:SMMC 1U.U4.U6.220

-City ofSanta Monica


# . Page 1of 1
City Council Meeting: March 11, 2008

, Agenda Item: 7-A To: Mayor and City Council

Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 10.04.06.220 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMING USE OF SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TO ITS FEDERALLY DESIGNATED SPECIFICATION OF ARC 8-11 From: SUbject:

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance.

Executive Summary At its meeting on November 27, 2007, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance adding Section 10.04.06.220 ofthe Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to the use of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport to itsfederally designated specification ofARC 8-11. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Approved: Forwarded to Council:

Marsha Jones Moutrie City Attorney P. Lamont Ewell City Manager

EXHIBIT



# 16A

http://www.smgov.net!cityclerklcouncil/agendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A.htm 3/26/2008___.__ .__ .••...••...•••..• '-".

__ '-" _1Io~J V.a. 1tJ~.l"'L4 .1".1V.1J.J.\,.a PageI of 8

City Council Meeting 3-11-08 Santa Monica, California

ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 10.04.06.220 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMING USE OF SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TO ITS FEDERALLY DESIGNATED SPECIFICATION OFARC B-II WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica owns and operates a busy municipal airport which is immediately adjacent to dense residential neighborhoods at both ends of its runway but which has no buffer zones or Runway Safety Areas to protect airport neighbors and users against the risk of accidents occurring during takeoffs and landings; and WHEREAS, as the proprietor and operator of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport, the City must keep the Airport safe forAirport neighbors, pilots, passengers and others; and WHEREAS, the City's duty to keep the Airport safe is recognized by both state and federal law; and WHEREAS, Airport safety is of particular concern to the City because of the Airport's unique circumstances; and WHEREAS, those unique circumstances include the very close proximity of homes and arterial streets to the ends of the runway, the lack of any buffer zones or Runway Safety Areas between the Airport and surrounding residential and commercial development, and the Airport's physical location on a plateau with steep downhill grades at either end ofthe runway; and WHEREAS, in the dense residential neighborhoods bordering the Airport at each end of the runway, homes are within 300 feet ofthe runway's ends and directly within the flight path; and WHEREAS, these residential neighborhoods are separated from the Airport only by busy arterial streets which run along the Airport's western and eastern boundaries; and WHEREAS, in addition to the residential neighborhoods bordering the Airport to the east and west, a gasoline station is situated opposite the eastern end of the runway and heavily utilized public facilities are located in the residential neighborhood to the west, including a child

http://www.smgov.net!cityclerk/councillagendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-I.htm 3/26/2008U~U!u\...- ! V.V"t.VV •.L..L.V

- \..-JlY Vi c)aIlla lVIOnlCa Page2of8

care facility; and WHEREAS, the Airport is thus entirely surrounded by residential and other urban development with no buffer zones or Runway Safety Areas to separate Airport operations from the densely populated neighborhoods around it; and WHEREAS, the Airport is situated on a plateau which drops off steeply about 40 feet to the west and southwest and which is bordered by hilly terrain to the east and west; and WHEREAS, the natural terrain exacerbates the risks inherent in the proximity of homes to the runway ends, and it limits the options for enhancing safety: and WHEREAS, in past decades, the Airport's lack of buffer zones and safety areas, proximity to homes and unusual topography did not raise the same safety concerns as exist today because ofthe sharp increase in aircraft with greater Runway Safety Area requirements; and WHEREAS, the Airport was designed to accommodate a fleet of general aviation aircraft with slow approach speeds; and WHEREAS, in the last several decades, both the composition of the Airport's fleet and the intensity of operations have changed substantially; and WHEREAS, in the 1960's jets began using the Airport and disputes arose between the City and the federal government about Airport impacts and operations; and WHEREAS, these disputes were litigated and eventually settled in 1984 with the Santa Monica Airport Agreement ("1984 Agreement") between the City and the Federal government which guides the City's actions in operating the Airport today; and WHEREAS, the 1984 Agreement recognizes that the Airport is designed to accommodate general aviation aircraft consistent with Group If Design Standards as set forth in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.4B, dated February 24, 1983; and WHEREAS, that federal Advisory Circular states that "the standards, recommendations and guidance material in this Advisory Circular define an airport suitable for the less demanding Aircraft Approach Category A and B airplanes, i.e., airplanes with approach speeds of less than 121 knots

.... ": and WHEREAS, consistent with the 1984 Agreement, the Airport Layout Plan, approved by the FAA on August 20, 1991, assigns an Airport Reference Code designation of 8-11 to the Airport

http://www.smgov.netlcityclerklcouncil/agendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-1.htm 3/26/2008u:.uu'"-' 1V.V"T.vV.~~V

- \....HJ Vi oarua rvrornca Page3of8

and obligates the City to operate the Airport accordingly; and WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law, the 8-11 designation means that the Airport is designed to serve aircraft whose approach speeds are less than 121 knots; and WHEREAS, current FAA standards require Runway Safety Areas to protect against the dangers of aircraft overruns; 

### and WHEREAS, FAA Order 5200.8 (Runway Safety Area Program) provides that all federally obligated airports should provide a Runway Safety Area for aircraft overruns consistent with the standards of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (Airport Design); and WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Airport is currently a federally obligated airport because the City accepted federal airport grants through 1994; and WHEREAS, the Order also applies because the FAA has declared that "Runway Safety Area standards cannot be modified or waived like other airport design standards" Advisory Circular 150/5300-13CHG7; and WHEREAS, in the years since 1984, the City's safety concerns arising from the lack of Runway Safety Areas have grown because there has been a rapid increase inAirport use by Category C and Daircraft which exceed the Airport's design standards because their higher landing speeds require 1,000 foot Runway Safety Areas; and WHEREAS, over the last twenty-five years, the number of category C and D aircraft using the Airport has increased ten fold; and WHEREAS, in 2002, the Santa Monica City Council addressed these growing safety
concerns by approving an Aircraft Conformance Program which would conform operations at the Airport to federal standards applicable toAirport Reference Code 8-11 airports; and WHEREAS, to implement a key component of the conformance program, the City submitted an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the FAA on September 8, 2004 designed to bring the Airport within FAA standards by establishing Runway Safety Areas for Category A and 8 aircraft; and WHEREAS theAirport Layout Plan submitted bythe City in 2004 is consistent with both the FAA Runway Safety Area standards to accommodate Category A and 8 aircraft and the City's obligation to accommodate such aircraft pursuant to the 1984 Agreement; and

http://www.smgov.net/cityclerklcouncil/agendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-I.htm 3/26/2008.::llVHV1L 1V.V't.VO.L."W

- \....HY or Santa Montca


# . Page4of8
WHEREAS, the FAA has failed to approve or disapprove the City's proposed safety plans despite the fact that they reflect federal safety standards and comport with the City's rights and responsibilities under the 1984 Agreement; and WHEREAS, instead of approving the City's safety plans, the FAA has challenged the City's right to even consider them, disputed their legality, and delayed and forestalled their implementation; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has engaged in exhaustive discussions with the FAA for over five (5) years in response to the FAA's insisting upon alternative and lesser proposals; and WHEREAS, the FAA's proposals are inadequate because they fail to provide Runway Safety Areas that even come close to meeting the FAA's published standard of 1000 feet (or the equivalent stopping power provided by an arresting system bed) for Category C and 0 aircraft, which are defined by the FAA as those aircraft with approach of 121 knots or more; and WHEREAS, during the City's lengthy but unavailing attempts to cooperatively resolve its dispute with the FAA, the number of Category C and 0 aircraft using the Airport has continued to grow and has increased by about 40%, from about 6,700 in2001 to about 9,000 in 2006; and WHEREAS, despite the growing safety risks, on August 28, 2007, the FAA Associate Administrator for Airports made a presentation to the Santa Monica City Council; and his presentation confirmed that the FAA's final offer for resolving the Runway Safety Area issue by agreement with the City would not even come close to meeting the FAA's own published standards for safety areas for Category Cand 0 aircraft; and WHEREAS, FAA guidance formally recognizes the riskof overruns: "Aircraft can and do
overrun the ends of runways, sometimes with devastating results." AC No. 150/5220-22A; and WHEREAS, acatastrophic overrun may occur at any airport but is particularly likely to
occur ifthere are inadequate Runway Safety Areas and the airport is closely surrounded by residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, runway overruns occur throughout the country every year; and WHEREAS, in2002 a Category Baircraft skidded offthe west end ofthe runway at the Airport and the pilot and passenger were both killed in the accident; and

http://www.smgov.net/cityclerklcouncil!agendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-l.htm 3/26/2008..:llVI1Vl\.... 1V.V't.VU.L.L.V
- L-lLY U1 ;,anta lVlOmCa


# . Page 5 of8
WHEREAS, this year in Santa Barbara a private aircraft overran the runway by over 300 feet; and WHEREAS, in Burbank a commercial jet overran the runway, traveled through the fence at the airport boundary, and finally came to rest in agasoline station; and WHEREAS, recently inTeterboro, a private aircraft overran the runway, crossed an adjacent roadway and came to rest in acommercial center; and WHEREAS, the overruns at Santa Barbara and Teterboro involved Category C and 0 aircraft like those currently operating atthe Santa Monica Airport; and WHEREAS, a similar overrun in Santa Monica would likely result in the aircraft plummeting into the residential neighborhood that liesjust below the west end ofthe runway - a risk that the City must take steps to avert; and WHEREAS, this ordinance will greatly enhance Airport safety, but itwill not impose any unlawful or unreasonable burdens; and WHEREAS, with the addition of appropriate safety areas, the Airport's single runway of less than 5,000 feet in length can safely accommodate general aviation aircraft with slower approach speeds, that is those designated by Federal Aviation Administration as Category A and Baircraft because they have approach speeds of less than 121 knots; and WHEREAS, the adoption ofthis ordinance will not ban or prevent any person from using the Airport ordiscriminate based upon an aircraft's type of power plant; norwill it unjustly discriminate against any type of aircraft; rather, the distinction made by this ordinance constitutes
a reasonable safety measure that is based on distinctions contained in federal standards and that is consistent with the City's legal authority and contractual rights and obligations under the 1984 Agreement; and WHEREAS, adopting this ordinance will not affect the vast majority of aircraft which utilize the Santa Monica Airport and will impact only the small percentage of aircraft which are not compatible with the Airport facilities; and
WHEREAS, only about 7% of current airport operations will be affected bythis ordinance; and

http://www.smgov.net/cityclerklcouncillagendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-I.htm 3/26/2008__ "' .•.••.••• 1'.&."" .•. v~V.~VV.L.4V
- vI"] V~ lJ£l1114 .lVIUU1\;(1 • Page6of8
WHEREAS, the sole burden caused bythis ordinance will be that asmall number of persons who travel by private aircraft will need to either use different aircraft to fly to orfrom Santa Monica or use another ofthe region's airports; and WHEREAS, that minimal burden upon private aircraft operators isfar outweighed bythis ordinance's safety benefits to thousands ofAirport neighbors, pilots, passengers, and the City; and WHEREAS, in striking the balance between, on the one hand, the convenience of afew; and, on the other, the safety of many, the City, as a prudent Airport proprietor, must exercise its authority and fulfill its most basic duty, protection of public safety.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 10.04.06.220 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 10.04.06.220. Conformance Requirements. (a) Statement of Purpose and Authority. This section is enacted pursuant to the authority ofthe City of Santa Monica as the owner, operator and proprietor ofthe Airport to make reasonable regulations intended to protect the safety of persons living adjacent to the Airport and flying in aircraft using the Airport. This section comports with agreements between the City and the Federal Aviation Administration recognizing the City's obligation to serve category A and Baircraft at the Airport and its right to prohibit or limit any other given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the Airport if such action is necessary for the Airport's safe and efficient operation.
(b) Prohibition. No person operating acategory C or D aircraft, as defined bythe FAA's standards, shall land at ordepart from the Santa

http://www.smgov.netlcityclerklcouncillagendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-I.htm 3/26/2008_.a. •.••.a.•.••.

_ .•• 'V.V I.'VV."'UV '-'~"'J V.J. UU11la lVlUlJ.l~a.

, Page 70f8

Monica Municipal Airport. (c) Emergency Exception. The prohibition contained in this section does not apply tothe operator offixed wing aircraft who believes in good faith, based on special circumstances, that a bona fide emergency exists such that it isabsolutely necessary that the aircraft depart or land atthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport in order to preserve life or property. (d) Penalties and Remedies. Any person who is convicted of violating this section shall be guilty ofa misdemeanor and upon conviction shall he punished by afine not greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) orby imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Additionally, any person, including the City, may enforce this section by means of a civil action for legal orequitable relief; and, nothing in this section shall preclude any person from seeking any other remedies afforded by law.

SECTION 2. Any provision ofthe Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions ofthis Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that itwould have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or

http://www.smgov.net!cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-I.htm 3/26/2008u"'~"'~'-' 'V.V"T.VV.""""V

- \..-Hl Vi ~i:111li:11VIUnlCa .' 

# . Page 80f8

unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effectiv: 30 ~s from its..- adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM:

MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE City Attorney

http://www.smgov.net/cityclerklcouncil/agendas/2008/20080325/s2008032507-A-I.htm 3/26/2008<em class="hit"> 10.04.06.220</em> Conformance requirements. Page 1of 1

Santa Monica Municipal Code up Previous Next Main Ad:J~leJQAIRPQRLAND HARBORRI;GUlAIIQNS Chapter 10.04 MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Subchapter 10.04.06 Airport Field Regulations Search Print NoFrames

(a) Statement ofPurpose and Authority. This Section isenacted pursuant tothe authority ofthe City ofSanta Monica asthe owner, operator and proprietor ofthe Airport tomake reasonable regulations intended to protect the safety ofpersons living adjacent to the Airport and flying in aircraft using the Airport. This Section comports with agreements between the City and the Federal Aviation Administration recognizing the City's obligation to serve category A and B aircraft atthe Airport and itsright to prohibit orlimit any other given type, kind orclass ofaeronautical use ofthe Airport ifsuch action isnecessary forthe Airport's safe and efficient operation. (b) Prohibition. No person operating acategory C orD aircraft, as defined bythe FAA's standards, shal1 land atordepart from the Santa Monica Municipal Airport. (c) Emergency Exception

..The prohibition contained inthis section does not apply to the operator affixed wing aircraft who believes ingood faith, based on special circumstances, that abona fide emergency exists such that itis absolutely necessary that the aircraft depart orland atthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport inorder to preserve life orproperty. (d) Penalties and Remedies. Any person who isconvicted ofviolating this section shall be guilty ofa misdemeanor and upon conviction shall he punished by afine not greater than one thousand dol1ars orby imprisonment inthe County Jail fornot more than six months, orbyboth such fine and imprisonment. Additional1y, any person, including the City, may enforce this Section by means ofacivil action for legal or equitable relief; and, nothing inthis Section shall preclude any person from seeking any other remedies afforded by law. (Added by Ord. No. 2251CCS § I, adopted 2/26/08)

http://qcode.us/codes/santamonica/view.php?topic= 10-10_04-10_04_06-10_04_06_ 220&h... 5/17/2008CITY OF SANTA MONICA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

- 1685 MAIN STREET

TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 27,2007 

# 88 EXHIBIT

MEETING BEGINS AT 5:45 P.M. 2. CLOSED SESSIONS: 2-C: Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation: Inthe Matter ofCompliance with Federal Obligations bythe City of Santa Monica, California, FAA Docket No. 16-02-08. 7-C: Introduction and first reading ofanordinance adding Section 10.04.06.150 tothe Municipal Code conforming the use ofSanta Monica Municipal Airport to its federally designated specification ofARC B-11, forpublic safety purposes including the safety ofresidents living immediately adjacent tothe airport runway ends and those individuals using and working atthe airport. City Council Meeting: November 27, 2007 Agenda Item: 7-C To: From: Subject: Mayor and City Council

Robert Trimborn, Acting Airport Director Ordinance Requiring that Aircraft Operations at Santa Monica Airport Conform with FAA Design Standards forCategory A andB Aircraft. Recommended Action Staffrecommends that City Council introduce, for firstreading, the attached ordinance which would protect public safety, particularly the safety ofresidents living immediately adjacent tothe Santa Monica Airport runway ends and those individuals using andworking atthe Airport, by conforming Airport usage to the Airport's federal designation which defines itas afacility suitable for Category A and B aircraft. Executive Summary The Santa Monica Airport is owned and operated bythe City. As Airport proprietor, the City has the right and duty to maintain Airport safety. Doing so iscrucial because the Airport's circumstances are unique. Itis situated on aplateau with hills oneither side and surrounded by dense urban development. Residential neighborhoods lie inimmediate proximity toboth ends oftherunway, with the nearest homes being less than 300 feet from the runway ends. And, the Airport has nobuffers orRunway Safety Areas toprotect against the, risks ofarunway undershoot oroverrun. The Airport is classified bythe federal government with anAirport Reference Code (ARC) ofB-II which defines the Airport as suitable foruse by slower, Category A and B aircraft with approach speeds ofless than 121 knots. This designation isconsistent with the factthat the Airport's solerunway isless than 5,000 feet in length and istherefore not suitable, without conforming Runway Safety Areas, forfaster general aviation aircraft with approach speeds of 121 knots orgreater. The Santa Monica Airport Agreement ("1984 Agreement"), which governs Airport operations through 2015, provides that the Airport is capable ofhandling aircraft described inareferenced FAA Advisory Circular, which governed airports serving Category A and Baircraft. The 1991 Airport Layout Plan, which was approved bythe federal government, likewise designates the Airport as anAirport Reference Code (ARC) B-II airport

- an airport suitable for Category A and B aircraft. However, since the 1984Agreement was approved, growing numbers offaster, Category C andD aircraft have begun using the Airport. This shift inthe fleet exacerbates the safety risks created bythe Airport's location amidst residential neighborhoods, its situation onaplateau surrounded by hills, and its lack ofRunway Safety Areas. To address the risk inherent inthis combination ofcircumstances, Council approved the Aircraft Conformance Program in2002. This program consisted ofaplan to conform Airport usage tothe Category A and B aircraft suitable tothe Airport's design and create Runway Safety Areas that would meet the FAA's published standards forA and B aircraft. Two years later, in2004, the City submitted tothe FAA aproposed Airport Layout Plan which would implement Runway Safety Areas conforming toFAA standards forA and B aircraft. Despite their consistency with published federal safety standards and guidelines, the FAA refuses to approve these safety measures. Instead, ithas opposed them, disputed the City'S right to even consider them, and insisted that the City utilize other measures. However, the measures advocated bythe FAA donot even come close to meeting the federal government's own published safety guidelines. Meanwhile, the risk ofoverruns continues to mount as more andmore Category C andD aircraft use the Airport. Accordingly, last month, Council directed stafftoprepare anordinance which would protect Airport neighbors, pilots, passengers andthe City by conforming Airport usage tothe Airport's ARC B-II designation. The attached ordinance fulfills that direction. Itwould prohibit Category Cand D aircraft from taking offorlanding atthe Airport, create anexception totheprohibition foremergency situations, and establish criminal and civil remedies forviolations. Background The Airport's setting isunique. Itislocated on aplateau which drops offsteeply ateach end ofthe runway. The drop offtothe west

- the usual direction oftake off

- is about 40 feet. Moreover, hills rise tothe east of ' the Airport and slope downward tothe west. Thus, landings andtake offs atthe Airport have been likened to aircraft operations on an aircraft carrier. There islittle ornomargin for error.:: Another extremely unusual feature ofthe Airport's setting isitsvery close proximity tohomes. Residential neighborhoods lie atboth ends ofthe runway, andthe closest homes arewithin 300 feet ofthe runway ends. Urban development entirely surrounds the Airport. Inaddition toresidential neighborhoods, there arebusy arterial streetsjust outside the east and west boundaries ofthe Airport; and there is agas station across the arterial tothe east, near the eastern end ofthe runway. Also, inaddition to many hundreds ofresidences, there arevarious public improvements inthe neighborhood tothe west, including aday care center. The Airport's facilities are also unusual. There areno buffer zones orRunway Safety Areas to insulate Airport operations from the surrounding community. Decades ago, when the Airport's design was more inconformity with its fleet, the lack ofRunway Safety Areas did notpresent the same safety concerns as itdoes today. However, usage ofthe Airport has changed dramatically over the last40 years. Inthe 1960's, private jets began using the Airport. Litigation followed between the City and federal government over Airport operations and community impacts. Finally, in 1984, the City's dispute with the federal government was resolved through theadoption ofthe 1984Agreement which guides the City's operation ofthe Airport today and establishes the mutual rights and obligations oftheparties. The 1984Agreement specifies that "[t]he Airport will be capable ofaccommodating most kinds ofgeneral aviation aircraft, generally consistent with Group IIDesign Standards setforth inFAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.4B dated February 23, 1983". That Advisory Circular (AC) states: "The standards, recommendations, and guidance material inthis Advisory Circular (AC) define anairport suitable forthe less demanding Aircraft Approach Category A and B airplanes, i.e., airplanes with approach speeds ofless than 121 knots

.... The FAA uses the standards and recommendations inthis publication toprovide technical guidance forthe design ofsafe and efficient airports;

.... " Thus, the 1984Agreement recognized and established that the Airport would be operated for Category Aand B aircraft. Itdoes not require the City to make the Airport available for faster Category C and D aircraft. The recognition inthe 1984Agreement that the Airport isa facility forless demanding aircraft inthe AandB categories with approach speeds below 121 knots reflected the aircraft fleet that used the Airport atthe time. In 1984, aircraft based atthe Airport could have been accommodated with arunway of3200 feet; and, analyzing transient aircraft using the Airport, the 1983 Airport Layout Plan found that arunway of4500 feet would have been sufficient. In 1991, the City submitted arevised Airport Layout Plan. Like the documents referenced inthe 1984 Agreement, that Layout Plan also designates the Airport as anARC B-I1Airport. The FAA approved the. 1991 Layout Plan. Since 1984, agrowing number ofthe aircraft using the airport has been the faster Category C and D aircraft with approach speeds of 121 knots orgreater. The number ofCategory C and D aircraft operations has grown from approximately 1500 annual operations inthe mid-1980's to over 9,000 annual operations in2006, orabout 25 operations per day. This increase inusage by faster aircraft has generated enormous concern in Santa Monica because oftheproximity ofhomes tothe runway ends and because the Airport has noRunway Safety

. Areas to separate aircraft operations from surrounding residential neighborhoods. In general, the FAA recognizes the need forRunway Safety Areas, and promotes their development. Thus, to avert runway overrun accidents, the FAA has instituted aprogram tobring airports into compliance with the FAA's Runway Safety Area (RSA) standards. As the FAA noted inone ofits advisory circulars, "Aircraft can and do overrun the ends ofrunways, sometimes with devastating results." AC 150/5220-22A. The FAA's'> published guidance explains: "The objective ofthe Runway Safety Area Program isthat allRSAs atfederally obligated airports and allRSAs atairports certificated under 14Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) part 139 shall conform tothe standards contained inAC 150/5300-13 Airport Design, tothe extent practicable." FAA Order 5200.8. Through 1994, the City received funds through the Airport Improvement Program. Thus, the Airport is a"federally obligated" airport. Inthe late 1990's, the City Council expressed concerns regarding the compatibility ofthe Category CaridD aircraft with the facilities ofthe Airport. Inresponse, Airport staffreviewed the FAA's guidelines forRunway Safety Areas and initiated aseries ofmeetings with the FAA, in2002, to discuss the safety issues and the City's proposals to enhance the safe operation ofaircraft atthe Airport. With the assistance ofCoffman Associates, the Airport Staffdeveloped aproposal called the Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) that would; preserve the Airport's use as aB-II facility byreserving the Airport's facility for aircraft consistent with the

. Airport's design capacity andby creating runway safety areas forA and B aircraft consistent with publishedFAA standards. The Airport Commission held public hearings inMay and July of2002 aspart ofthe process offormulating the ACP and presenting ittothe City Council forconsideration. Before the City Council could even consider the Aircraft Conformance Plan, the FAA initiated an administrative action under 14C.F.R., Part 16("Part 16") on October 8,2002 challenging the Airport Commission's right to even recommend the ACP tothe City Council. The complaint filed against the City by the FAA asserted that the safety plan was illegal. The City filed written opposition and objection tothe FAA's complaint onNovember 7, 2002, and continued to negotiate with the FAA inorder totry and reach aprompt, mutually acceptable safety solution.

. OnDecember 10,2002, the City Council received the Airport Commission's recommendation to approve the ACP and areport onthe pending administrative proceeding. Following apublic hearing, the City Council approved the ACP concept ofimplementing 300 foot runway safety areas ateither end ofthe runway, a300 foot relocated threshold from the departure end ofthe runway, and aban on C and D aircraft. The City Council also directed City staffto continue to meet with the FAA inanattempt topromptly resolve the matter. " Negotiations with the FAA went on for five years. Ultimately, the FAA recognized that the Airport isuniquely situated inaconstrained urban environment. The close proximity ofthe residential homes tothe ends ofthe runway has ledtothejoint conclusion that arunway safety solution forboth runway ends isneeded. Nonetheless, although the FAA ultimately acknowledged that the most demanding aircraft now using the Airport is aCategory D-II aircraft, the FAA steadfastly refused topermit implementation ofits own safety standards for aircraft with Category Cand D approach speeds. Instead, the FAA consistently maintained that itwould only approve lesser, non-standard safety measures, apparently to ensure the perceived convenience of those who travel inprivate planes. Given the inadequacy ofthe proposals made bythe FAA, on October 10,2007, Council authorized staffto ~~e the next step inimplementing those portions ofthe Aircraft Conformance Program that would enable the"

.. Airport to meet published FAA safety standards. That step was preparation for Council consideration of'aii ordinance which would conform aircraft usage tothe Airport's FAA design designation. Discussion Pursuant to Council's direction, staffhas prepared the attached, proposed Ordinance for Council consideration

.. Itwould achieve the City's goal ofenhancing Airport safety by conforming aircraft operations tothe Airport's FAA designation as aB-II airport. Specifically, itwould accomplish this purpose byprohibiting any person operating an aircraft with an approach speed of 121 knots orgreater from landing ortaking offatthe Airport except incase ofanemergency. The proposed ordinance includes both criminal penalties and civil remedies. Any person convicted ofviolating the Ordinance would be guilty ofamisdemeanor and, upon conviction, would be subject to afine not greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) orimprisonment fornot more than sixmonths, orbyboth such fine and imprisonment. Civil injunctions would also be authorized. Approval ofthe ordinance isrecommended asthe next step inthe implementation ofthe Aircraft Conformance Program. That program comports with the Airport's federal designation ofAirport Reference Code (ARC) BII,the 1984Agreement, and current federal Runway Safety Area standards. References inthe 1984Agreement establish that the Airport must be operated for Category A and B aircraft (not for Cand D aircraft), and the

. FAA cannot unilaterally modify the agreement. Moreover, the 1991 Airport Layout Plan establish that the'Airport is suitable for Category A and B aircraft. These documents reflect consistent federal recognition ofthe fact that the Airport is designed foruse by slower Category A andB aircraft. Moreover, federal standards on Runway Safety Areas apply tothe Airport because the Airport is "federally obligated", astatus resulting from the City's acceptance offederal grants through 1994. Finally, even ifthe Runway Safety Area requirements of federal law were nottechnically applicable (which they are), itisirrational to oppose their application tothis particular busy general aviation airport because itis surrounded by residential neighborhoods, including homes within 300 feet ofthe runway's end. The FAA's refusal to allow the City to implement safety measures that meet the FAA's published standards disregards, not only those standards, but also the Airport's unique circumstances; and itleaves the City without the ability to create an adequate physical safety buffer forthe runway. Thus, the FAA is, ineffect, attempting to force the City asthe proprietor and operator ofthe Airport totake the unacceptable risk ofcontinuing topermit the growing use ofthe Airport by Category C andD aircraft, without the Runway Safety Areas that the FAA's published standards mandate for such aircraft. This course ofconduct bythe FAA compels staffto recommend that the City Council exercise its authority asAirport owner pursuant to another FAA published mandate: "In the interest ofsafety, the airport owner may prohibit orlimit any given type, kind, orclass of aeronautical use ofthe airport ifsuch action isnecessary forthe safe operation ofthe airport ornecessary to serve the civil aviation needs ofthe public." FAA Order 5190.6A and Grant Assurance 22(i) ofthe City's Grant Agreement dated June 29, 1994. Moreover, although the FAA has contended that instituting the City's proposed safety measures would inappropriately and unlawfully impact aircraft operations, the data indicates that avast majority ofthe aircraft currently using the Airport could continue to operate pursuant totheproposed Ordinance. Indeed, the proposed ordinance would affect only 7% ofoperations atthe Airport, butthat small percentage represents a disproportionate safety risk because the Airport's runway length, without standard Runway Safety Areas, does notprovide the level ofsafety the FAA has mandated initspublished standards. The vast majority of operations

-- about 93%

-- would be unaffected by the Ordinance. And, the small percentage ofprivate aircraft users and passengers who would potentially be affected bythe ordinance have various options. They could use other private aircraft, aparticularly convenient option forthose who participate infactional ownership arrangements, which routinely include provisions whereby participants can easily trade to other aircraft, such as A and B aircraft. Or, they could use the other general aviation airports inthe region. " Most important, however, isthe factthat prohibiting operations ofC andD aircraft atthe Airport, coupled with FAA approval ofthe 300-foot Runway Safety Areas contained inthe Airport Layout Plan submitted tothe FAA in2004 would enable the City toprovide Runway Safety Areas that fully meet the FAA's published standards for all aircraft (Category A andB) that would be allowed to operate atthe Airport. Inopposing the City's safety program, the FAA purports to defend itsposition byrelying onhistory, claiming there have been no overruns into the residential neighborhoods atthe runway ends. Ifthis were truly the FAA's policy, the agency would notmandate the establishment ofconforming Runway Safety Areas atany airport that had not already suffered adisastrous overrun. However, tothe contrary, the FAA has embarked on an ambitious national program torequire airports to establish conforming safety areas tothe extent practicable. Moreover, there was afatal overrun atthe Airport inwhich the aircraft came torestjust inside the Airport boundary. Had that aircraft been acategory CorD aircraft, itcould well have crashed into the adjacent residential neighborhood, with even more devastating results. Moreover, there have been recent overruns at Santa Barbara and Teterboro airports involving Category CorD aircraft like those that operate at Santa MonicaAirport. Had those accidents occurred atthe Airport, theresults would have been absolutely catastrophic because the aircraft would have plowed into the residential neighborhood just below the west end ofthe runway. In addition to relying onthe factthat aplane overrunning the Santa Monica runway has not yet crashed into residences, the FAA also claims that its alternate safety proposal is abetter safety solution andthat the City must accept that alternative. However, the particular technological safety enhancement proposed by the FAA

-- acombination ofasubstandard Runway Safety Area and anEngineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) bed of 130feet with a25 foot setback from therunway end

--does notmeet current, published federal safety standards. And, even the FAA acknowledges that itsproposed EMAS bed would be inadequate to stop faster aircraft. Infact, the EMAS manufacturers submitted datatothe City concerning the speed atwhich certain critical aircraft would exit the back ofthe EMAS bed. This information is summarized onthe following chart:

Leave runway/enter EMAS

50knots 60knots 70knots Exit EMAS (inknots) 5tohigh 20's low 30's to low 40's high 40's tohigh 50's
Thus, the City has appropriately rejected the FAA's proposal as inadequate because: itdoes notmeet the FAA's own published standards forminimum Runway Safety Areas for airports serving Category C and D aircraft (that standard being a 1,000 foot Runway Safety Area); aircraft entering the EMAS bed at speeds greater than 40 knots would exit the EMAS bed atunacceptably high speeds; and based onthe FAA's analysis ofrunway overrun accidents, 50% ofrunway overruns involve aircraft exiting the runway atover 40 knots. In.contrast to the FAA's proposal, a standard Runway Safety Area would stop the same aircraft traveling upto 70knot~:" which would cover 90% ofrunway overruns. . . Despite these clear deficiencies initsproposal, the FAA adheres to it, apparently unmoved bythe peril inherit in thepresent situation. Seemingly, the FAA favors protecting the convenience ofthose traveling byprivate aircraft over the safety needs ofthe community andthe flying public. Atthe August 28,2007 City Council meeting the FAA's Associate Administrator forAirports made apresentation which confirmed that the FAA's final "offer" tothe City forresolving the dispute about the necessity ofsafety improvements would not even come close to meeting the FAA's own published standards for safety areas for Category C and D aircraft. Moreover, as late as September 27th, in atelephone conversation between the City Manager andthe FAA's Assistant Administrator forAirport's, the FAA confirmed that itwill not accede tothe City's plan to improve safety by adding Runway Safety Areas consistent with current federal safety standards. Given the Airport's particular setting andtheproximity ofthe runway ends tohomes, the lack ofRunway Safety Areas, the increasing use ofthe Airport by Category C andD aircraft, the FAA's persistent refusal to adequately address the safety risks, the FAA's continuing opposition tothe City's implementation ofthe FAA's own standards, andthe City's rights and responsibilities asAirport proprietor, staffrecommends adoption ofthe ordinance.

. CEQA ComplianceThe adoption of the attached ordinance is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline §15301, Existing Facilities, which includes the operation of existing public or private facilities involving negligible or no expansion ofuse beyond that existing atthe time ofthe lead agency's determination. Examples inthe Guideline include publicly-owned utilities used to provide public utility services. The Airport is considered a public utility. The proposed ordinance modifies the operation ofthe airport, an existing facility, in amanner that does not expand its use. The ordinance's adoption is also exempt pursuant to the common sense exemption at CEQA Guideline §15061(b)(3) for projects that have no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The proposed ordinance will have direct beneficial impacts in enhancing public safety at the Airport. There is no reasonable possibility of an adverse direct or indirect effect from the ordinance on the physical environment within or outside the project area capable of being identified. CEQA Guideline §15444 requires the City to use best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can, although the City is not required to foresee the unforeseeable. The Airport has approximately 130,000 operations per year, of whichI5% involve jet aircraft. Only 9,000, or 7%, involve Category C&D aircraft. The average number ofpersons flying on airplanes landing and departing the Airport is less than 3 persons. Alljet aircraft (A-D, inclusive) currently using the Airport have 6 or more seats. Therefore, even if the effect of Ordinance is to eliminate access to the Airport by Category C and D aircraft, A and B aircraft can still accommodate the Airport's passenger usage, and fractional share owners ofC and D aircraft can trade down to A and B aircraft to access the Airport. Therefore, no new aircraft u~e or displacement ofpassengers based on substituting Category A and B aircraft should result from the effect

# ofthe ordinance onthe use ofCategory C and D aircraft. Similarly, 83% offlights tothe Airport are of 1000miles or less, within the range ofCategory Aand B aircraft. Thus, current usage ofthe Airport would generally remain the same. As tothose who fly non-stop from beyond the Mississippi River, they may switch to A and B aircraft and stop and refuel or change planes before flying into the Airport. There isno methodology topredict and itis amatter ofspeculation how persons would W<j.c't to the elimination of the small percentage number of affected C and D aircraft operations. There is n6'way to predict how many persons would choose not to use A and B aircraft and fly into other airports. In any case, there are six airports in the region that could accommodate the worst case scenario of 9000 C and D aircraft operations displaced from SMO: Long Beach, Van Nuys, Burbank, Torrance and the Los Angeles International Airport. Thus, to the extent that C and D aircraft users do not use A and B aircraft to access the Airport, there are sufficient alternative airports that can safely accommodate displaced C and D aircraft that cannot use the Airport. Budget/Financial Impact There areno current financial costs. Staffwill return with an estimate ofcosts when the City Council formally approves the implementing steps forthe runway safety enhancements atthe Santa Monica Municipal Airp~r. Prepared by: Robert D. Trimborn, Acting Airport Director Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Alan Seltzer, Chief DeputyMartin Tachiki, Deputy City Attorney

Approved: Forwarded to Council:

Robert D. Trimborn Acting Airport Director P. Lamont Ewell City Manager Attachment A: Appendix listing supporting documents onfile with the City Clerk (Not available electronically)