HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-19 CC Packet - Special Joint Mtg with Airport CommissionPage 1 of 1
City Council and Airport Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
(to be held both at the physical and virtual locations below)
Civic Center Council Chamber ♦ 300 Seminary Avenue ♦ Ukiah, CA 95482
To participate or view the virtual meeting, go to the following link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87311990595
Or you can call in using your telephone only:
Call (toll free) 1-888-788-0099
Enter the Access Code: 873 1199 0595
To Raise Hand enter *9
To Speak after being recognized: enter *6 to unmute yourself
Alternatively, you may view the meeting (without participating) by clicking on the name of the meeting at www.cityofukiah.com/meetings.
February 19, 2025 - 4:00 PM
1 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3 AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The City Council and Airport Commission welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in,
you may address the Council and Commission when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda that is within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council and Airport Commission, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your
comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on
audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda.
4 NEW BUSINESS
4.a. Consider Authorization of the Pursuit of the Restoration of the 5,000-foot Runway Extension,
Encompassing all Options, for Ukiah Municipal Airport; and Direction to Include the Runway
Extension Project as Part of the Airport's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and for Future
Planning Documents.
Recommended Action: Direct Staff to pursue a 5,000-foot runway extension, encompassing all
options, and include the runway extension project as part of the Airport's Capital Improvement
Program (Project Title: Restoration of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Runway to 5,000 feet) and for
future planning documents.
Attachments:
1. 10-20-20 Mead and Hunt Technical Memo
2. UKI Runway Extension Exploratory Study
3. Ukiah Airport Commission Recommendation
5 ADJOURNMENT
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order
for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Materials
related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the front counter at the
Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Any handouts or
presentation materials from the public must be submitted to the clerk 48 hours in advance of the meeting; for handouts, please include 10 copies.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of
the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, and the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, located at 200 South School Street,
Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda.
Kristine Lawler, CMC/CPMC
Dated: 2/14/25
Page 1 of 46
Page 1 of 3
Agenda Item No: 4.a.
MEETING DATE/TIME: 2/19/2025
ITEM NO: 2025-151
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Consider Authorization of the Pursuit of the Restoration of the 5,000-foot Runway Extension,
Encompassing all Options, for Ukiah Municipal Airport; and Direction to Include the Runway Extension Project
as Part of the Airport's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and for Future Planning Documents.
DEPARTMENT: Airport PREPARED BY: Greg Owen, Airport Manager
PRESENTER: Greg Owen, Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 10-20-20 Mead and Hunt Technical Memo
2. UKI Runway Extension Exploratory Study
3. Ukiah Airport Commission Recommendation
4. Presentation given at Meeting
Summary: Council will consider authorizing the pursuit of a 5,000-foot runway extension, to encompass all
options; and consider directing Staff to include the runway extension project as part of the Ukiah Municipal
Airport's Capital Improvement Program and for future planning documents.
Background: On November 18, 2020, the City Council approved Staff's recommendation to move forward
with "Option #2" in an October 20, 2020, Mead & Hunt Technical Memorandum (Attachment 1) to protect for a
future 5,000-foot runway for potential CalFire Operations. Council also directed Staff to communicate Council's
direction to the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission such that the draft Ukiah Municipal Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) could be modified to include compatibility zone boundaries and/or
criteria that would better preserve the potential for a longer runway.
Council’s direction related to Option #2 was designed to preserve all categories within the Runway Protection
Zone (RPZ) of the original 1996 Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) plus add a new zone,
compatibility zone 1*, that would facilitate the future restoration of the runway to 5,000 feet. At its meeting on
November 19, 2020, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) directed ALUC staff and
Mead & Hunt to revise the draft UKIALUCP as recommended by Council.
At its May 20, 2021, meeting, Council adopted the 2021 UKIALUCP that included the 1* compatibility zones.
On Staff's recommendation, Council also directed that upon adoption of the 2040 General Plan, currently in
development at that time, the entirety of the UKIALUCP be integrated fully as a stand-alone policy into the
General Plan. On October 20, 2022, ALUC adopted a resolution finding the City's 2040 General Plan
consistent with the UKIALUCP, and on December 6, 2022, Council adopted the 2040 General Plan and
certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. The entirety of the 2021 UKIALUCP was
incorporated into the 2040 General Plan.
On March 16, 2022, Council approved a Ukiah Airport Runway Extension Study Agreement with Mead & Hunt
in the amount of $36,500 to determine the feasibility of extending the Airport's Runway 15/33 to a total length
of 5,000 feet, a 577-foot extension. The study was funded by the Airport with no participation from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and did not include an aviation activity forecasting element. The study assumed
that the Airport would remain as a FAA category B-II airport with approach visibility minimums as low as 1-¼
mile (Runway 15) and visual (Runway 33). The completed study (Attachment 2) performed a geometric
Page 2 of 46
Page 2 of 3
exercise for the physical configuration of a 5,000 foot by 75 foot runway. The following was considered:
a. Analyze how the runway could fit on existing property, including required FAA safety areas and standards.
b. If existing property is inadequate, the study will look at what areas of land would need to be acquired.
c. Analysis will result in up to five alternative configurations.
d. Consultants will develop one 11x17 graphic for up to five alternative configurations.
Discussion: The five resulting configuration options (Options 1, 1a, 2, 3, and 4) were developed using the
following considerations: 1) How could the runway fit on existing property, including required FAA safety areas
and standards? 2) If existing property is inadequate, what areas of land would need to be acquired? Below is a
summary of each option.
Option 1 - North Extension
Option 1 is a runway extension to the north of 577 feet. This increases the length of Runway 15/33 to 5,000
feet. The existing blast pad beyond Runway End 15 will require pavement upgrades to be used for aircraft
landings and takeoffs. Roads located north of Runway End 15 penetrate through protected areas. These
roads may require relocation or closure within the bounds of the runway surface. Any additional objects along
these roads will also require relocation or removal if they are within the runway surfaces.
Option 1a - North Extension In addition to the four 5,000-foot options, 1a in the study. Option 1a
extends the runway to the north by 457 feet, resulting in a total length of 4,880 feet.
Option 1a is a variation of Option 1, a runway extension to the north of 457 feet. This increases the length of
Runway 15/33 to 4,880 feet. The existing blast pad beyond the Runway End 15 will require pavement
upgrades to be used for aircraft landings and takeoffs. Hastings Road, north of Runway End 15, will not
penetrate the ROFA (Runway Object Free Area) and RSA (Runway Safety Area). Roads will not require
relocation or closure.
Option 2 - South Extension
Option 2 is a runway extension to the south of 577 feet; this increases the length of runway 15/33 to 5,000
feet. The runway extension requires the parallel taxiway to be extended by 577 feet. Future property
acquisition is needed. ROFA (Runway Object Free Area), OFZ (Obstacle Free Zone), and LCA (Localizer
Critical Area) are off Airport Property.
Option 3 - North and South Extension
Option 3 is a runway extension to the north and south for a total of 577 feet. This increases the length of
runway 15/33 to 5,000 feet. The extension to the north is 457 feet, and the extension to the south is 120
feet. Future property acquisition is needed.
Option 4- North and South Extension
Option 4 is a runway extension to the north and south for a total of 577 feet, this increases the length of
Runway 15/33 to 5,000 feet. The extension to the north is 48 feet, and the extension to the south is 529
feet. Future property acquisition is needed. ROFA, OFZ, and LCA are off Airport.
Airport Commission Recommendation
The Airport Commission wrote a letter to the Council expressing their support for restoring the Airport’s runway
to 5,000 feet (Attachment 3). The commission believes that a longer runway would improve emergency
services and response times during disasters like earthquakes and floods. They recommend adding the
runway restoration project to the Airport's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The commission believes that this
project is vital for public safety and will enhance the city’s emergency readiness.
Conclusion
Staff is in agreement with the Airport Commission that Option 1 is currently the most viable option. However,
staff also believes it is important to keep all options a priority and seek to protect and advance all options
listed. Staff requests Council's authorization to continue pursuing strategies to protect the land and airspace
required for the runway extension, to included as part of in the Airport's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Page 3 of 46
Page 3 of 3
and future planning documents. This includes exploring all available options, including those that address the
complex external impacts of the project, and working diligently towards the long-term goal of a 5,000-foot
runway.
Staff further acknowledges that restoring the runway to its previous 5,000-foot length is a long-term
undertaking. Achieving this goal will require proactive measures to protect critical airspace and land necessary
for future expansion. Furthermore, significant changes beyond the airport's boundaries will likely be needed.
Staff is committed to this objective and seeks Council's support in this complex endeavor.
Staff recommends Council authorize the pursuit of a 5,000-foot runway extension, to encompass all options,
and direct Staff to include the Runway Extension Project as part of the Airport's CIP and for future planning
documents.
Lastly, Staff would like to note that Mead & Hunt will be available to present on the study plus address related
questions at the February 19th meeting.
Recommended Action: Direct Staff to pursue a 5,000-foot runway extension, encompassing all options, and
include the runway extension project as part of the Airport's Capital Improvement Program (Project Title:
Restoration of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Runway to 5,000 feet) and for future planning documents.
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: No
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
REVENUE: Yes / No GRANT: Yes / No N/A
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: Ukiah Airport Commission
STRATEGIC PLAN (SP): N/A
CLIMATE INITIATIVES (CI): N/A
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (GP): N/A
Page 4 of 46
Mead & Hunt, Inc. | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707 526 5010 | fax 707 526 9721 | www.meadhunt.com
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Craig Schlatter
City of Ukiah Community Development Director
From: Ken Brody, Senior Airport Planner, and
Maranda Thompson, Senior Project Manager
Date: October 20, 2020
Subject: Potential C-130 Operations at Ukiah Municipal Airport and
Implications for Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
THE ISSUE
CalFire is in the process of adding several C-130s to its fleet of fire attack aircraft in the state. There is a potential
that the agency may seek to operate these aircraft at Ukiah Municipal Airport when circumstances warrant.
Significantly, the C-130 is much larger than the S-2T aircraft now operating at the airport (132-foot wingspan versus
73 feet). The airport design features that would need to be modified to accommodate the C-130 (runway length,
taxiway setbacks, parking area, etc.) have not yet been fully studied.
From an airport land use compatibility planning standpoint, however, the most critical feature would be the runway
length. Preliminary CalFire information indicates that full functionality of the C-130 requires a minimum of 5,000
feet of runway length. Ukiah Municipal Airport currently has a runway length of 4,423 feet and the 2019 airport
layout plan (ALP) approved by the city, the FAA, and Caltrans calls for extending the runway 465 feet to the north to
a total length of 4,888 feet. The length of this extension was fixed by FAA airport design requirements for an object
free area beyond the end of runways and the city’s desire at the time to avoid the need to realign or close Hastings
Avenue. Whether an additional extension of 112 feet is feasible and, if so, whether it could best be provided on the
north or the south end of the runway is not known at this time. Nevertheless, the immediate question is whether
the draft Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) now undergoing public review can be
modified to better enable a longer runway than presently planned.
A major consideration in this regard is that state airport land use compatibility planning statutes dictate that ALUCPs
be based upon a Caltrans-approved, current airport master plan or airport layout plan. A longer runway length as
discussed above is not reflected in any current plans for the airport and updating those plans could be a costly and
time-consuming process depending upon what documentation Caltrans would require. Thus, the focus in this memo
is on whether more can be done within the present draft ALUCP to prevent future development that would add to
the complexities of a further runway extension while still basing the ALUCP on the approved airport layout plan.
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 46
Technical Memorandum
Mr. Craig Schlatter
October 20, 2020
Page 2
Mead & Hunt, Inc. | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707 526 5010 | fax 707 526 9721 | www.meadhunt.com
THE OPTIONS
Given the mandatory relationship between an updated ALUCP and the current ALP, it is important to first
take a closer look at the currently established zones and criteria for the areas near the runway ends in order
to identify options for how the draft ALUCP might be modified.
In conjunction with the northerly runway extension, the 2019 ALP shows a corresponding shift in the location
of the runway protection zone (RPZ) (see Figure 1). The future RPZ would extend to Talmage Road. While
most of the central sections of both the current and future RPZs are on airport property, outer corners of
the future RPZ, especially to the east, would extend onto private property. The city controls avigation
easements on these lands as well as on property abutting the north side of Talmage Road. These
easements limit the allowable height of structures and vegetation on the underlying property and also
restrict or prohibit lights, lighted signs, and other lighted objects and uses that generate radio or
electromagnetic interference. The easements do not otherwise restrict the uses of the properties.
The 1996 Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) that currently remains in
effect for the Ukiah Municipal Airport does, however, set additional restrictions on most of this land in what
is called the A* Zone. The boundary of the A* Zone was set based on the 1996 ALP to encompass a larger
RPZ that was required in accordance with FAA design standards that have since been modified. Note that,
as shown in Figure 1, the A* Zone boundary extends slightly farther to the east and less far to the north
than the area covered by avigation easements. The criteria for the A* Zone are the same as those for the
remainder of the A Zone, all of which is on airport property. All new nonaeronautical structures are
prohibited. Automobile parking is allowed provided that it attracts no more than 10 people per acre. Policy
6.1 indicates that “it is the intention of the City of Ukiah to provide long-term control of the land uses within
these areas [A* and B1* Zones] by either acquiring the property in fee or obtaining approach protection
easements restricting the type and density of land uses permitted.”
The city also controls avigation easements at the south end of the runway. The easement area
encompasses all of the RPZ, the size of which is the same now as in the 1996 ALP. This area is reflected
in the 1996 ACLUP that establishes A* and B1* Zones covering the affected private property (see Figure
2).
Three options are apparent for addressing the ALUCP issues brought on by the possible need to
accommodate the C-130 at Ukiah Municipal Airport.
Option 1: Adopt the current draft ALUCP by the end of the year as scheduled. During 2021, consult
with Caltrans to determine what type of ALP documentation they would require to support an
ALUCP that assumes a longer runway. The FAA can then be approached to see if they would
provide funding support to ascertain runway length requirements for C-130 operations at Ukiah, to
determine how the runway can best be further extended, and to update the ALP. Once the ALP
has been updated, the ALUCP can be modified accordingly.
Page 6 of 46
Technical Memorandum
Mr. Craig Schlatter
October 20, 2020
Page 3
Mead & Hunt, Inc. | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707 526 5010 | fax 707 526 9721 | www.meadhunt.com
Option 2: Immediately modify the draft ALUCP to include compatibility zone boundaries and/or
criteria that would better preserve the potential for a longer runway. Any such modifications will
need to be based upon features depicted in the 2019 ALP, specifically the current and proposed
avigation easements. This can most readily be achieved by creating a Compatibility Zone 1*. This
concept is supported by the existence of the A* Zone in the 1996 ACLUP.
Further, to reflect the fact that the affected area is mostly private property, the criteria should be
less restrictive than for Zone 1 but more restrictive than the Zone 2 criteria. For example, future
uses could be limited to very-low-intensity activities (30 people per acre maximum) such as storage
or light industrial with uses such as retail, offices, and residential prohibited. Limits on the size of
buildings also could be set.
Option 3: Similar to Option 2, but uses a “conceptual RPZ” to protect for a possible need for a
5,000-foot long runway to serve future C-130 aircraft operations. The conceptual RPZ would either
define the outer limits of Zone 1 or a new Zone 1*. The criteria for the extended zone could either
be the same as Zone 1, which prohibits all new structures, or include slightly less stringent criteria.
Note that the conceptual RPZ has not been validated by the City nor is it supported by the 2019
ALP. Therefore, this option puts the City and/or ALUC in a vulnerable position to defend new
compatibility zone boundaries based on the conceptual RPZ.
Among the factors to be considered in choosing from these options, two in particular are important to
highlight here.
Timing: State airport land use planning statutes limit adoption of revisions to ALUCPs to once per
calendar year. Thus, regardless of which option is chosen, it would be best if ALUC action is taken
before the end of this year (2020) so that the ALUCP could be amended during 2021. Otherwise,
any revisions would need to wait until 2022.
CEQA: For Option 1, the necessary CEQA document has already been prepared and would not
need to be revised for the immediate adoption of the ALUCP. Even for Options 2 and 3, CEQA
document changes can arguably be avoided if the revised compatibility zones and criteria do not
impose any greater restrictions on land uses than exist under the 1996 ACLUP now in effect.
Increased restrictions would not only have CEQA implications but would also raise the specter of
causing inverse condemnation.
Page 7 of 46
1 5
Hastings Ave.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
R
o
a
d
1
2
22
3 3
Talmage Road
Thomas Street
S
t
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Draft Zone 1 and 1996 Zone A* (North)
Ukiah Municipal AirportSource: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
0 400 800Feet F Comparison Map:
1996 Ukiah Municipal AirportCompatibility Zones
A
A*
B1
B1*
B2
C
D
Existing Runway (4,423' Ex. Length)
Future Runway Extension (4,888' Fut. Length)
City Limit Boundary
2019 Airport Layout Plan
Existing Airport Property Boundary
Existing Avigation Easement
Future Avigation Easement
Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Future RPZ (465' runway extension)
Conceptual RPZ (add'l 112' runway extension)
2020 Draft Compatibility Zones
Draft Compatibility Zones
Urban Overlay Zone
Figure 1
Zone 1* Option
Page 8 of 46
Figure 2
3 3
2
2
3
3
1
5
5
Talmage Rd.
Highway 101
Hastings Ave.
D
o
r
a
S
t
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
S
tate
S
tre
et
N o r g a r d L a n e
2
Draft Zone 1 and 1996 Zone A* (South)
Ukiah Municipal AirportSource: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
0 400 800Feet F Comparison Map:
1996 Ukiah Municipal AirportCompatibility Zones
A
A*
B1
B1*
B2
C
D
Existing Runway (4,423' Ex. Length)
Future Runway Extension (4,888' Fut. Length)
City Limit Boundary
2020 Draft Compatibility Zones
Draft Compatibility Zones
Urban Overlay Zone
2019 Airport Layout Plan
Existing Airport Property Boundary
Existing Avigation Easement
Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Conceptual RPZ (112' runway extension)
Zone 1* Option
Page 9 of 46
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Greg Owen, Airport Manager – Ukiah Regional Airport
From: Mead & Hunt Aviation Planning Team, Corbett Smith Senior Planner
Date: December 06, 2022
Subject: Ukiah Regional Airport (UKI) Runway Extension Exploratory Study
A. Introduction
The City of Ukiah (City) has asked Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) to to determine the feasibility of
extending Runway 15/33 to a total length of 5,000 feet (an extension of 577 feet). This study is funded by
the City of Ukiah with no participation from the FAA. This Study does not include an aviation activity
forecasting element. The Study assumes that UKI will remain as a FAA category B-II airport with approach
visibility minimums as low as 1-¼ mile (Runway 15) and visual (Runway 33).
B. Runway Options Analysis and Airspace Findings
Mead & Hunt performed a geometric exercise for the physical configuration of a 5,000’x75’ runway. The
five resulting configuration options (Options 1, 1a, 2, 3, and 4) were developed using the following
considerations:
a. How the runway could fit on existing property, including required FAA safety areas and standards?
b. If existing property is inadequate, what areas of land would need to be acquired?
The Runway Options Summary Table (Table 1) is presented after the Airspace Findings discussion.
Option 1 – North Extension
Option 1 is a runway extension to the north of 577 feet, this increases the length of Runway 15/33 to 5,000
feet. The existing blast pad beyond Runway End 15 will require pavement upgrades to be useable for
aircraft landings and takeoffs. There are no changes to the Runway Design Code (RDC) or visibility
minimums. This extension assumes that there will be no declared distances and that the physical end of
Runway 15 will be the threshold. Analysis of airspace surfaces is needed to determine if any penetrations
require declared distances. The Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) requires 200 feet beyond the runway ends. The
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) and Runway Safety Area (RSA) requires 300 feet beyond the runway
ends and extend off Airport Property. The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) will shift north and will be further
off Airport Property, but it remains on an existing avigation easement. Airport Road, north of Runway End
15, penetrates through the ROFA and RSA. Airport Road will require relocation or closure within the bounds
of the runway surfaces. Any additional objects along Airport Road will also require relocation or removal if
they are inside any of the runway surfaces.
The runway extension does not require an extension of the parallel taxiway because the taxiway connects
to the existing blast pad. There will be no changes to the Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) or Taxiway
Safety Area (TSA) design, and the surfaces remain on Airport Property. There are no changes to the
location of the localizer or the Localizer Critical Area (LCA).
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 2
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Existing penetrations to airspace surfaces for Runway End 15 will increase in values. The Part 77 Approach
Surface and Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) will require removal or lowering of penetrations. Advisory
Circular (AC) 150/5300-13B (13B), Airport Design, changes the design of the Departure Surface by adding
sloping wings on each side of the 40:1 surface. The new departure surface design will require analysis to
determine if existing objects are penetrations to the surface. Penetrations to the Departure Surface will
require removal or lowering of the penetrating object.
There is the potential that the Runway 15 RPZ will not require property acquisition due to the surface
remaining on an existing avigation easement. If property acquisition is required, then the runway extension
will require approximately 6 acres of property acquisition to maintain all runway surfaces on Airport
Property. There is an existing area of the Runway 33 RPZ, a total of 10,500 Square Feet, that is off Airport
Property and not on an avigation easement. This property will need to be acquired, or an easement will
need to be in place for the RPZ.
Option 1a – North Extension
Option 1a is a variation of Option 1, a runway extension to the north of 457 feet. This increases the length
of Runway 15/33 to 4,880 feet. The existing blast pad beyond the Runway End 15 will require pavement
upgrades to be useable for aircraft landings and takeoffs. There are no changes to the RDC or visibility
minimums. This extension assumes that there will be no declared distances and that the physical end of
Runway 15 will be the threshold. Analysis of airspace surfaces is needed to determine if any penetrations
require declared distances. The OFZ requires 200 feet beyond the runway ends. The ROFA and RSA
require 300 feet beyond the runway ends and must remain on Airport Property. The RPZ will shift north and
will be further off Airport Property, but it will remain on an existing avigation easement. Airport Road, north
of Runway End 15, will not penetrate the ROFA and RSA. Airport Road will not require relocation or closure.
The runway extension does not require an extension of the parallel taxiway because the taxiway connects
to the existing blast pad. A taxiway connector will need to be relocated to the new threshold. There will be
no changes to the TOFA or TSA design, and the surfaces remain on Airport Property. There are no changes
to the location of the localizer or the LCA. Existing penetrations to airspace surfaces for Runway End 15
will increase in values. The Part 77 Approach Surface and TSS will require removal or lowering of
penetrations. AC-13B, Airport Design, changes the design of the Departure Surface by adding sloping
wings on each side of the 40:1 surface. The new departure surface design will require analysis to determine
if existing objects are penetrations to the surface. Penetrations to the Departure Surface will require removal
or lowering of the penetrating object.
There is the potential that the RPZ will not require property acquisition due to the surface remaining on an
existing avigation easement. If property acquisition is required, then the runway extension will require
approximately 5 acres of property acquisition to maintain all runway surfaces on Airport Property. There is
an existing area of the Runway 33 RPZ, a total of 10,500 Square Feet, that is off Airport Property and not
on an avigation easement. This property will need to be acquired, or an easement will need to be in place
for the RPZ.
Page 11 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 3
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Option 2 – South Extension
Option 2 is a runway extension to the south of 577 feet; this increases the length of Runway 15/33 to 5,000
feet. There are no changes to the RDC or visibility minimums. This extension assumes that there will be no
declared distances and that the physical end of Runway 33 will be the threshold. Analysis of airspace
surfaces is needed to determine if any penetrations require declared distances. The OFZ requires 200 feet
beyond runway ends. The ROFA and RSA requires 300 feet beyond the runway ends and will be off of
Airport Property. The RPZ will shift south and will be further off Airport Property, but it will remain on an
existing avigation easement.
The runway extension requires the parallel taxiway to be extended by 577 feet. There will be no changes
to the TOFA or TSA design, but the surfaces will be off Airport Property. The localizer and LCA will shift
with the runway extension. The shift of the localizer will result in the LCA going off Airport Property. Existing
penetrations to airspace surfaces for Runway End 33 will increase in values. The Part 77 Approach Surface
and TSS will require removal or lowering of penetrations. AC 13B, Airport Design, changes the design of
the Departure Surface by adding sloping wings on each side of the 40:1 surface. The new departure surface
design will require analysis to determine if existing objects are penetrations to the surface. Penetrations to
the Departure Surface will require removal or lowering of penetrating object.
There is the potential that the RPZ will not require property acquisition due to the surface remaining on an
existing avigation easement. If property acquisition is required, then the runway extension will require
approximately 10 acres of property acquisition to maintain all runway surfaces, taxiway surfaces, and LCA
on Airport Property. There is an existing area of 2 acres where the ROFA, OFZ, parallel taxiway
development, and LCA are off Airport Property. This property will need to be acquired.
Option 3 – North and South Extension
Option 3 is a runway extension to the north and south for a total of 577 feet, this increases the length of
Runway 15/33 to 5,000 feet. The extension to the north is 457 feet, and the extension to the south is 120
feet. The existing blast pad beyond Runway End 15 will require pavement upgrades to be useable for
aircraft landings and takeoffs. There are no changes to the RDC or visibility minimums. This extension
assumes that there will be declared distances to prevent any road relocations or closures. The OFZ requires
200 feet beyond the runway ends. The ROFA and RSA require 300 feet beyond the runway ends. The
ROFA, OFZ, and RSA beyond Runway End 15 will remain on Airport Property, but property acquisition is
needed to maintain the ROFA on Airport Property beyond Runway End 33. The Runway 15 RPZ will remain
on an existing avigation easement. The Runway 33 RPZ will remain on an existing avigation easement
except for a small section of land that is 7,500 Square Feet. The 7,500 Square Feet also includes property
acquisition needed to keep the ROFA and LCA on Airport Property.
The runway extension does not require an extension of the parallel taxiway to the north because the taxiway
connects to the existing blast pad. There will be no changes to the TOFA or TSA design, but the surfaces
will be off Airport Property when the taxiway extends to meet the south runway extension, and an area of
14,000 Square Feet will need to be acquired. The localizer and LCA will shift with the runway extension,
and the shift of the localizer will result in the LCA going off Airport Property. Existing penetrations to airspace
surfaces for Runway 15/33 will increase in values. The Part 77 Approach Surface and TSS will require
removal or lowering of penetrations. AC 13B, Airport Design, changes the design of the Departure Surface
by adding sloping wings on each side of the 40:1 surface. The new departure surface design will require
analysis to determine if existing objects are penetrations to the surface. Penetrations to the Departure
Surface will require removal or lowering of the penetrating object.
Page 12 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 4
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Most of the RPZs remain on existing avigation easements, and there is the potential for no property
acquisition in those areas. The only required section of property acquisition is the 21,500 Square Feet
(7,500 for ROFA, RPZ, LCA, and 14,000 for parallel taxiway development) for the Runway 33 RPZ, ROFA,
LCA, and parallel taxiway development. If the FAA requires additional property acquisition for RPZ
compliance, then the runway extension will require approximately 11 acres of property acquisition to
maintain all runway surfaces, parallel taxiway development, and LCA on Airport Property.
Option 4 – North and South Extension
Option 4 is a runway extension to the north and south for a total of 577 feet, this increases the length of
Runway 15/33 to 5,000 feet. The extension to the north is 48 feet, and the extension to the south is 529
feet. The existing blast pad beyond Runway End 15 will require pavement upgrades to be useable for
aircraft landings and takeoffs. There are no changes to the RDC or visibility minimums. This extension
assumes that there will be declared distances to prevent any road relocations or closures. The OFZ requires
200 feet beyond the runway ends. The ROFA and RSA require 300 feet beyond the runway ends. The
ROFA and RSA beyond Runway End 15 will remain on Airport Property, but acquisition is needed to
maintain the ROFA, OFZ, and RPZ on Airport Property beyond Runway End 33. The Runway 33 RPZ
remains on an existing avigation easement, except for a small portion of the corner beyond S State St.
The runway extension does not require an extension of the parallel taxiway to the north because the taxiway
connects to the existing blast pad. The connector to Runway End 15 will need to shift to meet the new
threshold. There will be no changes to the TOFA or TSA design, but the surfaces will be off Airport Property
when the taxiway extends to meet the south runway extension. The localizer and LCA will shift with the
runway extension. The shift of the localizer will result in the LCA going off Airport Property. Existing
penetrations to airspace surfaces for Runway 15/33 will increase in values. The Part 77 Approach Surface
and TSS will require removal or lowering of penetrations. AC 13B, Airport Design, changes the design of
the Departure Surface by adding sloping wings on each side of the 40:1 surface. The new departure surface
design will require analysis to determine if existing objects are penetrations to the surface. Penetrations to
the Departure Surface will require removal or lowering of the penetrating object.
Most of the RPZs remain on existing avigation easements, and there is the potential for no property
acquisition in those areas. The only required section of property acquisition is 1.8 acres for the ROFA,
parallel taxiway development, OFZ, LCA, and Runway 33 RPZ. If additional property acquisition is required,
then the runway extension will require approximately 11 acres of property acquisition to maintain all runway
surfaces, parallel taxiway development, and LCA on Airport Property.
Airspace Findings
An airspace study was conducted for each of the options. The airspace study was limited to using
obstruction/object data already obtained and included in the January 2016 FAA-approved ALP set.
General Findings
• Point #224 on ALP (Sheet 6) does not match elevation from AGIS. ALP shows 646’, AGIS shows
630.2’ (includes road clearance).
• Points #180 and #181 on the ALP (Sheet 6) have 15’ clearance added even though these are dirt
roads, not main roads. Only 10’ of clearance is need and should have maximum elevation reduced
by 5’ (Based on AGIS, #180 should be 630.8’ and #181 should be 629.4’).
Page 13 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 5
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
• There are no AGIS survey points for the road south of Runway End 33 (Norgard Lane). Will need
to use estimates using Google Earth to verify if road clearance is an issue for runway extension
options.
Findings Per Option
Airspace findings for each Option are presented in Table 2 below.
Page 14 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 6
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Table 1: Runway Options Summary
Category Option 1 Option 1a Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Runway
Length 5,000’ (577’ Extension) 4,880’ (457’ Extension) 5,000’ (577’ Extension) 5,000’ (577’ Extension) 5,000’ (577’ Extension)
Declared Distances No (Need analysis of airspace surfaces) No (Need analysis of airspace surfaces) No (Need analysis of airspace surfaces) Yes (Need analysis of airspace surfaces) Yes (Need analysis of airspace surfaces)
Runway Surfaces
Runway Object Free Area
(ROFA)
Airport Road in surface On Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property
Runway Safety Area (RSA) Airport Road in surface On Airport Property Off Airport Property On Airport Property On Airport Property
Runway Protection Zone
(RPZ)
Off Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) On Airport Property No Issues Off Airport Property On Airport Property Off Airport Property
NAVAIDS
Localizer Relocation No No Yes Yes Yes
Localizer Critical Area (LCA) No Change No Change Off Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property
Taxiways
Additional Pavement No Yes (Taxiway Connector relocation) Yes (Taxiway Extension and Connector) Yes (Taxiway Extension / Connector
relocation)
Yes (Taxiway Extension and Connector)
Taxiway Object Free Area
(TOFA)
No Issues No Issues Off Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) No Issues No Issues Off Airport Property Off Airport Property Off Airport Property
Property
Existing Property Not Sufficient for Surfaces Not Sufficient for Surfaces Not Sufficient for Surfaces Not Sufficient for Surfaces Not Sufficient for Surfaces
Property Acquisition Approximately 6 acres (To maintain RPZ,
ROFA, and RSA on Airport Property).
Requires minimum 10,500 SQ FT easement
or property acquisition.
Approximately 5 acres (To maintain RPZ on
Airport Property). Requires minimum 10,500
SQ FT easement or property acquisition.
Approximately 10 acres (To maintain RPZ,
ROFA, LCA, and OFZ on Airport Property.
Accommodate parallel taxiway extension).
Requires minimum 2 acres of property
acquisition.
Approximately 11 acres (To maintain RPZ,
ROFA, and LCA on Airport Property.
Accommodate parallel taxiway extension).
Requires minimum 21,500 SQ FT property
acquisition.
Approximately 11 acres (To maintain RPZ,
ROFA, OFZ and LCA on Airport Property.
Accommodate parallel taxiway extension).
Requires minimum 1.8 acres property
acquisition.
Parallel Taxiway
Implications
N/A N/A Requires Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B
separation compliance. Buildings inside
future TOFA will need to be removed.
Requires Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B
separation compliance. Buildings inside
future TOFA will need to be removed.
Requires Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B
separation compliance. Buildings inside
future TOFA will need to be removed.
Airspace
Part 77 Approach Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations
Threshold Siting Surface
(TSS)
Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations
Departure Surface Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations Analyze surface, lower / remove penetrations
Objects Potential for new penetrations / greater
penetration values
Potential for new penetrations / greater
penetration values
Potential for new penetrations / greater
penetration values
Potential for new penetrations / greater
penetration values
Potential for new penetrations / greater
penetration values
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2022
Page 15 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 7
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Table 2: Airspace Findings Summary
Category Option 1 Option 1a Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Runway 15
TSS • No buildings or poles obstructing surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface and will need to be closed.
• Dirt road penetrates surface north of Airport Road (even
when using 10 ft clearance)
• Approximately 4 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings or poles obstructing surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface and will need to be closed.
• Dirt road penetrates surface north of Airport Road (even
when using 10 ft clearance)
• Approximately 4 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings or poles obstructing surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Approximately 2 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings or poles obstructing surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Approximately 3 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings or poles obstructing surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Approximately 2 trees penetrate surface.
Part 77
Approach
• No buildings obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 6 points) telephone lines penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface and will need to be closed.
• Dirt road penetrates surface north of Airport Road (even
when using 10 ft clearance)
• Approximately +/- 20 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 4 points) telephone lines penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface and will need to be closed.
• Dirt road penetrates surface north of Airport Road (even
when using 10 ft clearance)
• Approximately +/- 20 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 2 points) telephone lines
penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface.
• Approximately +/- 10 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 3 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface.
• Approximately +/- 13 trees penetrate surface.
• Multiple (+/- 3 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface.
• Approximately +/- 10 trees penetrate surface.
Departure • 3 building points penetrate surface.
• Majority of existing service penetrates surface.
• Multiple (+/- 2 points) telephone lines penetrate surface.
• Approximately +/- 100 trees penetrate surface.
• Numerous tree/ground penetrations where mountains are.
• 3 building points penetrate surface.
• Majority of existing service penetrates surface.
• Multiple (+/- 2 points) telephone lines penetrate surface.
• Approximately +/- 100 trees penetrate surface.
• Numerous tree/ground penetrations where mountains are.
• Multiple (+/- 4 points) telephone lines
penetrate surface.
• Approximately +/- 100 trees penetrate
surface.
• Numerous tree/ground penetrations where
mountains are.
• No buildings penetrate surface.
• Multiple (+/- 3 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Approximately +/- 100 trees penetrate surface.
• Numerous tree/ground penetrations where
mountains are.
• No buildings penetrate surface.
• Multiple (+/- 3 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Approximately +/- 100 trees penetrate surface.
• Numerous tree/ground penetrations where
mountains are.
Runway 33
TSS • No buildings/poles penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface in areas closest to
runway end.
• Windsock penetrates surface,
• Approximately 4 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings/poles penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface in areas closest to
runway end.
• Windsock penetrates surface
• Approximately 4 trees penetrate surface.
• 3 building points penetrate surface.
• Multiple (+/- 2 points) telephone lines
penetrate surface.
• Approximately 10 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings/poles penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface in areas
closest to runway end.
• Windsock penetrates surface
• Approximately 4 trees penetrate surface.
• 3 buildings points penetrating surface.
• Multiple (+/- 2 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Approximately +/- 10 trees penetrate surface.
Part 77
Approach
• 3 building points penetrate surface.
• Majority of existing service road penetrates surface.
• Windsock penetrates surface.
• Approximately 3 trees penetrate surface.
• 3 building points penetrate surface.
• Majority of existing service road penetrates surface.
• Windsock penetrates surface.
• Approximately 3 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings or poles obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 2 points) telephone lines
penetrate surface.
• Approximately +/- 15 trees penetrate surface.
• 1 building point penetrates surface.
• Majority of existing service road penetrates
surface.
• Approximately +/- 7 trees penetrate surface.
• 3 building points penetrate surface.
• Multiple (+/- 2 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Approximately +/- 15 trees penetrate surface.
Departure • No buildings obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 6 points) telephone lines penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface and will need to be closed.
• Dirt road penetrates surface north of Airport Road (even
when using 10 ft clearance)
• Approximately +/- 20 trees penetrate surface.
• No buildings obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 4 points) telephone lines penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface and will need to be closed.
• Dirt road penetrates surface north of Airport Road (even
when using 10 ft clearance)
• Approximately +/- 20 trees penetrate surface.
• Multiple (+/- 3 points) telephone lines
penetrate surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Approximately +/- 12 trees penetrate surface.
• One building obstructing surface.
• Multiple (+/- 5 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface and will need to
be closed.
• Approximately +/- 25 trees penetrate surface.
• Multiple (+/- 3 points) telephone lines penetrate
surface.
• Existing service road penetrates surface.
• Airport Road penetrates surface.
• Approximately +/- 15 trees penetrate surface.
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2022
Page 16 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 8
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
C. Environmental Findings
Environmental considerations were documented using publicly available information. This was not an
environmental document to CEQA or NEPA standards, but rather a way to gauge alternative viability and
community impact. Environmental considerations were evaluated based on available data, such as
previous studies prepared by the client and readily available data from agency websites. No field survey
was performed.
Evaluation of Proposed Options
All five of the proposed options have the potential to affect the natural or social environment as defined by
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and
FAA orders implementing NEPA.
Natural Resources and Environment
As shown on Table 3, the potential environmental effects associated with natural resources do not vary
extensively among the options shown. In some cases, Option 1 is desirable because no additional
impervious surfaces would be created.
Air Quality
All options have the potential to create temporary, construction-related, or permanent air quality effects
based on changes in the number or type of aircraft operations, but there is no appreciable difference among
alternatives.
Biological Resources
Federal and state-listed species have the potential to occur within the project vicinity, including three bird
species, the monarch butterfly, and three endangered plant species (Burke’s goldfields, Contra Costa
goldfields, and Showy Indian clover). State-listed species that also have the potential to occur within the
project vicinity include the coho salmon, two endangered plant species (Baker’s Meadowfoam, Burke’s
Goldfields), and one threatened plant species, North Coast semaphore grass. Although Option 1 does not
include additional impervious surface, additional grading could potentially affect listed plant species.
Options 1a through 4 will require the creation of new impervious surface, which could affect potential plant
species. Without site-specific surveys, it is difficult to identify differences among the proposed options.
Alternatives that would create additional impervious surface (Options 1a through 4) have a greater potential
to affect listed plant species compared to Option 1.
Prime and Unique Farmland
Property acquisition south of Norgard Lane is identified as prime farmland if irrigated, and portions of the
land proposed for acquisition are in agricultural use (vineyard). While it is unlikely that impacts to farmland
under NEPA would be significant, the acquisition and potential removal of farmland is a potential
environmental effect associated with Options 2 through 4.
Page 17 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 9
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Floodplains
Areas along Talmadge Road north of the runway and areas south of the runway along Norgard Lane occur
within areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having a 1% annual
chance flood (FEMA, 2022). However, no new structures or impervious surfaces are proposed within the
designated flood areas. It is possible that drainage patterns would change as a result of project-related
grading or other changes.
Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources
No tribal lands were identified within the proposed project area, and available data does not identify any
known known sites of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance on or within the Airport vicinity. The
area associated with proposed runway expansion is previously disturbed. No new impervious surface is
proposed for Option 1; therefore, effects to cultural resources are not anticipated unless grading or
construction activities extend below previously disturbed soils. Based on available data, all options have
the potential to affect previously unknown cultural resources
Department of Transportation Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) resources include wetlands, historical resources, parks, and wildlife refuges. No known
historical resources, parks, or wildlife refuges are present. Potential wetlands to the south of the runway
may be present in association with Options 2-4, but a wetland determination has not been conducted.
Based on available data, only Options 2-4 have the potential to affect Section 4(f) resources.
Natural Resources and Energy Supply
The principal materials used for project construction will be aggregate and asphalt, and construction
vehicles and equipment will consume petroleum-based products, such as gasoline and diesel. Runway and
taxiway construction will require the installation of additional lights and electrical infrastructure. All materials
are readily available and would be used in quantities that would not affect available supplies. There is no
appreciable difference among the options regarding natural resources and energy supply.
Water Quality and Wetlands
Only Option 1 would not create new impervious surface, all other options have the potential to create new
runoff and affect water quality. Options south of the runway have the potential to affect a wetland identified
on National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, but a delineation has not been conducted.
Social Environment
Nearly all proposed options would affect the areas north and south of the runway.
Land Use
All proposed options would require the acquisition of land. Option 1 would create a new RPZ that includes
commercial structures, and property acquisition for both Options 1 and 1a would include commercial
properties to the north. The amount of property to be acquired for Options 2 through 4 is approximately
twice the amount required for Options 1 and 2, and existing structures would need to be removed or
relocated to accommodate the TSA and TOFA.
Page 18 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 10
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
In addition, the proposed RPZ for Options 2 and 4 would include portions of a vineyard and an apartment
complex. Under Option 3, only commercial properties both north and south of the current runway would be
affected.
Noise
Aircraft noise exposure currently passes over the City of Ukiah. Noise complaints have been received, and
the airport has implemented voluntary noise reduction measures. All proposed options would increase the
area exposed to aircraft noise. Under Options 1 and 1a, the aircraft noise contours would extend farther
north over the city and increase the number of residents exposed to aircraft noise. Under options 2 and 4,
noise exposure would increase south of the airport to include commercial and agricultural areas, which are
more compatible with aircraft noise exposure than residential use. Under Option 3, aircraft noise exposure
would increase to both the north and south.
Environmental Justice Populations
Environmental Justice Populations are determined by identifying the percentage of minority and low-income
populations as compared to a larger region, such as a county or state. EPA Census data indicate that the
percentage of persons of color in the City of Ukiah (44%), unincorporated area immediately north (55%)
and immediately south of the airport (46%) are lower than the statewide average of 63%; however, the
percentage of low-income households in the city (36%), unincorporated area to the north (37%), and area
immediately south (54%) all surpass the statewide percentage of 29% of low-income households. Based
on this data, environmental justice populations could be affected by all five options.
Light and Visual Effects
The inclusion of additional runway lights is unlikely to affect nearby sensitive receptors (residents) as
runway lights are on only when an aircraft is taking off or landing, and that will not change. However,
residents both north and south of the airport will notice change in flight patterns as aircraft come closer or
extend through residential areas (i.e., “overflight”). Although overflight is not a regulatory issue, it is
important to recognize that aircraft overflight is subjective and may be annoying to some.
Page 19 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 11
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Table 3: Environmental Analysis Summary
Category/Effect Option 1 Option 1a Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Natural Environment/Resources
Air Quality Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential
Biological Resources Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential
Section 4(f) Resources No No Potential Potential Potential
Farmland No No Yes No Yes
Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources No Potential Potential Potential Potential
Natural Resources and Energy Supply No No No No No
Water Quality/Wetlands No Potential Potential Potential Potential
Floodplains Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential
Social Environment
Land Use Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Acquire Acreage - Approximate 6 acres 5 acres 12 acres 11 acres 12.8 acres
Acquisition / Easement Size Minimum 10,500 SQ FT 10,500 SQ FT - 18,000 SQ FT -
Noise Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Environmental Justice Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Light/Visual Effects Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential
Notes
1. Neither coastal resources nor wild and scenic rivers are present in the project area; therefore, they are not included in the table.
2. Neither UKI nor the lands north and south of the airport identified for potential acquisition are not identified on the Environmental Protection Agency National Priorities List (NPL) or
the California Department of Toxic Substances EnviroStor database. No impacts related to hazardous materials are anticipated; therefore, hazardous materials are not identified
in the table.
3. The table presents existing, available data from resource agencies and previous studies. Additional environmental studies will be required to verify and refine the data presented.
Page 20 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 12
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Environmental Conclusion and Recommendations
As shown in Table 3, there is little variation in the extent of physical impacts to natural resources and the
environment to identify a superior option. While Option 1 is attractive in that it will not increase the amount
of impervious surface to affect water resources or wetlands, many of the potential effects on natural
resources identified for all five options are likely to be less than significant and addressed through
engineering solutions or the implementation of best management practices, unless biological or previously
unknown cultural resources are found on site. Farmland effects are associated with Options 2 and 4, and
if the vineyard must be converted to non-agricultural use, a less-than-significant impact.
Aircraft noise is controversial, and all proposed options have the potential to increase aircraft noise in
communities that include environmental justice populations (i.e., a greater percentage of low-income
households compared to the State of California. Options 1 and 1a would increase noise exposure north of
the airport and in the City of Ukiah, which includes a much denser population than the areas south of the
airport. Both Options 1 and 1a have the potential to create greater noise effects because aircraft noise
exposure would occur in residential areas within the City, and residential use is incompatible with aircraft
noise. In addition, a greater number of people would be affected by aircraft noise exposure, including
environmental justice communities, compared to Options 2 through 4.
Options 2 through 4 would increase aircraft noise exposure in new areas south of the airport, and all three
options would require a comparatively greater amount of property acquisition compared to Options 1 and
1a. In addition, Option 2 and Option 4 would also affect prime farmland and an existing apartment complex.
Option 3 would extend the runway both to the north and south and requires nearly twice the property
acquisition of Options 1 and 1a. However, it would avoid increasing noise exposure in already affected
areas of the city, including residential neighborhoods. Although Option 3 would increase noise exposure
south of the airport, it would do so in areas characterized by commercial use and agriculture, both of which
are compatible with aircraft noise. In addition, it would not compound controversial noise exposure north of
the airport as Options 1 and 1a would do. Similar to Options 2 and 4, existing commercial structures may
require removal, which is less attractive than Options 1 and 1a.
In terms of impacts to natural resources, it appears impacts are similar for Option 1a, 2, 3, and 4. However,
Option 3 is superior to Options 2 and 4 as it avoids and reduces potential farmland impacts to the south.
D. Rough Order of Magnitude Costs
A rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate was developed for each option. These were prepared
using available information and do not constitute an engineer’s opinion of probable cost. No field work, such
as geotechnical survey, was performed.
Estimates include the following:
a. Area of demolition
b. New pavement section
c. Revised paint markings
d. Revised electrical systems
i. MIRL
ii. MITL
Page 21 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 13
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
iii. REILS
iv. PAPI
v. Threshold lights
Table 4 presents the ROM costs for each option and the assumptions associated with each. General
assumptions are as follows:
• Pavement structure used for the cost estimate is able to accommodate 100 departures of a C130
aircraft at MTOW (155k lbs.) assuming a CBR of 2.
• Electrical work estimate assumes the runway phase 2 project including new PAPI, REILS system,
and runway lights is completed before the runway is extended. “Existing lights” in the following
assumptions refer to the runway lights configuration after completion of phase 2.
• Taxiway fillets were not considered in the cost estimates.
• Soft costs not included (design, survey, geotechnical, construction administration, FAA
reimbursable agreement, etc.)
• Included Engineer field office and 15% contingency on all projects.
Page 22 of 46
Technical Memorandum – UKI Runway Analysis
December 06, 2022
Page 14
Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492
707-526-5010 fax 608-273-6380 www.meadhunt.com
Table 4: Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Costs
Option Option 1 Option 1a Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Cost $ 2,570,650 $ 2,421,500 $ 2,655,400 $ 3,339,150 $ 3,722,550
Assumptions
PAPI / REILS Rwy 15 PAPI and REILS need to be
relocated.
Because of the relocation distance, all the
wires will need to be upsized to the rack.
Design must be up to FAA standards
since it’s FAA’s equipment.
Rwy 15 PAPI and REILS need to be
relocated.
Because of the relocation distance, all the
wires will need to be upsized to the rack.
Design must be up to FAA standards
since it’s FAA’s equipment.
Rwy 33 REILS need to be relocated.
Length of cable will be equal to the
existing configuration so no upsizing is
anticipated.
Rwy 15 PAPI and REILS and Rwy 33
REILS will need to be relocated.
For Rwy 15 PAPI and REILS, the
assumptions made for Alts 1 and 1a are
applicable.
For Rwy 33 REILS, the assumptions
made for Alt 2 are applicable.
Rwy 15 PAPI and REILS and Rwy 33
REILS will need to be relocated.
For Rwy 15 PAPI and REILS, due to the
short relocation distance, upsizing of the
cable is not anticipated.
For Rwy 33 REILS, the assumptions
made for Alt 2 are applicable.
Runway
Markings
Runway markings will need to be redone
for half the runway.
Runway markings will need to be redone
for half the runway.
Runway markings will need to be redone
for half the runway.
Runway markings will need to be redone. Runway markings will need to be redone.
Runway Lights Runway light spacing in the extended
runway portion will be less than 1 foot off
from the existing runway light spacing.
Most likely the spacing will be close
enough not to trigger relocation of all the
runway lights.
All the existing runway lights will need to
be relocated to have equal spacing. The
existing conduit is concrete encased and
within pavement. Assumed it would be
easier to install new base cans at the new
light locations and leave in place the
existing base cans. Assumed runway
lights could be salvaged and re-used.
Runway light spacing in the extended
runway portion will be less than 1 foot off
from the existing runway light spacing.
Most likely the spacing will be close
enough not to trigger relocation of all the
runway lights.
All the existing runway lights will need to
be relocated to have equal spacing. The
existing conduit is concrete encased and
within pavement. Same assumptions of
Alt 1a apply.
All the existing runway lights will need to
be relocated to have equal spacing. The
existing conduit is concrete encased and
within pavement. Same assumptions of Alt
1a apply.
Southern
Connector
- - It was assumed that the existing southern
connector would not be demolished as
part of this alternative.
It was assumed that the existing southern
connector will be demolished as part of
this alternative due to the proximity with
the new one.
It was assumed that the existing southern
connector would not be demolished as
part of this alternative.
Constant
Current
Regulator
- - - The existing constant current regulator
(CCR) for the taxiway circuit has an output
of 10kW. Available records indicate that
the taxiway lights are not LED. Based on
rough load calculations, the CCR should
be able to accommodate the new lights for
the connectors, but it will be close to its
limit.
The existing constant current regulator
(CCR) for the taxiway circuit has an output
of 10kW. Available records indicate that
the taxiway lights are not LED. Based on
rough load calculations, the CCR should
be able to accommodate the new lights for
the connectors, but it will be close to its
limit.
Costs NOT
Included
Land acquisition costs not included Land acquisition costs not included Costs for the relocation of the localizer
and land acquisition costs were not
included.
Costs for the relocation of the localizer
and land acquisition costs were not
included.
Costs for the relocation of the localizer
and land acquisition costs were not
included.
Page 23 of 46
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFA
RO
F
A
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
RSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
LCALCALCALCA
LC
A
LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA
L
C
A
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
0 FEET 600'
300'
Runway Extension (North Extension) - Option 1
Road in ROFA & RSA,
will require relocation.
Runway Extension Configuration
Runway 15/33 5,000' x 75'
577' Extension North
Changes to object
penetration values for
P77, TSS, and DEP.
Changes to object
penetration values
for DEP.
Assumes threshold is at runway end to
achieve 5,000' for landing on 15 and
takeoff on 33.
Declared distances can move threshold
and surfaces back but reduces landing
and departing lengths.
Potential future
property acquisition
for RPZ.
Airport
Road
Norgard
Ln
S State
St
Runway 33 RPZ off
Airport Property and
avigation easement.
Airport Property Boundary
Existing Avigation Easement
Runway
Runway Extension
Taxiway Extension
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Part 77 Approach (P77)
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)
Localizer Critical area (LCA)
Departure Surface (DEP)
Adopted ALUC Zone
LEGEND
ROFA
RSA
OFZ
P77
TSS
LCA
RPZ
DEP
Page 24 of 46
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFA
RO
F
A
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
RSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
LCALCALCALCA
LC
A
LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA
L
C
A
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
0 FEET 600'
300'
Runway Extension (North Extension) - Option 1a
Road Clearance penetrations
to Part 77 Approach and TSS
Runway Extension Configuration
Runway 15/33 4,880' x 75'
457' Extension North
Changes to object
penetration values for
P77, TSS, and DEP.
Assumes threshold is at runway end to
achieve 4,880' for landing on 15 and
takeoff on 33.
Declared distances will need to be used
for any Road Clearance penetrations.
Potential future
property acquisition
for RPZ.
Airport
Road
Norgard
Ln
S State
St
Changes to object
penetration values
for DEP.
Runway 33 RPZ off
Airport Property and
avigation easement.
Airport Property Boundary
Existing Avigation Easement
Runway
Runway Extension
Taxiway Extension
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Part 77 Approach (P77)
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)
Localizer Critical area (LCA)
Departure Surface (DEP)
Adopted ALUC Zone
LEGEND
ROFA
RSA
OFZ
P77
TSS
LCA
RPZ
DEP
Page 25 of 46
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFA
RO
F
A
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
RSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
LCALCALCALCA
LC
A
LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA
L
C
A
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
P77
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
0 FEET 600'
300'
Runway Extension (South Extension) - Option 2
Runway Extension Configuration
Runway 15/33 5,000' x 75'
577' Extension South
Future property acquisition needed.
ROFA, OFZ, and LCA off Airport Property.
Future parallel taxiway extension to reach
extended runway end will require
additional property for pavement and
Taxiway Object Free Area.
Changes to object
penetration values
for DEP.
Assumes threshold is at runway end to
achieve 5,000' for landing on 33 and
takeoff on 15.
Declared distances can move threshold
and surfaces back but reduces landing
and departing lengths.
Changes to object
penetration values for
P77, TSS, and DEP.
Potential future
property acquisition
for RPZ.
Airport
Road
Norgard
Ln
S State
St
Parallel Taxiway Extension will need to
meet the minimum 240' separation from
runway centerline. Buildings inside of
future TOFA will need to be removed.
Airport Property Boundary
Existing Avigation Easement
Runway
Runway Extension
Taxiway Extension
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Part 77 Approach (P77)
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)
Localizer Critical area (LCA)
Departure Surface (DEP)
Adopted ALUC Zone
LEGEND
ROFA
RSA
OFZ
P77
TSS
LCA
RPZ
DEP
Page 26 of 46
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFA
RO
F
A
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
RSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
LCALCALCALCA
LC
A
LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA
LCA
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
A
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA
LCA
RP
Z
RP
Z
RP
Z
RPZ
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TS
S
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
DE
P
DE
P
TOFATOFATOFATSATSATSA
TS
A
TS
A
0 FEET 600'
300'
Runway Extension (North & South Extension) - Option 3
Runway Extension Configuration
Runway 15/33 5,000' x 75'
457' Extension North
120' Extension South
Future property acquisition needed. Corner
of ROFA and segment of LCA clip off of
Airport Property. Future parallel taxiway
extension to reach extended runway end will
require additional property for pavement and
Taxiway Object Free Area. (See Inset)
Assumes thresholds will require
declared distances but runway
will be 5,000' long.
Changes to object
penetration values for
P77, TSS, and DEP.
ROFA & RSA stops
at fence line / Airport
Property.
Potential future
property acquisition
for RPZ.
Changes to object
penetration values for
P77, TSS, and DEP.
Potential future
property acquisition
for RPZ.
Airport
Road
Norgard
Ln
S State
St
Parallel Taxiway Extension will need to meet
the minimum 240' separation from runway
centerline. Buildings inside of future TOFA
will need to be removed. (See Inset)
Airport Property Boundary
Existing Avigation Easement
Runway
Runway Extension
Taxiway Extension
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Part 77 Approach (P77)
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)
Localizer Critical area (LCA)
Departure Surface (DEP)
Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)
Adopted ALUC Zone
LEGEND
ROFA
RSA
OFZ
P77
TSS
LCA
RPZ
DEP
0 FEET 200'
100'
TOFA
TSA TOFA /
TSA Impact
RPZ
Impact
LCA
Impact
Page 27 of 46
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ OFZ
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFA
RO
F
A
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
RSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
LCALCALCALCA
LC
A
LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA
L
C
A
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
RP
Z
RPZ
RPZ
RPZ
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TS
S
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
P77
P77
P77
P77
P77
P7
7
P7
7
P77
P77
P77
P77
P77
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
DE
P
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DE
P
0 FEET 600'
300'
Runway Extension (North and South Extension) - Option 4
Runway Extension Configuration
Runway 15/33 5,000' x 75'
48' Extension North
529' Extension South
Assumes thresholds will require
declared distances but runway
will be 5,000' long.
Changes to object
penetration values for
P77, TSS, and DEP.Threshold extended to
estimated maximum north
position without needing
displaced threshold.
Changes to object
penetration values for
P77, TSS, and DEP.
Future property acquisition needed.
ROFA, OFZ, and LCA off Airport Property.
Future parallel taxiway extension to reach
extended runway end will require
additional property for pavement and
Taxiway Object Free Area.
Potential future
property acquisition
for RPZ.
Potential future
property acquisition
for RPZ.
Airport
Road
Norgard
Ln
S State
St
Parallel Taxiway Extension will need to
meet the minimum 240' separation from
runway centerline. Buildings inside of
future TOFA will need to be removed.
Airport Property Boundary
Existing Avigation Easement
Runway
Runway Extension
Taxiway Extension
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Part 77 Approach (P77)
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)
Localizer Critical area (LCA)
Departure Surface (DEP)
Adopted ALUC Zone
LEGEND
ROFA
RSA
OFZ
P77
TSS
LCA
RPZ
DEP
Page 28 of 46
Attachment 3
Page 29 of 46
Runway Extension Exploratory Study
Corbett Smith, CM
February 19th, 20254:00pm
Ukiah Municipal Airport
Page 30 of 46
Study Progress to Date
•Meeting #1 – Kickoff Held on August 11th, 2022
•Meeting #2 - Review of alternatives (preliminary geometric and airspace review)
−Held on October 4th, 2022
•Meeting #3 Review of alternatives with costs and environmental factors
−Narrative report with graphics and findings were delivered at this meeting
−Held on December 6th, 2022
•Meeting #4 - Final meeting/presentation and project close out
−TODAY February 19th, 2025
Page 31 of 46
Runway Options
Initial Findings
Page 32 of 46
Option 1 – North Extension
Category Option 1
Runway
Length 5,000’ (577’ Extension)
Declared Distances No (Need analysis of airspace
surfaces)
Runway Surfaces
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)Airport Road in surface
Runway Safety Area (RSA)Airport Road in surface
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)Off Airport Property
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)On Airport Property
NAVAIDS
Localizer Relocation No
Localizer Critical Area (LCA)No Change
Taxiways
Additional Pavement No
Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)No Issues
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)No Issues
Property
Existing Property Not Sufficient for Surfaces
Property Acquisition
Approximately 6 acres (To
maintain RPZ, ROFA, and RSA
on Airport Property). Requires
minimum 10,500 SQ FT
easement or property
acquisition.
Parallel Taxiway Implications N/A
Airspace
Part 77 Approach Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Departure Surface Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Objects Potential for new penetrations /
greater penetration values
Page 33 of 46
Category Option 1a
Runway
Length 4,880’ (457’ Extension)
Declared Distances No (Need analysis of airspace
surfaces)
Runway Surfaces
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)On Airport Property
Runway Safety Area (RSA)On Airport Property
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)Off Airport Property
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)No Issues
NAVAIDS
Localizer Relocation No
Localizer Critical Area (LCA)No Change
Taxiways
Additional Pavement Yes (Taxiway Connector
relocation)
Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)No Issues
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)No Issues
Property
Existing Property Not Sufficient for Surfaces
Property Acquisition
Approximately 5 acres (To
maintain RPZ on Airport
Property). Requires minimum
10,500 SQ FT easement or
property acquisition.
Parallel Taxiway Implications N/A
Airspace
Part 77 Approach Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Departure Surface Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Objects Potential for new penetrations /
greater penetration values
Option 1a – North Extension
Page 34 of 46
Category Option 2
Runway
Length 5,000’ (577’ Extension)
Declared Distances No (Need analysis of airspace
surfaces)
Runway Surfaces
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)Off Airport Property
Runway Safety Area (RSA)Off Airport Property
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)Off Airport Property
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)Off Airport Property
NAVAIDS
Localizer Relocation Yes
Localizer Critical Area (LCA)Off Airport Property
Taxiways
Additional Pavement Yes (Taxiway Extension and
Connector)
Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)Off Airport Property
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)Off Airport Property
Property
Existing Property Not Sufficient for Surfaces
Property Acquisition
Approximately 10 acres (To
maintain RPZ, ROFA, LCA,
and OFZ on Airport Property.
Accommodate parallel taxiway
extension). Requires minimum
2 acres of property acquisition.
Parallel Taxiway Implications
Requires Advisory Circular
150/5300-13B separation
compliance. Buildings inside
future TOFA will need to be
removed.
Airspace
Part 77 Approach Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Departure Surface Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Objects Potential for new penetrations /
greater penetration values
Option 2 – South Extension
Page 35 of 46
Category Option 3
Runway
Length 5,000’ (577’ Extension)
Declared Distances Yes (Need analysis of airspace
surfaces)
Runway Surfaces
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)Off Airport Property
Runway Safety Area (RSA)On Airport Property
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)Off Airport Property
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)Off Airport Property
NAVAIDS
Localizer Relocation Yes
Localizer Critical Area (LCA)Off Airport Property
Taxiways
Additional Pavement Yes (Taxiway Extension /
Connector relocation)
Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)Off Airport Property
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)Off Airport Property
Property
Existing Property Not Sufficient for Surfaces
Property Acquisition
Approximately 11 acres (To
maintain RPZ, ROFA, and LCA
on Airport Property.
Accommodate parallel taxiway
extension). Requires minimum
18,000 SQ FT property
acquisition.
Parallel Taxiway Implications
Requires Advisory Circular
150/5300-13B separation
compliance. Buildings inside
future TOFA will need to be
removed.
Airspace
Part 77 Approach Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Departure Surface Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Objects Potential for new penetrations /
greater penetration values
Option 3 – North and South Extension
Page 36 of 46
Category Option 4
Runway
Length 5,000’ (577’ Extension)
Declared Distances Yes (Need analysis of airspace
surfaces)
Runway Surfaces
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)Off Airport Property
Runway Safety Area (RSA)On Airport Property
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)Off Airport Property
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)Off Airport Property
NAVAIDS
Localizer Relocation Yes
Localizer Critical Area (LCA)Off Airport Property
Taxiways
Additional Pavement Yes (Taxiway Extension and
Connector)
Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)Off Airport Property
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)Off Airport Property
Property
Existing Property Not Sufficient for Surfaces
Property Acquisition
Approximately 11 acres (To
maintain RPZ, ROFA, OFZ and
LCA on Airport Property.
Accommodate parallel taxiway
extension). Requires minimum
1.8 acres property acquisition.
Parallel Taxiway Implications
Requires Advisory Circular
150/5300-13B separation
compliance. Buildings inside
future TOFA will need to be
removed.
Airspace
Part 77 Approach Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Departure Surface Analyze surface,
lower / remove penetrations
Objects Potential for new penetrations /
greater penetration values
Option 4 – North and South Extension
Page 37 of 46
Rough Order of Magnitude Costs
2022 Dollars
Page 38 of 46
Steps required before construction
•Airports GIS Survey
•ALP update
•Caltrans coordination
•Land acquisition & road relocation/closure
•Environmental review including noise study
•Master Plan opportunity in coming years
Page 39 of 46
Page 40 of 46
Corbett.Smith@MeadHunt.com
707-284-8686
Page 41 of 46
Option 1
Page 42 of 46
Option 1a
Page 43 of 46
Option 2
Page 44 of 46
Option 3
Page 45 of 46
Option 4
Page 46 of 46