applies to the Airport bringing a second Water Tank to the
field and submitted a Section 163 request in September of 2021. Next Steps: ADO to comment on September 2021 Section 163 submission and provide response/determination.
5 - United Flight Services "implied easement" was discussed during the recent April 27th Watsonville Airport Advisory Committee meeting. Airport has committed to submitting a proposed solution to the ADO in which the City (Sponsor) can provide United Flight Services access and address the Grant Assurance compliance. Next steps: WVI creates proposal for ADO review and comment.
6 - FAA ADO Manager to address the Watsonville Airport Advisory Committee (WAAC). Done.
Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions to speed progress on any of the above.
Rayvon Williams, C.M., C.A.E.
Municipal Airport Director
(831) 768-3574
www.watsonvilleairport.com
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:34 PM Rayvon Williams
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon Laurie and Bob.....and again thanks for the time last Thursday. We believe our discussion was certainly fruitful and goes a long way in bringing everyone up to speed on multiple topics and closer to being on the same page.
To that end, as promised I want to recap the key points in order to set expectations for a proposed set of follow-up actions.
WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
100 AVIATION WAY WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076
November 7, 2022
Ms. Laurie Suttmeier, District Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
San Francisco Airport District Office
1000 Marina Blvd, Ste 115. Brisbane, CA 94005-1863.
Subj: Follow-up to your July 22, 2022 letter regarding United Flight Services Dear Ms. Suttmeier:
Thank you for your July 22, 2022 letter responding to our proposal to halt vehicles traversing the transient ramp, as a shortcut to United Flight Services (UFS).
As requested in your letter, and discussed during your August 18, 2022 visit, the Municipal Airport reminds you that as far back as July 2021 we did confer with Legal Counsel regarding appeal.
We concluded an appeal would likely fail as a key component of such an appeal would require Federal Aviation Administration testimony. Given previous requests for FAA testimony were not forthcoming the City determined an appeal action would not be successful.
However, there are a number of points we can report that do support our proposed 2,450-foot taxi lane as a viable solution; a solution that would remove the jeopardization of losing federal financial support due to non-compliance.
First the airport has Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding available to support the construction of a taxi lane from the existing Compass Rose to the United Flight Services ground lease. Secondly the current Compass Rose facility is in fact calibrated (see attached certification) and is slated for relocation and certification on the upcoming Airport Layout Plan (ALP) update. And finally, the airport has recently submitted an ACIP pre-application for vehicle access security gate which includes a Driver Training Program for all tenants (see attached).
We continue to believe United Flight Services’ continued use of the transient ramp is a safety issue that cannot and should not be ignored regardless of the Superior Court’s decision, which we believe does not consider the grant assurance requirements.
We would appreciate an update of your commitment to investigate how Watsonville Municipal, as a result of United Flight Services continued non-compliance, is nearing being listed on the Airport Non-Compliance list. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Rayvon Williams
Director, Watsonville Municipal Airport
Cc: Rene Mendez, Watsonville City Manager
Attachments: 2018 Compass Rose certification
2022 WVI Drivers Training Module
Our Vision is advancing the safest, most efficient airport system in the world NOTICE: THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY, PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS E-MAIL (ALONG WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS), AND DESTROY ANY PRINTOUTS.
From: Rayvon Williams <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Richards, Thomas E (FAA) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: WVI-020 PMMP closeout
Sure thing Tom, but a question for you.
We recently contracted with a company to relocate/remark our compass rose. The relocation/remark effort included an assessment of the pavement for magnetic cleanliness, removal of 25 anchor tie-downs and replacing with non-ferrous anchors, plus marking.
Given this is a pavement exercise could we use the remaining $9750 to cover this effort? The total cost is $8.950.
This would be money well spent as: (1) it's a pavement related effort, (2) our current compass rose is due for re-certification this year and (3) the relocation supports the pending taxilane construction providing an alternative to vehicles traversing the transient ramp.
We hope the San Francisco ADO will look favorably upon this request.
Rayvon Williams, C.M., C.A.E.
Municipal Airport Director
(831) 768-3574
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
GLYNN FALCON (61078)
900 East Hamilton Ave., Suite 100
Campbell, CA 95008
mail: PO Box 2470, Aptos CA 95001
(650) 400-1523
Attorney for Plaintiff, Monterey Bay Aviation, Inc. (“MBA”) and dba United Flight Services (“UFS”).
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
MONTEREY BAY AVIATION, INC.,
dba UNITED FLIGHT SERVICES
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF WATSONVILLE,
dba WATSONVILLE AIRPORT,
RAYVON WILLIAMS, as the Director
of Airports for the City of Watsonville.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 19CV03692
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT
TRIAL
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL
This Proposed Judgment was provided to all counsel and interested parties pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1590. This Court extends its' appreciation to the parties and counsel for their cooperation, courtesy and professionalism in presenting this trial.
This Court Trial began on April 12, 2021 and was concluded on April 26, 2021. The Plaintiff was represented by Glynn Falcon. The Defendants were represented by Alan J. Smith and Dinah Sapia. After discussion and rulings concerning in limine motions, both sides offered Opening Statements. Evidence was presented through the testimony of several witnesses and the admission hundreds of -1-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED
8/23/2021 8:00 AM
DS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
pages of exhibits. Closing arguments were given on behalf of both sides and the Court took this matter under submission, with the understanding that the Statement of Decision would be provided, by June 1, 2021.
However, post-trial pleadings were filed by both sides which necessitated additional hearings. Those occurred on June 3rd and June 17, 2021. On June 17th, the Court took under submission the issue of the plaintiff's request to strike Causes of Action Two and Three from its' Complaint, which was opposed by the Defendants.
The Court submitted the Statement of Decision, on July 2, 2021.
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3. l 590(g), objectionsto the Statement of Decision were provided to the Court from each side, on July 12, 2021. This Court advised counsel of its' review of those concerns and is providing the Proposed Judgment, on August 10, 2021.
This Court has reviewed all pleadings and exhibits, in addition to the witness testimony and the arguments of counsel has reviewed the applicable statutory language and case law, and includes that review within this Proposed Judgment.
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff Monterey Bay Aviation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as MBA) is a business providing, a myriad of services, including aircraft maintenance and repair.
It has been functioning at its' present location, since 1966. From 1966 to July 18, 2019, MBA had continuous daily access to and from the leasehold property by utilizing the existing property (described by various witnesses as a road, a ramp, an access point, an access ramp) which is at the edge of the leasehold property. It was asserted that this access area allowed for aircraft; autos and trucks to enter, or leave the Plaintiff's property. The Court will describe the subject area as the "barricaded area" from this point, forward.
In 2006, negotiations occurred between the partiesto allow the replacement of the Plaintiff's old building with a new structure, increasing the size of the building from approximately 1000 square feet, to 14,000 square feet. This was a massive -2-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
undertaking that took years to complete. On June 24, 2009, the parties agreed to a twenty-year lease for the subject property upon which the new facility would be constructed (Exhibit 4). In February 2014, a twenty-four year First Amended lease was agreed upon (Exhibit 6). On October 15, 2014, the parties committed to a Second Amended lease (Exhibit 17).
On July 18, 2019, the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as "City") caused a permanent barrier to be created, using chains and water filled barricades across the access way/ramp, outlined above. The Plaintiff filed the subject action contending that this action is legally improper and is seeking a judicial declaration as to alleged easement rights. The asserted claim for a finding of a Prescriptive Easement was previously dismissed by the Plaintiff. In closing argument, the Plaintiff requested the Court to find that an express or implied easement existsfor the use of the accessramp (barricaded area) to and from the transient parking apron for aircraft and ground vehicles. On April 28, 2021, the plaintiff attempted to amend its' Complaint by dismissing/striking the requestfor Injunctive Relief. This attempt was opposed by the Defendants. The Court took this issue under submission.
The Defendants contend that their actions were appropriate, properly account for safety concerns at the Watsonville Airport, that the subject leases do not provide for an express easement, that there is no legal basis for an implied easement, that no_ injunction is legally appropriate, and that the Plaintiff should receive no requested relief.
EVIDENCE:
This Court was impressed with the testimony of Terry McKenna. He has decades of experience at the subject site and offered a description of the challenges presented with the construction of a new facility. The original building was tom down, in 2009. Contaminated soil was discovered. This caused a significant delay to the project. MBA worked out of a trailer, with the City's acquiescence for eight years.
Construction began in the month of December, 2015, and occupancy of the new, -3-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
much larger structure took place in October, 2017. Itshould be noted that, throughout the entire time that MBA was using the subject property, they (and their customers) used the subject access area ("barricaded area").
More specifically, the Plaintiff used the barricaded area throughout the eightyear period, without any concern raised by anyone, including any representative of the City. Mr. McKenna testified that Defendant Rayvon Williams (hereinafter referred to as Williams) became the Airport Manager (according toRayvonWilliams, this occurred in November 2011), that his company used the subject ramp during the entire period to occupancy, and no concern was raised by Mr. Williams.
The barricades were constructed in July 2019. Mr. McKenna testified that Williams stated an insurance representative voiced concerns which led to their placement. He, further, testified that the placement of the barricadesseverely impacts his business, and requires his employees to operate vehicles on a taxiway which, in his opinion, is extremely unsafe.
Various witnesses were called, as part of the Plaintiff's case, to describe aerial photos of the airport, the progress made on the MBA new building construction, and the asserted adverse impacts and/or inconveniences caused to their businesses as a result of the barricade placement. Expert testimony was offered to the respect that safety is reduced when vehicles are required to operate on a taxiway, rather than in a more stagnant environment (such as the transient ramps).
From the defense perspective, Mr. Williams testified. This Court found Mr.
Williams to be an individual who was sincerely concerned about airport safety. Mr.
Williams possesses vast experience in aviation and as to the operation of the Watsonville Airport. It was clear that he takes his responsibility for Airport safety seriously (a duty outlined in the September 1, 2015 AdvisoryCircular 150/5210-20A, Exhibit 24). However, after the receipt of all the witness testimony from numerous individuals, it appeared that Mr. Williams was the ONLY person who possessed a concern over the safety of the continued usage of the barricaded area before the -4-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
barricades were placed. It appears no one ever came forward offering a worry over the vehicles going in and out of that area, no other users of the Airport property raised a complaint, no FAA representative issued a directive, no other government official voiced a problem with the access ramp, nor were there concerns raised by local law enforcement. Expert witness Damon Brandley had prior familiarity with the airport, its' layout and its' usage and never described a concern, until after the barricades were up, a lawsuit was filed, and he was retained to testify. It is noted that Mr. Brandley wrote a letter to Defendant Williams stating that vehicles on a taxiway presented a "serious safety hazard." (Exhibit 147)
Testimony as to previous accidents was minor and not persuasive. There was no testimony as to an "insurance" issue regarding continuing to allow the Plaintiff to use the access ramp/"barricaded area". There was no testimony from an active FAA representative confirming the need for a change. This Court finds persuasive the testimony that driving through a Transient Ramp (basically, a parking lot for planes) was safer than forcing folks to drive on an active taxiway.
The expansion project, described above, was monitored every step of the way by the Defendant City. Site plans were submitted, design reviews took place, all proper permits were sought and, eventually, secured. The Lease Agreements, themselves, were amended on numerous occasions. If one went back, as far as June 17, 2009, to the City Staff report regarding this project (Exhibit 2), the City was advised this project would "greatly improve the functionality of the site ... " That report describes rental receipts to the City in excess of one-half a million dollars, ''with little or no risk to the City ... " FAA requirements are referenced, along with a finding of "positive financial impacts to the City." Clearly, all parties recognized that an increase of this type would increase business (and resultant traffic) at the Plaintiff's business site. Nothing regarding a restriction of access was discussed, let alone included in any Lease.
Within the lease Agreements, both parties acknowledged that the Plaintiff -5-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
would "efficiently continue to operate ... " (paragraph 7). Continuing with that paragraph, the Plaintiff (Tenant) had a right of access to " ... landing area, apron, taxiways, ... and common use facilities ... " Those rights included the right to ''tow" aircraft. There were no excluded areas within this agreement, which was prepared by the City.
As part of this Agreement, The Plaintiff agreed to fully indemnify the City (paragraph 29), agreed to obtain a three million dollar insurance policy (paragraph 33), confirmed that all improvements would be the property of the City (paragraph 15), and that the Plaintiff's lease obligations would be personally guaranteed (paragraph 70).
Through the Second Amended Lease, of October 15, 2014, the City would own the improvements (paragraph 14), a personal guaranty was provided (paragraph 66), the Plaintiff promised to indemnify the City, including ''without limiting the generality of the foregoing ... driveways, parking areas . . . " (paragraph 28), the City had a right to inspect "at all reasonable times" (paragraph 41), and the Plaintiff confirmed it would follow all rules, regulations and laws (paragraph 18). No specific mention, nor concern was offered as to what evolved into the barricaded area.
The City argues that Paragraph 55, "Entire Agreement," possesses particular significance. However, this Agreement also referencesthe Plaintiffs' rights of access (paragraph 7(c) - - "Tenant has the right of access to and use of facilities at the Airport designed for common use, such as landing area, aprons, taxiways . . . " This paragraph also allows the Plaintiff the right to ''tow" aircraft. No restriction is described asto thisright and there is no reference to what became the barricaded area.
As a result, a reasonable conclusion is that the subject property and the rather massive improvements to that property were carefully evaluated by the City, throughout the decade prior to the placement of barricades, without a single concern raised asto issues of safety pertaining to the barricaded area. Such a conclusion may, also, properly consider the fact that the Plaintiffs' business operated with the usage -6-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
of the barricaded area as an access point, for over forty years, prior to that. At any point, if the usage of this barricaded area was a safety concern, that issue could have been raised.
Again, thisCourtfound Mr. Williamsto be acting in good faith when it appears that he was looking out his window, saw traffic in the subject area, and decided to stop it. However, the alleged bases for this decision are not persuasive.
DECISION:
Which leads us to what can be done about this? Initially, the Plaintiff was pursuing easement claims under express, implied and prescriptive theories.All parties acknowledge that a prescriptive easement is not allowable per California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1007. So, this Court is required to evaluate if an express or implied easement exists. This Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied his burden of proof as to each claim.
As to an Express Easement, the Defendants focus upon several paragraphs within the Second Amended Lease. They assert that Paragraph 48 "Reservation of Rights" allowsthem to control the activities of the Plaintiff. However, it appears that this provision pertains to issues of maintenance and repair, not a global ability to control. Defendants cite Paragraph 54 relating to the Integration Clause and refer to Paragraph 11 as to the Plaintiff's easement rights. Paragraph 11 does not specifically define the easements granted to the Plaintiff and Paragraph 54 is not persuasive as to the attempt to constrain the Plaintiff's easement rights. Defendants, also, contend Paragraph 7©supportstheir" position. However, the language used is "shall include." This Paragraph does not exclude the usage of the "barricaded area." Based upon the language within the Second Amended Lease, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied its' burden of proof regarding the existence of an Express Easement.
As to an Implied Easement, an easement is implied when, " . . . 1) the owner of property conveys or transfers a portion of that property to another, 2) the owner's prior existing use of the property was of a nature that the parties must have intended -7-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
that the use would continue, meaning that the existing use must either have been known to the grantor and the grantee, or have been so obviously and apparently permanent that the parties should have known the use, and 3) the easement is reasonably necessary to the use and enjoyment of the quasi-dominant tenement." An easement by implication will not be found absent clear evidence that it was intended by the parties. The law does not favor the implication of easements. (Thorstrom v.
Thorstrom (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1406, 1420).
A lease may be considered a conveyance of property which can include all implied easements that are reasonably necessary to the beneficial usage and enjoyment of the leased property. (Dubin v. RobertNewhallChesebrough (2002) (96 Cal. App. 4th 465, 473). A review of all evidence confirms that the barricaded area was used by the Plaintiff for decades. The Defendant describes the usage of this are during the building expansion as a "temporary license." This argument fails to account for the usage of this area, since 1966.
This usage was obvious and apparent, as is outlined, above. Lastly, it is clear from the proffered evidence that the beneficial use and enjoyment of the leased propertywould be adversely affected, to significant degree, by the continuation of the barricaded area. The evidence, also, confirms that the Def end ants' concerns over safety are not persuasive to this analysis. The Defendants contend that the available options to the Plaintiff, as to the use of another path to access its' business property, is appropriate and not unduly burdensome. The evidence supports the position of the Plaintiff.
While the finding of such an easement is disfavored, this particular set of circumstances (usage for decades, no significant safety issues, in fact, the evidence that such a change may increase the hazards), no complaints as to Plaintiff's usage of the area, expansion of the subject building with no discussion as to the barricading, or constraining of any existing usage, and the absence of any exclusion of the usage of the subject area in any of the Lease Agreements), supports a finding for the -8-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Plaintiff.
In conclusion, Paragraph 7(c) of the Second Amended Lease is broad, not exclusive, and certainly does not restrict the ability of the Plaintiff to use common areas, which would include the transient parking ramps and what became the barricaded area. The support for Plaintiff's position as to an Express Easement is within the subject Lease, particularly noting that the use was known to all, through the creation, and Amendments, to all Leases.
The Plaintiff is, additionally, entitled to an Implied Easement founded upon all issues described, above. The Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff regarding these issues. As a result, this Court declares that the Plaintiff possesses a valid, existing easement to go to and from the transient ramp, for both air and ground vehicles, through the "barricaded area." The usage of this easement will be consistent with the historical use of the subject area from a scope, time, purpose, and location perspective. Historical use is defined by the manner in which this area was used over the past fifty-plus years, including the time during and since the expansion of the Plaintiff's building. The barricades shall be removed, upon Entry of Judgment in this matter. The Court finds for the Plaintiff on Cause of Action One.
As for Injunctive Relief, the Plaintiff wishes to Remove/Strike Causes of Action Two and Three. After reviewing the filed pleadings on this issue, and receiving oral argument from counsel on June 17, 2021, the Court took this issue under submission. Specifically, counsel for the Plaintiff requested that the Court read the opinion in Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (2010) (181 Cal. App. 4th 471). This Court finds that granting the Injunctive Relief claim would ''be unnecessarily burdensome for the trial court to monitor and enforce given the availability of more effective means of redress." (Id, at page 496). In light of the Arce opinion, the Court declinesto grant the injunctive relief. Asfor the post-trial motions to Strike and/or Amend, those are denied pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 473, and Witkin, 5 Cal. Procedure, "Pleading", Section 1209. -9-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Continuing with the post-trial issues, the Defendants argue that potential prejudice arises, if the Plaintiff is successful on the only claim remaining in the case (i.e., easements), when a determination is made as to attorney's fees. The Court respectfully disagrees. Both sides will be able to thoroughly brief the issue of any post-Judgment claims for costs or fees. Both sides reserve the right to award, tax, strike, or reduce any such claimsfounded upon the chronology of thislitigation. This Court finds no prejudice in that regard.
Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff as to Count One. This Proposed Judgment is submitted acknowledging the Parties' rights pursuant to California Rules of Court
3.1590(j) and (k).
The Court thanks all counsel and parties for their continued courtesy and professionalism.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August____, 2021 ___________________________
TIMOTHY R. VOLKMANN
Judge of the Superior Court
-10-
JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL MBA vs. City of Watsonville, et al. 19CV03692
October 24, 2023
Watsonville City Council Meeting
Presented by Municipal Airport Management and
Watsonville Municipal Airport
Master Plan Update Presentation
1 Page 1116 of 1168
• Previous Airport Planning Efforts • Master Plan Background, Purpose, & Process • Master Plan Analysis • Recommended Development Plan Options: Reconfiguring the Municipal Airport • Crosswind Runway Threshold Relocation by 870 ft • Crosswind Runway Threshold Relocation by approx. 1590 • Deactivate Crosswind Runway 9-27 • Deactivation of Watsonville Municipal Airport Agenda:
2 Previous Airport Planning Efforts
• 2003: Previous Airport Master Plan completed
• 2008: Airport Layout Plan (ALP) update
• 2013: ALP update
• 2014-2020: Minor ALP updates to add specific projects • February 2018 : FAA identifies Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) issues • March 2018: Airport submits Modification to Standards for RVZ - denied by FAA • December 2019: Airport applies for Master Plan and Layout update grant • August 2020: WVI receives FAA AIP grant and initiates master plan and ALP update o January 2022: Activity Forecasts approved by FAA
o June 2022: Recommended Development Plan (RDP) finalized o August 2023: Master Plan and ALP approved by FAA
o September 2023: CEQA Document for Master Plan update completed
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires specific documentation for airports to receive federal funding:
•Approved five- and ten-year aviation Activity Forecasts – aircraft operations and based aircraft
•Signed Airport Layout Plan (ALP) – graphical depiction of existing facilities on the Airport and the future development plans o Projects must be shown on ALP to receive funding
Airport Master Plan includes the development of both required items but is not required to update either.
What is Required as a Federally-Obligated Airport?
• Long-term guide that supports the airport’s development strategy (20-year horizon)
• Document belongs to City but must follow FAA guidance and regulations • Identify and justify projects for FAA funding and environmental approval • Present snapshot of current airport operations and activity and establish assumptions of near-term developments
• Focused on on-airport development
• Not a final solution – must be updated regularly
• Not an analysis of airport business operations
• Separate from the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Purpose of a Master Plan Update (MPU)
Public Input Opportunities
Project Review Committee (PRC)
•Represent stakeholder constituency, review technical
documentation, & distribute information to constituency ● January 2021 ● May 2021 ● November 2021 ● June 2022
Public Workshops (3 Meetings)
•Provide members of the public the ability to learn about and discuss MPU development alternatives
● August 2021 ● November 2021 ● December 2022
City Council Meeting (Open to Public)
PRC Members:
•Scott Randolph, Experimental Aircraft
Association Chapter 119
•Marjorie Bachman, Monterey Bay NinetyNines Chapter
•Joe Shelton, Airport Influence Area
Resident
•Justin Meeks, City of Watsonville
Watsonville Airport Advisory Committee (WAAC)
•Periodic updates at quarterly meetings
Master Plan Analysis
Master Plan Process
8 *FAA approval required
FAA Coordination
Runway 02-20: B-II
Beech King Air 350
9 Runway 09-27: B-I Small
Cessna C340
Year Operations Based Aircraft
2020 50,500 280
2021 55,000 282
2025 61,000 291
2030 69,400 303
2035 79,000 315
2040 89,900 327
Approved Forecast
Alternatives Analysis Process
•Develop Potential Solutions
•Evaluate All Potential Alternatives
•Select Preferred Alternatives
•Compile a Single Recommended
Development Plan
10 Some alternatives were unpopular but
were needed to complete this exercise to find the
best overall development plan!
Evaluation Criteria
• Satisfy Forecasted Demand
• Meet FAA Design Standards
• Minimize on-Airport Impacts
• Cost
• Flexibility
• Environmental Considerations
• Airport & Runway Closure
• Crosswind Runway Threshold
Relocation
• Airfield Demand & Capacity
• FAA Design Standards
• Runway Analysis
oLength, Width, Strength, Orientation
oRunway Visibility Zone
oSafety/Protection Zones
• Taxiway System
oRunway Access
oSeparations
• Navigational Aids,
and Airport Lighting
• Airspace
• Instrument Approaches
• Aviation Fuel (including Unleaded)
• Aircraft Storage
• GA Terminal
• Security
• Access & Parking
• Wash Racks
• Utilities
• Parachute Landing Area
• Grass/Turf Strip
Topics Analyzed
11 Page 1126 of 1168
Example of Ripple Effect of Design Choices
12 Design
Choice
Made Expands
Width of
X
Creates
Benefit at
Location
A
Shifts
Y east
Detriment
to B
Recommended Development Plan
List of Projects
Number Individual Projects of the Recommended Development Plan Runways
1 Extend Runway 2-20 by 680 feet to achieve full length of 5,181 feet* 2 Acquire fee-simple property or avigation and land use easement for RPZs to Runway 2-20 and Runway 9-27 3 Relocate Runway 27 threshold 870 feet west to meet Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) standards 3A Extend Runway 9-27 255 feet west
Taxiways
4 Reconfigure Taxiway A to meet ADG-II taxiway separation to fixed or moveable object standards 5 Widen existing paved shoulders on Taxiway C to meet ADG-II design standards if continuing to provide paved shoulders
6 Reconfigure Taxiways A and C to address non-standard runway intersection angles and acute-angle runway entrance taxiways
7 Reconfigure Taxiway A to modify wide expanse of pavement at Runway 20 entrance 8 Reconfigure Taxiways B, C, and D to eliminate taxiways with direct access from apron to runways 9 Reconfigure apron and hangar area taxilanes to meet TDG-2 and ADG-II design and separation standards 10 Reconfigure apron for Specialized Helicopters**
11 Install traffic pattern indicators around segmented circle** 12 Update designations of Taxiways B, D, and E; and runway entrance Taxiways A and C 25 Construction new taxilane to existing hangar development Parachute Landing Area (PLA)
13 Continue to coordinate with Nordic Naturals on land swap agreement 14 Coordinate relocation of PLA while maintaining USPA standards (assumes land swap takes place) Order is NOT based on priority of project
List of Projects (continued)
Number Individual Projects of the Recommended Development Plan Airspace
15 Remove on-airport FAR Part 77 obstacles and coordinate with adjacent property owners to remove or mitigate obstacles to the approach and transitional surfaces
16 Coordinate with adjacent property owners to remove obstacles from the Runway 20 Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) in order to remove 590-foot displaced threshold
General Aviation Facilities
17 Expand GA Terminal Building (built in 1974) to meet Airport and users’ needs 18 Develop aircraft storage, including hangars as demand arises and financial conditions allow Security
19 Enhance restricted vehicle and pedestrian access gates** Support Facilities
20 Construct Maintenance Equipment Storage (MES) building based on guidance from ACRP Report 113 21 Construct aircraft wash rack based on guidance from ACRP Report 113 22 Improve airfield drainage based on findings of 2010 WVI Drainage and Utilities Master Plan 23 Install aboveground fuel facilities to replace underground tanks 24 Install aboveground water reservoir**
26 Relocate Compass Rose*
27 Vehicle Service Road (VSR) Extension
28 Future Tarplant Outplanting Location
* Improvement recommended to be completed outside 20-year planning period ** Improvement currently in progress and scheduled to be completed withing 12-24 months Order is NOT based on priority of project
Term
Estimated Total
Project Cost FAA Grant State Grant State Loan Airport Share Short Term $3,229,650 $2,906,685 $113,609 $0 $209,356
Medium Term $24,781,223 $15,940,652 $1,809,832 $2,526,791 $4,503,947 Long Term $135,877,934 $88,191,391 $4,409,570 $18,943,750 $24,333,224 Total 20-year Program $ 163,888,807 $ 107,038,728 $ 6,333,011 $ 21,740,541 $ 29,046,527 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP)
FAA approves Municipal Airport Master
and Layout Plan updates but denies future
funding for Crosswind Runway 9-27
FAA’s Determination regarding Runway 9-27
❑ Master Plan update completed assuming Crosswind Runway would be AIP eligible ❑ Runway 9-27 FAA AIP eligibility is crucial to address Runway Visibility Zone ❑ FAA determined Runway 9-27 is not eligible for future AIP funding in July 2023 ❑ FAA’s Determination presents CHALLENGES and OPPORTUNITIES
Challenges and Opportunities
CHALLENGES
❑ No funding for approved Crosswind Runway Threshold relocation ❑ FAA identified Runway Visibility Zone Safety not funded ❑ City could choose to close Crosswind Runway per grant obligation expiration ❑ Airport could lose an important faucet of aviation utility and safety
OPPORTUNTIES
❑ City could choose to maintain runway and fund threshold relocation ❑ City could choose to maintain runway without requiring funds for relocation ❑ City’s relocating runway threshold shifts safety zones to west ❑ Airport could maintain an important faucet of aviation utility and safety Airport Management has investigated how a combination of Threshold Relocation, and its Impact on Safety Compatibility Zones could solve some challenges and present opportunities. Page 1135 of 1168
What is a “Threshold Relocation”?
Think of the Threshold as the “effective” end of the
runway surface
When a threshold is relocated, it closes not only a set portion of the approach end of a runway, but also shortens the length of the opposite direction runway.
What’s the impact of “Threshold Relocation”
on Caltrans Safety Compatibility Zones?
See Zone 1 for Rwy 27 = a
See the Current Threshold for 27 = b
Set the Proposed Threshold for 27 = c, 1590 feet from the end of Runway 27 Reposition Zone 1 (and subsequent Zones) relative to the Proposed Threshold = c Relocation of the Runway threshold has a
meaningful impact on Land Use.
Specifically, per Caltrans relocating the
threshold shifts the geometry relative to the
safety zone.
a b
c
Safety Zones
OPTIONS
Option One
Relocation of Crosswind Runway 9-27 Threshold by 870 ft Option Two
Relocation of Crosswind Runway 9-27 Threshold by 1590 ft Option Three
Deactivate Crosswind Runway 9-27
Option Four
Deactivate Municipal Airport Page 1140 of 1168
Option One:
Crosswind Runway 9-27
Threshold Relocation by 870 ft
Watsonville Municipal Airport
Option One – Crosswind Runway Threshold Relocation
PROS
-Maintains Crosswind Runway
-Effective length 3100+ ft
-Critical Aircraft Requirements
-Shifts Safety Compatibility
Zones West
CONS
-Not be funded by FAA
-Airport bears full cost
-Requires Environmental
approval
-Three Year effort
Option Two
Crosswind Runway 9-27
Threshold Relocation by 1590 ft
Watsonville Municipal Airport Page 1144 of 1168 29
Option Two – Crosswind Runway Threshold Relocation
PROS
- Maintains Crosswind Runway
- Effective length 2400+ feet
- Meets Critical Aircraft
Requirements
- Safety Compatibility Zones
further West
CONS
- Not be funded by FAA
- Airport bears cost
- Environmental not
required
- One Year effort
Option Three
Deactivation of Crosswind Runway 9-27
Watsonville Municipal Airport Page 1147 of 1168 32
Checklist of Deactivating Crosswind Runway
Considerations
❑ Preserving the City’s commitment to the Airport as critical infrastructure ❑ No plan to close the airport
❑ A plan to reconfigure the airport to one runway is possible ❑ FAA approval of a reconfiguration approval is likely
❑ A commitment by Municipal Airport to preserve the aeronautical utility ❑ FAA will require Airport Layout Plan update; at least a one year turn around ❑ Sponsor would be required to provide formal notice to the FAA via Form 7480-1 ❑ Request, in writing, Caltrans via Airport Permit (CCR 3536)
Option Four
Deactivating
Watsonville Municipal Airport
Checklist of Deactivation Considerations
❑ Federal considerations
❑ FAA views KWVI as part of the NPIAS and as such would not support displacing aeronautical activity ❑ Sponsor will be required to find aviation storage for displaced tenants ❑ Based business (aviation or otherwise) aircraft must be relocated within reasonable distance ❑ If sufficient nearby space not available; City required to reach out to surrounding airports to propose expansion ❑ City of Watsonville would have to pay a portion of the facilities expansion at adjacent airport ❑ Federal and State considerations
❑Sponsor would be required to provide formal notice to the FAA via Form7480-1 ❑Request, in writing, Caltrans revoke Sponsor Airport Permit (CCR 3536) ❑ Environmental considerations:
❑ Airport is critical habitat for two animals and one plant; Federal and State Wildlife impacts ❑ Airport has three 12,000 gallons underground fuel tanks requiring remediation ❑ Financial considerations:
❑FAA and Caltrans could require repayment of:
❑Airport Improvement Grants awarded, at least back to 2003, estimated at $10,000,000 ❑Land acquisition Grants to purchase “Clear Zone” property, estimated at $5,000,000 ❑California Department of Fish and Game will require payment (unknown amount) for:
❑ Tar Plant “Take Permit”
❑ Red-legged Frog (State Amphibian) and Long Toed Salamander disposition ❑ Legal considerations
❑Airside ground lease extends to 2040
❑Defending Deactivation decision in litigation due to Tenant and Users pushback
Staff Recommended Action
•Adopt CEQA Addendum to 2003 Environmental Impact Report •Adopt Airport Master Plan Update
•Adopt Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Drawing Set
•Direct Staff to conduct further development of presented options by March 1, 2024
Thank You!
Unlocking Growth Potential:
“Kmart Site” Case Study
October 24, 2023 | City Council Meeting
GENERAL PLAN
FUTURE GROWTH
SCENARIOS
4 MEETING PROJECTED FUTURE NEEDS
& STATE MANDATES
HOUSING JOBS ECONOMIC &
FISCAL HEALTH
NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
EQUITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
COMMUNITY
CHARACTER
0. INFILL ONLY
STRENGTHS
• Development occurs
with existing City limits,
preserving surrounding
farmland.
• Significant growth
within near- to midterm can be can
accommodated within
Downtown Specific Plan
area.
CHALLENGES
• Few developable
vacant parcels.
• Development of
underutilized parcels
requires demolition of
existing buildings.
• Fewer housing options,
generally limited to
multi-family/rental.
Northern
Neighborhoods Central
Neighborhoods
Southeast
Area
Airport
Area
Downtown
Northern
Neighborhoods Central
Neighborhoods
Southeast
Area
Airport
Area
Downtown
0. INFILL ONLY
STRENGTHS
• Development occurs
with existing City limits,
preserving surrounding
farmland.
• Significant growth
within near- to midterm can be can
accommodated within
Downtown Specific Plan
area.
CHALLENGES
• Few developable
vacant parcels.
• Development of
underutilized parcels
requires demolition of
existing buildings.
• Fewer housing options
generally limited to
multi-family/rental.
• Airport safety zones
limit development
along north Freedom
Blvd.
• Development of Kmart
site requires
shortening or closure
of crosswind runway.
AREAS OF
POTENTIAL GROWTH
Potentially Developable Land
Downtown
9
Areas of Significant Growth Potential
STRENGTHS
• Development occurs
with existing City limits,
preserving surrounding
farmland.
• Significant growth
within near- to midterm can be can
accommodated within
Downtown Specific Plan
area.
CHALLENGES
• Few developable
vacant parcels.
• Development of
underutilized parcels
requires demolition of
existing buildings.
• Fewer housing options,
generally limited to
multi-family/rental.
• Airport safety zones
limit development
along north Freedom
Blvd. & Buena Vista
area.
• Development of Kmart
site requires shortening
or closure of crosswind
runway.
Downtown
10 Page 1160 of 1168
11 AREA C AREA D
AIRPORT
Areas of
Potential Growth:
“Kmart Site”
Legend
Downtown Infill
Corridor Activity Center
Corridor Infill
New Growth Areas
Airport Safety Zones
City Boundary
County Boundary
Urban Limit Line
BUENA VISTA Kmart
12 Existing
Site
❖ Kmart site:
❖ Corridor infill:
❖ Buena Vista:
Units
0 124 – 174
570 – 760
Legend
Downtown Infill
Corridor Activity Center
Corridor Infill
New Growth Areas
Airport Safety Zones
BUENA VISTA
Kmart
13 1. Shorten Crosswind
Runway 870’
Site
❖ Kmart site:
❖ Corridor Infill:
❖ Buena Vista:
Units
317 – 444
124 – 174
570 – 760
Legend
Downtown Infill
Corridor Activity Center
Corridor Infill
New Growth Areas
Airport Safety Zones Page 1163 of 1168
14 2. Shorten Crosswind
Runway 1600’
Site
❖ Kmart site:
❖ Corridor infill:
❖ Buena Vista:
Units
451 – 631
124 – 174
570 – 760
Legend
Downtown Infill
Corridor Activity Center
Corridor Infill
New Growth Areas
Airport Safety Zones Page 1164 of 1168
15 3. Close Crosswind
Runway
Site
❖ Kmart site:
❖ Corridor infill:
❖ Buena Vista:
Units
451 – 631
228 – 319
900 – 1,300
Legend
Downtown Infill
Corridor Activity Center
Corridor Infill
New Growth Areas
Airport Safety Zones Page 1165 of 1168
16 Runway 9-27 Alternatives
0. Existing 1. Shorten Crosswind 870’ 2. Shorten Crosswind 1600’ 3. Close Crosswind Site
Buena Vista:
Kmart site:
Corridor infill:
Freedom Area:
Units
570 – 760
0 124 – 174
124 – 174
Site
Buena Vista:
Kmart site:
Corridor infill:
Freedom Area:
Units
570 – 760
317 – 444
124 – 174
441 – 618
Site
Buena Vista:
Kmart site:
Corridor infill:
Freedom Area:
Units
570 – 760
451 – 631
124 – 174
575 – 805
Site
Buena Vista:
Kmart site:
Corridor infill:
Freedom Area:
Units
900 – 1,300
451 – 631
228 – 319
679 – 950