Watsonville Municipal Airport: Headed for a Crash? Synopsis

F1

AMBAG has declared that the City of Watsonville must plan for 2,283 new housing units in the 2000-2007 period.6

Related Recommendations (1)

R1

While the City of Watsonville has a mandated housing goal, it does not have a mandated location for the housing.

F2

City Council Resolution 199-02 was the text for Measure U and amended 1994’s “Watsonville 2005 General Plan” (now replaced by WatsonvilleVISTA 2030) by extending the city boundaries to include Buena Vista areas I, II, and III as proposed locations for meeting mandated housing goals.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1

While the City of Watsonville has a mandated housing goal, it does not have a mandated location for the housing.

F3

Santa Cruz County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) must approve any city boundary extensions. Response: LAFCO AGREES.

No recommendations for this finding

F4

Measure U as presented in the pre-election voter information pamphlet reduced the text of Resolution 199-02 from eighteen (18) pages to a single sentence with a generic analysis by the City Attorney regarding Urban Limit Lines: 6City of Watsonville Housing Element, chart 4, p. 4-1. - 6 Watsonville Municipal Airport: “Shall the City of Watsonville amend the Watsonville 2005 General Plan thereby imposing certain restrictions on growth, as specified, and restricting later amendments all as provided in the Watsonville Urban Limit Line and Development Timing Initiative?” A copy of the full text of Resolution 199-02 was only available upon request.7

No recommendations for this finding

F5

A group called the Friends of Buena Vista presented their opposition to Measure U on the voter’s information pamphlet, but because the area is currently outside the city limits, none of the residents of the areas to be annexed were able to vote on the measure. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

No recommendations for this finding

F6

The Friends of Buena Vista and other entities hired an attorney in 2005 to challenge the City of Watsonville’s draft environmental impact document regarding construction in the Buena Vista areas.

No recommendations for this finding

F7

Neither City Council Resolution 199-02, nor Measure U, mentioned any possible impact on the airport nor possible conflicts between housing and the airport, such as safety and noise pollution. Response: City of Watsonville: Measure U was circulated to establish a voter approved Urban Growth Boundary to protect important agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive habitats within the Pajaro Valley while providing the City with some assurance as to the opportunity to meet the housing and employment needs of its residents. The initiative established a phased approach to development along with assuring a public review mechanism (Specific Plan) for future development proposals. It is of note that citizen initiatives, such as Measure U, are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

No recommendations for this finding

F8

The Watsonville Air Show is a significant regional event, generating annual revenue between $500,000 and $3 million.8

Related Recommendations (1)

R2

Watsonville Municipal Airport is not sufficiently valued as an economic asset to the City of Watsonville and to Santa Cruz County.

F9

Studies show the overall annual economic impact of the airport to the region is a minimum of $45 million (in 2006 dollars) and could range as high as $600 million when indirect economic impacts are included.9 Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: 7City of Watsonville Voter Information Pamphlet, Measure U, 2002. 8www.watsonvilleairport.com; Don French, quoted in Register-Pajaronian, p. 6, June 18, 2005. 9AMBAG Airports Economic Impact Study, p 14, 2003. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 7 The County agrees that Watsonville Airport has significant economic benefit to the County, but cannot confirm the specific dollar amounts cited. The source cited for this finding is AMBAG’s 2003 Airports Economic Impacts Study, which is likely the most recent and authoritative study on this topic. The County cannot find any reference to the airport’s annual regional economic benefit being a “minimum of $45 million (in 2006 dollars)” in the AMBAG Airport Study, however, we note that it states that the annual benefit would top $662 million if indirect as well as direct impacts are counted.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2

Watsonville Municipal Airport is not sufficiently valued as an economic asset to the City of Watsonville and to Santa Cruz County.

F10

Businesses and independent owners from all over the county base their aircraft at the airport.10

No recommendations for this finding

F11

Itinerant aircraft use the airport, bringing business and recreational visitors who add approximately $9 million a year to the area.11

No recommendations for this finding

F12

Watsonville Airport is used in the day-to-day operations of local government entities including the California Highway Patrol, Civil Air Patrol, Drug Enforcement Agency, FEMA, the FBI, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Services, and the Department of Fish and Game.

No recommendations for this finding

F13

The Watsonville City Council has discussed the possibility of shortening Runway 8-26. This would limit the number of aircraft that could land there, particularly in restrictive weather conditions. The Watsonville City Council rejected this option. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that this would limit the number of aircraft that could land there but PARTIALLY AGREES about shortening the runway. Shortening a runway can potentially limit the type of aircraft able to utilize the runway. Limiting the type could also be said to therefore, limit the number. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “particularly in restrictive weather conditions.” Local pilot users of the airport have indicated that the fog bank often covers Runway 2-20, but often does not reach Runway 8-26. Therefore, pilots who do not have a Federal Aviation Administration issued instrument rating, which would be required to use Runway 2-20 in this example, are still able to utilize the airport under visual conditions by using Runway 8-26. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the Watsonville City Council rejected this option.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R9

WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.

F14

One of the guiding principles of Watsonville planners is to “encourage development patterns that protect and are compatible with agricultural lands”12 which also exist in the Buena Vista areas I, II, and III. In addition, these areas are part of aircraft 10AMBAG Monterey Bay Regional Airport System Plan, Table 2-10, 2005. 11AMBAG Airports Economic Impact Study, p. 12, 2003. 12WatsonvilleVISTA2030. - 8 Watsonville Municipal Airport: safety zones. In Buena Vista I, this space includes Safety Zone 1, 2, and 3 (Runway Protection Zone, Inner Approach Zone, and Inner Turning Zone) for Runway 8. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County has no jurisdiction over Watsonville planners and cannot comment on the accuracy of this finding. Response: City of Watsonville: Measure U established the Buena Vista Area as the preferred future growth area after exhaustive consultation with various stakeholders including the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau, California Association of Family Farmers, Santa Cruz County and Watsonville Wetlands Watch. Measure U amended the Watsonville 2005 General Plan (since replaced) and was most recently, as required by the initiative, incorporated in the adopted Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan and evaluated as part of the general Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is not unusual for airports within the State to have residential uses near them. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (CALUP) fully contemplates residential development in proximity to airports and provides examples of ways that local jurisdictions might address this. The Handbook establishes strategies to employ when local considerations result in decisions to allow residential development that might normally be considered incompatible. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “One of the guiding principles of Watsonville planners is to ‘encourage development patterns that protect and are compatible with agricultural lands’ which also exist in the Buena Vista areas I, II, and III.” This is not within the area of expertise of the Division of Aeronautics. However, the California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, has been the State’s premier agricultural land protection program since its enactment in 1965. The California Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open-space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. It is our understanding that property within the Buena Vista development, may be subject to the Williamson Act. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “In addition, these areas are part of aircraft safety zones.” It is unknown how much of the agricultural lands are part of “aircraft safety zones.” However, portions of the Buena Vista I, II, and III development are within what the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook refers to as Safety Compatibility Zones 1, 2, 3, part of 4, and 6. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 9 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “In Buena Vista I, this space includes Safety Zone 1, 2, and 3 (Runway Protection Zone, Inner Approach Zone, and Inner Turning Zone) for Runway 8.” The Safety Compatibility Zones under which the Buena Vista I project lies are Zones 1, 2, 3, part of 4 and 6 for Runway 8, and are referred to as the following: Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone

No recommendations for this finding

F15

Watsonville Airport provided essential logistical support during the Loma Prieta earthquake disaster relief operation. County emergency planners assume the airport, if available, will be used again in this capacity during future major disaster relief operations. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Office of Emergency Services AGREE.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3

Watsonville Airport is an essential regional asset in future disaster relief operations in Santa Cruz County.

F16

County emergency planners believe that in the event of a massive evacuation, all highways would be gridlocked with outbound traffic, as happened in Houston during the 2005 Hurricane Rita evacuation. Should a massive evacuation occur here, Watsonville Airport will be the only practical means of getting significant disaster relief assistance into Santa Cruz County. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Office of Emergency Services AGREE. In the unlikely need for a massive evacuation, local highways would indeed be of limited utility in moving large numbers of people or resources. While Watsonville Airport would be a vital asset in the response effort, and would remain the only facility capable of handling fixed wing cargo aircraft, other air support could be staged in multiple areas of the County using helicopters. Additionally, in an event that would require massive evacuation, it is possible that seaborne logistical support may also be activated.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3

Watsonville Airport is an essential regional asset in future disaster relief operations in Santa Cruz County.

F17

The airport is not included in the county’s OES planning process. Although it is acknowledged as an essential facility in the Santa Cruz County Operational Area Emergency Management Plan, there has been no significant direct contact between county or city emergency planners and airport personnel regarding the coordination of emergency efforts. - 10 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Office of Emergency Services DISAGREE. The airport is included in the County’s emergency planning process and it is considered an essential asset in area plans. As a fixed facility with known capacities, the airport would be utilized by command authorities in the most flexible manner for a given incident. Detailed plans are not required for the airport to be tasked accordingly. Additionally, Watsonville’s emergency personnel are actively engaged with the County’s emergency management agencies and are well aware of how the airport facility could be tasked in a disaster through the Standardized Emergency Management System. There is close coordination between the County and the City of Watsonville. Response: City of Watsonville: The City believes that the level of coordination has been appropriate. Furthermore, the Airport is under the direct supervision of the Public Works and Utilities Director who is directly involved with the City’s emergency response program as well as those of neighboring jurisdictions. The City is willing to provide any additional information or details as deemed necessary by the Santa Cruz County OES. Response: The City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. The airport is included in the County’s emergency planning process, and it is considered an essential asset in area plans. As a fixed facility with known capacities, the airport would be utilized by command authorities in the most flexible manner for a given incident, and detailed plans are not required for it to be tasked accordingly. Additionally, Watsonville’s emergency personnel are actively engaged with the County’s emergency management agencies and are well aware of how the airport facility could be tasked in a disaster and how that would occur through the Standardized Emergency Management System. The City of Santa Cruz is required to coordinate with County OES when requesting use of the Watsonville Airport. Response: The City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. For emergency planning purposes the Airport comes under the jurisdiction of the City of Watsonville for local emergency planning and then County OES for regional planning. The logistical use and planning around that use of the Watsonville airport for regional emergency response matters is the responsibility of County OES. Response: The City of Scotts Valley AGREES. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 11

Related Recommendations (1)

R3

Watsonville Airport is an essential regional asset in future disaster relief operations in Santa Cruz County.

F18

Runway 8-26 has been used to significantly increase capacity during disaster relief operations. Response: City of Watsonville: We do not believe that Runway 8-26 has been used to significantly increase capacity. Runway 8-26 is intended for use during certain weather conditions (wind/fog), which may or may not limit use of Runway 2-20. Runway 2-20 is and continues to be the principal runway providing 24-hour access to general aviation. These runways continue to function as intended and there would be neither an increase nor decrease in proportion during disasters.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.

F19

Runway 8-26 is used in twelve percent (12%) of all takeoffs and landings at the airport.13 Response: City of Watsonville: This is true. It is of note that takeoff and landing figures for Runway 8-26 include what are considered “optional” operations such as practice (touch and goes) and shortcut flights that are not dictated by weather conditions. We would recommend that footnote 13 be revised to reflect the most recent adopted Airport Master Plan (dated April 12, 2005).

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.

F20

Runway 8-26 can be used by all aircraft currently based at the airport. The importance of the runway to future airport operation is demonstrated by the improvements planned, such as the blast pads built at each end of the runway to protect against erosion from heavier aircraft taking off. Response: City of Watsonville: The Airport Master Plan includes a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) that identifies potential airport improvements and potential timing of those improvements. Blast pads and the other airport improvements are typical airport improvements regardless of the type of runway. Furthermore, these improvements are planned to coincide with proposed industrial development next to Runway 8-26.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.

F21

Runway 8-26 increases airport availability from ninety-four (94%) to ninety-nine percent (99%). Crosswind Runway 8-26 is particularly important during adverse wind and fog conditions14 prevalent in the summer. Summer weekends tend to be the busiest time at the airport. Response: City of Watsonville: 13Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 26, 2002. 14Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 36, 2002 - 12 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Runway 2-20 is adequate and available to serve General Aviation needs. Runway 8-26 provides additional availability above and beyond general aviation needs and FAA guidelines. In fact, the FAA would not likely fund construction of a Runway 8- 26 if Watsonville Municipal Airport were to be built today because Runway 2-20 is more than adequate. Furthermore, the City has initiated improvements to Runway 2-20 including extension and installation of an Instrument Landing System (ILS) that will increase the availability of Runway 2-20.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.

F22

Runway 8-26 can keep the airport open during maintenance of Runway 2-20 or if an accident closes 2-20 again. Response: City of Watsonville: Runway 8-26 is a secondary crosswind runway for use when wind/fog preclude use of Runway 2-20. Runway 8-26 is an inferior runway to Runway 2-20 for a number of reasons notably its length and lack of night lighting. Proper planning and scheduling of maintenance of 2-20 would eliminate material downtime of Runway 2-20 much as what occurs on major transportation facilities such as Highway 1. For these same reasons, an accident on 2-20 would not necessarily require use of Runway 8.26. Single runway airports exist throughout the state, many of which also serve commercial air traffic and experience similar weather conditions. These airports include Camarillo, Half Moon Bay, Lake Tahoe, Lompoc, Marina, Oxnard, San Carlos, Santa Monica and Visalia to name just a few. Single runway airports throughout the state are able to address both maintenance and accident scenarios.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.

F23

The proposed densities for Buena Vista I specified in WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 will result in more households being exposed to the risks of off-airport accidents and subject to noise pollution. Response: City of Watsonville: There are no proposed densities under the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan, only potential densities. The General Plan calls for the entire Buena Vista Area to be studied under a future Specific Plan process with full public dialogue on potential densities. The Specific Plan process includes an extensive public process and evaluation under CEQA. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. As referenced in Finding 14 and our response, Buena Vista I is within Safety Compatibility Zones 1, 2, 3, part of 4, and 6, according to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”). The Handbook recommends certain Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities for each Safety Compatibility Zone (Table 9- B). They are as follows: Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 13 Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Very high risk • Airport ownership of property • Runway protection zone as encouraged defined by FAA criteria • Prohibit all new structures • For military airports, clear • Prohibit residential land uses zones as defined by AICUZ • Avoid nonresidential uses except if very criteria low intensity in character and confined to the sides and outer end of the area Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Substantial risk: RPZs • Prohibit residential uses except on large, together with inner safety agricultural parcels zones encompass 30% to 50% • Limit nonresidential uses to activities of near-airport aircraft which attract few people (uses such as accident sites (air carrier and shopping centers, most eating general aviation) establishments, theaters, meeting halls, • Zone extends beyond and, if multi-story office buildings, and labor- RPZ is narrow, along sides of intensive manufacturing plants RPZ unacceptable) • Encompasses areas overflown • Prohibit children’s schools, day care at low altitudes — typically centers, hospitals, nursing homes only 200 to 400 feet above • Prohibit hazardous uses (e.g. runway elevation aboveground bulk fuel storage) Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Zone primarily applicable to • Limit residential uses to very low general aviation airports densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise) • Encompasses locations where aircraft are typically turning • Avoid nonresidential uses having from the base to final moderate or higher usage intensities approach legs of the standard (e.g., major shopping centers, fast food traffic pattern and are restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, descending from traffic buildings with more than three pattern altitude aboveground habitable floors are generally unacceptable) • Zone also includes the area where departing aircraft • Prohibit children’s schools, large day - 14 Watsonville Municipal Airport: normally complete the care centers, hospitals, nursing homes transition from takeoff power • Avoid hazardous uses (e.g. aboveground and flap settings to a climb bulk fuel storage) mode and have begun to turn to their en route heading Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Situated along extended • In undeveloped areas, limit residential runway centerline beyond uses to very low densities (if not deemed Zone 3 unacceptable because of noise); if alternative uses are impractical, allow • Approaching aircraft usually higher densities as infill in urban areas at less than traffic pattern altitude • Limit nonresidential uses as in Zone 3 • Particularly applicable for • Prohibit children’s schools, large day busy general aviation care centers, hospitals, nursing homes runways (because of elongated traffic pattern), runways with straight-in instrument approach procedures, and other runways where straight-in or straight-out flight paths are common • Zone can be reduced in size or eliminated for runways with very-low activity levels Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone • Risk Factors / Runway Basic Compatibility Qualities Proximity • Allow residential uses • Generally low likelihood of • Allow most nonresidential uses; prohibit accident occurrence at most outdoor stadiums and similar uses with airports; risk concern very high intensities primarily is with uses for • Avoid children’s schools, large day care which potential consequences centers, hospitals, nursing homes are severe • Zone includes all other portions of regular traffic patterns and pattern entry Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 15 routes Public Utilities Code 21674.7(b) states in pertinent part: “It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the division… .” Safety compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity. Therefore, since most of the Buena Vista I project is in conflict with the recommended Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities in the Handbook, more households will be exposed to the risks of off-airport accidents.

Related Recommendations (4)

R5

If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, noise pollution may become a serious issue in the Buena Vista areas.

R6

If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, the risk that an engine failure will have life threatening consequences to those on the ground is unacceptably increased.

R8

The Watsonville City Council’s failure to enforce the maximum population densities in airport safety zones may increase Watsonville’s exposure to legal liability in the event of an off-airport accident in these areas. The fact that there are high populations within the safety zones of other runways at the airport does not justify continuing the practice of violating airport safety zone building densities northwest of Runway 8.

R10

The Watsonville City Council has chosen to fulfill its housing planning needs at the expense of airport safety and noise pollution.

F24

The Watsonville City Council has eliminated Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone), northwest of Runway 8 to justify greater housing density in Buena Vista I.15 This action has been opposed by Santa Cruz County Second District Supervisor Ellen Pirie, CalTrans, and others.16 Response: City of Watsonville: Safety Zone 3 has been eliminated following extensive public review and hearings. The City determined that Runway 8 is a low activity runway and that, based upon the CALUP handbook and unique operational conditions of Watsonville Municipal Airport, in consultation with the Director of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, Gillfillan Associates, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Manager, local pilots, airport business owners and other interested parties, Safety Zones 1, 2, 4 and 5 were adequate. City Council, Caltrans and the FAA were provided notice of the hearing of April 12, 2005 in which revisions to Runway 8 were proposed. No comments were received from Caltrans or the FAA. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Eliminating Safety Zone 3 is not necessarily justification for greater housing density, rather its elimination would allow for greater housing density.

Related Recommendations (3)

R9

WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.

R35

CalTrans has stated that formally designating a runway as low activity does not justify the elimination of Safety Zone 3.30 Enforcing lower population densities in 29Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, p. 4, April 1, 2006. 30ALUP Handbook, fig. 9K; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 21 Safety Zone 3 by limiting housing construction is intended to reduce the consequences of an off-airport accident. Safety zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-aircraft accident based on large numbers of operations at airports across the country. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, but does not necessarily agree with the rest of the finding. The County believes that the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: This finding is incorrect. The April 21, 2006 letter indicates that the action violated the Division of Aeronautics interpretation of the CALUP Handbook. The FAA has no regulation authority over Safety Compatibility Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6. We would note that the footnoted Figure 9k from the CALUP clearly notes that the “examples are for general guidance only.” It is also of note that relocating the Runway Protection Zone entirely on airport property to comply with FAA regulations was a large part of the City’s consideration of Runway 8-26 modifications. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Safety Zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-airport accident, not an “off-aircraft” accident. Safety Zones were derived from concentrations of historic accidents. Safety Zone compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident and that potential does not change even if the activity is low. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity.

R36

The recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates. That report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property. The Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options. Response: City of Watsonville: The Committee recommendation was consistent with the Gillfillan Report, although not specifically called out. Gillfillan was directly involved in the Committee process and identified the ultimate approved option. The Gillfillan report clearly indicated that it was not an exhaustive evaluation of options and during the presentations Mr. Gillfillan also noted this fact. - 22 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates.” The Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES “that report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property.” The report’s Option 3 does present the pros and cons for shortening the east end of Runway 8 by approximately 500 feet. However, it would not move Safety Zone 3 in its entirety onto airport property. Approximately half of Zone 3 would remain off airport property. The Division of Aeronautics DISAGREES that “the Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options.” Option 2 of the Gillfillan report was to permanently close Runway 8-26. This would in fact result in the elimination of Safety Zone 3, the Inner Turning Zone. Other than Option 2, there were no other recommendations in the Gillfillan report for eliminating Safety Zone 3.

F25

Construction of additional housing northwest of Runway 8-26 will increase the danger from an off-airport landing. Such an event occurred to aircraft N23039 in 15City Council Resolution 74-05, p.3 & p. 5 16Pirie letter to Watsonville, May 5, 2006; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006; agenda packet for Watsonville City Council meeting, May 23, 2006. - 16 Watsonville Municipal Airport: the late 1970’s in the Buena Vista area. At that time, there were no serious consequences because the aircraft was able to land safely in a plowed field.17 Response: City of Watsonville: Off airport landings are rare, but unavoidable. Additional housing does not increase danger for off airport landings. Obviously, open space, no matter where located, provides opportunities for safe off field landings. The city is complying with the

Related Recommendations (4)

R6

If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, the risk that an engine failure will have life threatening consequences to those on the ground is unacceptably increased.

R7

In the event of an off-airport accident in the Buena Vista areas, there will likely be a significant demand for closure of Crosswind Runway 8-26 or even the airport itself.

R8

The Watsonville City Council’s failure to enforce the maximum population densities in airport safety zones may increase Watsonville’s exposure to legal liability in the event of an off-airport accident in these areas. The fact that there are high populations within the safety zones of other runways at the airport does not justify continuing the practice of violating airport safety zone building densities northwest of Runway 8.

R10

The Watsonville City Council has chosen to fulfill its housing planning needs at the expense of airport safety and noise pollution.

F26

Watsonville VISTA 2030 proposes a school in the Buena Vista II area within Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), less than a mile from the northwest end of Runway 8-26. CalTrans has stated that Watsonville City Council cannot omit school placement safety investigation requirements within Zone 6.18 Response: City of Watsonville: Watsonville Vista 2030 does not propose a school site within the Buena Vista II area. The City Council did nothing to remove the State’s statutory obligations to perform school placement safety assessments. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES.

No recommendations for this finding

F27

Discussion has occurred by attendees at Watsonville City Council meetings regarding the possibility of shortening Runway 8 to reduce Safety Zones 2 (Inner Safety Zone) and 4 (Outer Safety Zone). Response: City of Watsonville: 17Maintenance log of aircraft N23093, January 1, 1976. 18Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 17 There has been no discussion regarding the shortening of pavement on Runway 8. There has, however, been discussion of relocating the landing threshold of Runway

Related Recommendations (1)

R9

WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.

F28

A shortened runway could raise safety concerns, as was demonstrated when an aircraft had to abort a takeoff from Runway 8. The extra length of the runway allowed the aircraft to land safely, just barely within the confines of the airport.19 Response: City of Watsonville: It is possible that a significantly reduced runway length could raise concerns. There is not currently nor has there ever been a proposal to shorten any runway. In fact, the City is in the process of extending the primary runway, Runway 2-20, by 800 feet. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. A shortened runway is a concern; however, we have no information on the incident referred to.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9

WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.

F29

Excessive noise is already becoming an issue at the new Pajaro Valley High School.20 Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County has no jurisdiction over the High School and is not in a position to comment on this finding. Response: City of Watsonville: To the best of our knowledge there has been no significant credible complaints regarding noise and its negative impact on school operations. The Airport Manager did receive one complaint from a PVUSC official since the school opened and it was concerning one specific outdoor weekend event. The school site was the subject of significant review by the State of California as required by State law and the City’s Local Coastal Plan and Program. 19Chauvet, power point presentation to APV, February 25, 2005. 20Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. - 18 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Related Recommendations (2)

R5

If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, noise pollution may become a serious issue in the Buena Vista areas.

R10

The Watsonville City Council has chosen to fulfill its housing planning needs at the expense of airport safety and noise pollution.

F30

The purpose of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is “to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”21 Santa Cruz County is specifically excepted from requiring the formation of an ALUC by Public Utilities Code, PUC, Section 21670.1 (e), provided that they follow the requirements of Section 21670.1 (d)(2) that “height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations” are adopted as part of the general plans of the county and city.22 Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville: The California Legislature specifically said that no ALUC was required in certain California counties under certain conditions. There is no ALUC required for Watsonville Municipal Airport. Response: LAFCO AGREES.

Related Recommendations (1)

R39

CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions

F31

The Watsonville City Council has been acting in the capacity of an ALUC. Because it is acting as an ALUC, the Watsonville City Council is mandated by PUC Section 21670.1 (e) to incorporate height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as described in the ALUP Handbook. Response: City of Watsonville: The City Council is not acting as an ALUC nor is it required to act as an ALUC. The City is the sole owner and the City Council is the governing body of the Watsonville Municipal Airport. ALUCs, where required, are an advisory body that is charged to develop compatibility plans, review master plans and to review and advise on development activity in and around the airport. Per State law, no airport owner is bound by the recommendations of an ALUC. The City (and County) has met the requirements established by the legislature under PUC Section 21670.1 including the preparation of compatibility plans and an Airport Master Plan.

Related Recommendations (3)

R11

Failure to enforce ALUP Handbook regulations to achieve the planning goals of Measure U demonstrates an inherent conflict of interest in the City of Watsonville’s ability to serve in the role of an ALUC.

R12

The Watsonville City Council has not given appropriate weight to either the airport’s or Santa Cruz County’s interests while serving as Watsonville Airport’s ALUC. 32Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 25 Recommendations

R39

CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions

F32

Because Watsonville Airport does not have a separate ALUC, CalTrans often has not received timely notifications of Watsonville City Council actions, especially those outside the guidelines of the ALUP Handbook. CalTrans has stated that this has hampered its ability to offer expert opinions, and has precluded it from timely 21ALUP Handbook, p 1-1, 2002. 22California Public Utilities Code 21670.1(e). Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 19 oversight of planning decisions. Response: City of Watsonville: Omitted in report. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Often in the past, Caltrans has not received timely notifications of Watsonville City council Actions. An example regarding the CEQA process was discussed in the Division of Aeronautics’ letter to the City of Watsonville dated April 21, 2006.

Related Recommendations (3)

R11

Failure to enforce ALUP Handbook regulations to achieve the planning goals of Measure U demonstrates an inherent conflict of interest in the City of Watsonville’s ability to serve in the role of an ALUC.

R12

The Watsonville City Council has not given appropriate weight to either the airport’s or Santa Cruz County’s interests while serving as Watsonville Airport’s ALUC. 32Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 25 Recommendations

R39

CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions

F33

Without adequate documentation to support the critical change to this designation, the Watsonville City Council designated Runway 8 as a low activity runway.23 (cid:190) Waddel Engineering Corporation provided data in 1994 to the airport showing that Runway 8-26 carried twelve percent (12%) of all airport traffic, with five percent (5%) on Runway 8 and seven percent (7%) on Runway 26.24 Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee reported an adjustment of this pattern [two percent (2%) on Runway 8 and ten percent (10%) on Runway 26] based solely on the estimates of the airport manager.25 (cid:190) Extrapolating from a ten-day airport count, total annual aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) were estimated at 120,000 in 1991,26 and were later estimated at 122,500 annually.27 Two percent (2%) of this number (2,450) exceeds the guidelines for a low activity threshold (less than 2,000 annual operations)28 by twenty-two percent (22%). However, the new estimate is less than 100,000 aircraft operations annually, again based solely on the estimates of the airport manager without a published study. Response: City of Watsonville: Don French, Airport Manager was the source of both data sets (1994 and 2005). Mr. French confirmed that the 2005 data, provided to the Airport Committee and City Council, represents the most appropriate percentage split for Runway 8-26 usage. Mr. French has, following release of the Grand Jury Report, reaffirmed that the information was correct at the time and remains reliable and accurate. 23Boyle, Principal Planner, “Final EIR Comments”, citing Don French, Airport Manager, March 22, 2006. 24Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan 2001-2020, p. 28, August 2002. 25Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, April 1, 2006. 26Watsonville Airport: Airport Economic Impact Study, Appendix, 1991. 27Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan 2001-2020, p.30, August 2002. 28ALUP Handbook, p. 9-42 - 20 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

No recommendations for this finding

F34

In its April 12, 2005 report, the City Council Airport Committee claims “CalTrans confirmed that the policies in the ALUP Handbook are intended as guidelines and that variations in design, configuration and land use compatibility was [sic] available and within the scope of the City Council.”29 This authority is used to eliminate Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone), thereby overriding housing densities mandated by the ALUP Handbook. Response: City of Watsonville: The CALUP clearly and repeatedly notes that the handbook is a policy document intended solely to provide guidance. The CALUP also states that compatibility policies differ from airport to airport and community to community and that no single solution is universally acceptable (CALUP Summary ). Per the CALUP, no ALUC in California is required to amend its plans to comply with the Handbook nor are they implementing agencies. An ALUC need only to examine and consider the Handbook and make their recommendation. The City spent extensive time and effort to evaluate options, their implications and the opinions of experts and stakeholders. The City Council formed a Committee to more fully evaluate Runway 8-26 and the specific conditions of Watsonville and Watsonville Municipal Airport. Consultation was sought from many sources over several months from parties including the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, Gillfillan Associates, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Manager, local pilots, airport business owners and other interested parties. A community workshop was held and four City Council hearings were held to consider options and recommendations from the experts in the aviation field, the public and ultimately the City Council Committee. Only upon this extensive public dialogue and information gathering process did the City Council determine that Safety Compatibility Zones 1, 2, 4 and 5 were adequate. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville is always required to comply with the laws of the State of California. In particular, Public Utilities Code 21670.1(e)(B)(i) requires that the city of Watsonville adopt the height, use, noise, safety and density criteria of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The city of Watsonville is responsible for ensuring land use compatibility between the Watsonville airport and its environs. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code 21670(a)(1), the city of Watsonville must prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.

No recommendations for this finding

F35

CalTrans has stated that formally designating a runway as low activity does not justify the elimination of Safety Zone 3.30 Enforcing lower population densities in 29Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, p. 4, April 1, 2006. 30ALUP Handbook, fig. 9K; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 21 Safety Zone 3 by limiting housing construction is intended to reduce the consequences of an off-airport accident. Safety zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-aircraft accident based on large numbers of operations at airports across the country. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, but does not necessarily agree with the rest of the finding. The County believes that the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: This finding is incorrect. The April 21, 2006 letter indicates that the action violated the Division of Aeronautics interpretation of the CALUP Handbook. The FAA has no regulation authority over Safety Compatibility Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6. We would note that the footnoted Figure 9k from the CALUP clearly notes that the “examples are for general guidance only.” It is also of note that relocating the Runway Protection Zone entirely on airport property to comply with FAA regulations was a large part of the City’s consideration of Runway 8-26 modifications. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Safety Zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-airport accident, not an “off-aircraft” accident. Safety Zones were derived from concentrations of historic accidents. Safety Zone compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident and that potential does not change even if the activity is low. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R35

CalTrans has stated that formally designating a runway as low activity does not justify the elimination of Safety Zone 3.30 Enforcing lower population densities in 29Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, p. 4, April 1, 2006. 30ALUP Handbook, fig. 9K; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 21 Safety Zone 3 by limiting housing construction is intended to reduce the consequences of an off-airport accident. Safety zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-aircraft accident based on large numbers of operations at airports across the country. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, but does not necessarily agree with the rest of the finding. The County believes that the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: This finding is incorrect. The April 21, 2006 letter indicates that the action violated the Division of Aeronautics interpretation of the CALUP Handbook. The FAA has no regulation authority over Safety Compatibility Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6. We would note that the footnoted Figure 9k from the CALUP clearly notes that the “examples are for general guidance only.” It is also of note that relocating the Runway Protection Zone entirely on airport property to comply with FAA regulations was a large part of the City’s consideration of Runway 8-26 modifications. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Safety Zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-airport accident, not an “off-aircraft” accident. Safety Zones were derived from concentrations of historic accidents. Safety Zone compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident and that potential does not change even if the activity is low. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity.

F36

The recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates. That report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property. The Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options. Response: City of Watsonville: The Committee recommendation was consistent with the Gillfillan Report, although not specifically called out. Gillfillan was directly involved in the Committee process and identified the ultimate approved option. The Gillfillan report clearly indicated that it was not an exhaustive evaluation of options and during the presentations Mr. Gillfillan also noted this fact. - 22 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates.” The Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES “that report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property.” The report’s Option 3 does present the pros and cons for shortening the east end of Runway 8 by approximately 500 feet. However, it would not move Safety Zone 3 in its entirety onto airport property. Approximately half of Zone 3 would remain off airport property. The Division of Aeronautics DISAGREES that “the Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options.” Option 2 of the Gillfillan report was to permanently close Runway 8-26. This would in fact result in the elimination of Safety Zone 3, the Inner Turning Zone. Other than Option 2, there were no other recommendations in the Gillfillan report for eliminating Safety Zone 3.

Related Recommendations (1)

R36

The recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates. That report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property. The Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options. Response: City of Watsonville: The Committee recommendation was consistent with the Gillfillan Report, although not specifically called out. Gillfillan was directly involved in the Committee process and identified the ultimate approved option. The Gillfillan report clearly indicated that it was not an exhaustive evaluation of options and during the presentations Mr. Gillfillan also noted this fact. - 22 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates.” The Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES “that report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property.” The report’s Option 3 does present the pros and cons for shortening the east end of Runway 8 by approximately 500 feet. However, it would not move Safety Zone 3 in its entirety onto airport property. Approximately half of Zone 3 would remain off airport property. The Division of Aeronautics DISAGREES that “the Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options.” Option 2 of the Gillfillan report was to permanently close Runway 8-26. This would in fact result in the elimination of Safety Zone 3, the Inner Turning Zone. Other than Option 2, there were no other recommendations in the Gillfillan report for eliminating Safety Zone 3.

F37

The maximum densities recommended by the ALUP Handbook in Safety Zones as shown in the following table:31 Safety Zone Maximum Density (dwelling units per acre) 1: Runway Protection Zone 0 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone .05 to .10 3: Inner Turning Zone .20 to .50 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone .20 to .50 Response: City of Watsonville: As noted in response to Finding No. 23, the Watsonville Vista 2030 does not propose 2,250 homes in the Buena Vista area. The finding is purely hypothetical and should be left to the public process for the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. As noted in response to Finding No. 34, the action of the City Council was taken only after extensive review and public deliberation. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. 31ALUP Handbook, Table 9-C p 9-47. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 23 The maximum residential densities in the Handbook are as follows: Using the table for Zone 3 as indicated, the maximum density would be one dwelling unit per 2 -5 acres. Either of the density scenarios given in the finding would exceed the dwelling units per acre in Zone 3 as depicted in the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines in the Handbook.

Related Recommendations (1)

R37

The maximum densities recommended by the ALUP Handbook in Safety Zones as shown in the following table:31 Safety Zone Maximum Density (dwelling units per acre) 1: Runway Protection Zone 0 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone .05 to .10 3: Inner Turning Zone .20 to .50 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone .20 to .50 Response: City of Watsonville: As noted in response to Finding No. 23, the Watsonville Vista 2030 does not propose 2,250 homes in the Buena Vista area. The finding is purely hypothetical and should be left to the public process for the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. As noted in response to Finding No. 34, the action of the City Council was taken only after extensive review and public deliberation. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. 31ALUP Handbook, Table 9-C p 9-47. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 23 The maximum residential densities in the Handbook are as follows: Using the table for Zone 3 as indicated, the maximum density would be one dwelling unit per 2 -5 acres. Either of the density scenarios given in the finding would exceed the dwelling units per acre in Zone 3 as depicted in the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines in the Handbook.

F38

If the proposed 2,250 homes are built on the 458 acres in the Buena Vista areas, the resulting average housing density (approximately 5 dwelling units per acre) will exceed the maximum density in Safety Zone 3 by a factor of 10 to 25. Any of the planned “medium” (10-17 dwelling units per acre) density occurring within Safety Zone 3 will exceed by 20 to 80 times the maximum density permitted. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: While the County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: The City Council has acted in the best interest of the airport consistent with the Public Utilities Code and no ALUC is necessary. There is no reason to believe that an ALUC would have come to a different conclusion. There is no reason to believe that, given the unique Watsonville circumstances, CALUP guidance and a seated ALUC advising, that the City Council would have come to a different conclusion. - 24 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES.

Related Recommendations (1)

R38

If the proposed 2,250 homes are built on the 458 acres in the Buena Vista areas, the resulting average housing density (approximately 5 dwelling units per acre) will exceed the maximum density in Safety Zone 3 by a factor of 10 to 25. Any of the planned “medium” (10-17 dwelling units per acre) density occurring within Safety Zone 3 will exceed by 20 to 80 times the maximum density permitted. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: While the County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: The City Council has acted in the best interest of the airport consistent with the Public Utilities Code and no ALUC is necessary. There is no reason to believe that an ALUC would have come to a different conclusion. There is no reason to believe that, given the unique Watsonville circumstances, CALUP guidance and a seated ALUC advising, that the City Council would have come to a different conclusion. - 24 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES.

F39

CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions

No recommendations for this finding

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Headed for a Crash? Synopsis

Findings and Recommendations 39 findings

Conclusions 12

No Responses Found 6