:SMMC 1U.U4.U6.220 - City of Santa Monica

.

Page 1 of 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 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to the use

of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport to its federally designated specification of ARC 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 Page I 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

OF ARC 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 for Airport 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 of the runway; and

WHEREAS, in the dense residential neighborhoods bordering the Airport at each end of

the runway, homes are within 300 feet of the 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 3/26/2008
U~U!u\...- ! V.V"t.VV •.L..L.V - \..-JlY Vi c)aIlla lVIOnlCa Page 2 of8

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

of the 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 3/26/2008
u:.uu'"-' 1V.V"T.vV.~~V - \....HJ Vi oarua rvrornca Page 3 of8

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 in Airport use by

Category C and D aircraft 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 to Airport 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 the Airport Layout Plan submitted by the 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 - \....HYor Santa Montca

.

Page 4 of8

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 in 2001 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 C and 0 aircraft; and

WHEREAS, FAA guidance formally recognizes the risk of overruns: "Aircraft can and do

overrun the ends of runways, sometimes with devastating results." AC No. 150/5220-22A; and

WHEREAS, a catastrophic overrun may occur at any airport but is particularly likely to

occur if there 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, in 2002 a Category B aircraft skidded off the west end of the 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 a gasoline station; and

WHEREAS, recently in Teterboro, a private aircraft overran the runway, crossed an

adjacent roadway and came to rest in a commercial center; and

WHEREAS, the overruns at Santa Barbara and Teterboro involved Category C and 0

aircraft like those currently operating at the Santa Monica Airport; and

WHEREAS, a similar overrun in Santa Monica would likely result in the aircraft plummeting

into the residential neighborhood that lies just below the west end of the runway - a risk that the

City must take steps to avert; and

WHEREAS, this ordinance will greatly enhance Airport safety, but it will 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

B aircraft because they have approach speeds of less than 121 knots; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance will not ban or prevent any person from using

the Airport or discriminate based upon an aircraft's type of power plant; nor will 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 by this

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

•

Page 6 of8

WHEREAS, the sole burden caused by this ordinance will be that a small number of

persons who travel by private aircraft will need to either use different aircraft to fly to or from

Santa Monica or use another of the region's airports; and

WHEREAS, that minimal burden upon private aircraft operators is far outweighed by this

ordinance's safety benefits to thousands of Airport neighbors, pilots, passengers, and the City;

and

WHEREAS, in striking the balance between, on the one hand, the convenience of a few;

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 of the City of Santa Monica as the owner, operator and proprietor of the

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 B aircraft 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 a category C or D aircraft, as

defined by the FAA's standards, shall land at or depart 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 to the operator of fixed wing aircraft who believes in

good faith, based on special circumstances, that a bona fide

emergency exists such that it is absolutely necessary that the aircraft

depart or land at the 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 of a misdemeanor and upon

conviction shall he punished by a fine not greater than One

Thousand Dollars ($1,000) or by 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 or equitable relief; and, nothing in

this section shall preclude any person from seeking any other

remedies afforded by law.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto

inconsistent with the provisions of this 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 it would 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 3/26/2008
u"'~"'~'-' '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 1 of 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 No Frames

(a) Statement of Purpose and Authority. This Section is enacted pursuant to the authority of the City of Santa

Monica as the owner, operator and proprietor of the 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 B aircraft 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 a category C or D aircraft, as defined by the FAA's standards, shal1

land at or depart from the Santa Monica Municipal Airport.

(c) Emergency Exception .. The prohibition contained in this section does not apply to the operator affixed

wing aircraft who believes in good faith, based on special circumstances, that a bona fide emergency exists such

that it is absolutely necessary that the aircraft depart or land at the 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 of a

misdemeanor and upon conviction shall he punished by a fine not greater than one thousand dol1ars or by

imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Additional1y, any person, including the City, may enforce this Section by means of a civil action for legal or

equitable relief; and, nothing in this 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= 10-1 0_04-10_04_06-10_04_06_ 220&h... 5/17/2008
CITY OF SANTA MONICA

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 1685 MAIN STREET

TUESDA Y, NOVEMBER 27,2007

88

EXHIBIT

MEETING BEGINS AT 5:45 P.M.

2. CLOSED SESSIONS:

2-C: Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation: In the Matter of Compliance with Federal

Obligations by the City of Santa Monica, California, FAA Docket No. 16-02-08.

7-C: Introduction and first reading of an ordinance adding Section 10.04.06.150 to the Municipal Code

conforming the use of Santa Monica Municipal Airport to its federally designated specification of ARC B-11,

for public safety purposes including the safety of residents living immediately adjacent to the airport runway

ends and those individuals using and working at the 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 for Category A and B Aircraft.

Recommended Action

Staff recommends that City Council introduce, for first reading, the attached ordinance which would protect

public safety, particularly the safety of residents living immediately adjacent to the Santa Monica Airport

runway ends and those individuals using and working at the Airport, by conforming Airport usage to the

Airport's federal designation which defines it as a facility suitable for Category A and B aircraft.

Executive Summary

The Santa Monica Airport is owned and operated by the City. As Airport proprietor, the City has the right and

duty to maintain Airport safety. Doing so is crucial because the Airport's circumstances are unique. It is

situated on a plateau with hills on either side and surrounded by dense urban development. Residential

neighborhoods lie in immediate proximity to both ends of the runway, with the nearest homes being less than

300 feet from the runway ends. And, the Airport has no buffers or Runway Safety Areas to protect against the,

risks of a runway undershoot or overrun.

The Airport is classified by the federal government with an Airport Reference Code (ARC) ofB-II which

defines the Airport as suitable for use by slower, Category A and B aircraft with approach speeds of less than

121 knots. This designation is consistent with the fact that the Airport's sole runway is less than 5,000 feet in

length and is therefore not suitable, without conforming Runway Safety Areas, for faster general aviation

aircraft with approach speeds of 121 knots or greater. The Santa Monica Airport Agreement (" 1984

Agreement"), which governs Airport operations through 2015, provides that the Airport is capable of handling

aircraft described in a referenced FAA Advisory Circular, which governed airports serving Category A and B
aircraft. The 1991 Airport Layout Plan, which was approved by the federal government, likewise designates the

Airport as an Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II airport - an airport suitable for Category A and B aircraft.

However, since the 1984 Agreement was approved, growing numbers of faster, Category C and D aircraft have

begun using the Airport. This shift in the fleet exacerbates the safety risks created by the Airport's location

amidst residential neighborhoods, its situation on a plateau surrounded by hills, and its lack of Runway Safety

Areas.

To address the risk inherent in this combination of circumstances, Council approved the Aircraft Conformance

Program in 2002. This program consisted of a plan to conform Airport usage to the Category A and B aircraft

suitable to the Airport's design and create Runway Safety Areas that would meet the FAA's published standards

for A and B aircraft. Two years later, in 2004, the City submitted to the FAA a proposed Airport Layout Plan

which would implement Runway Safety Areas conforming to FAA standards for A and B aircraft.

Despite their consistency with published federal safety standards and guidelines, the FAA refuses to approve

these safety measures. Instead, it has opposed them, disputed the City'S right to even consider them, and

insisted that the City utilize other measures. However, the measures advocated by the FAA do not even come

close to meeting the federal government's own published safety guidelines. Meanwhile, the risk of overruns

continues to mount as more and more Category C and D aircraft use the Airport.

Accordingly, last month, Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would protect Airport neighbors,

pilots, passengers and the City by conforming Airport usage to the Airport's ARC B-II designation. The

attached ordinance fulfills that direction. It would prohibit Category C and D aircraft from taking off or landing

at the Airport, create an exception to the prohibition for emergency situations, and establish criminal and civil

remedies for violations.

Background

The Airport's setting is unique. It is located on a plateau which drops off steeply at each end of the runway.

The drop off to the west - the usual direction of take off - is about 40 feet. Moreover, hills rise to the east of '

the Airport and slope downward to the west. Thus, landings and take offs at the Airport have been likened to

aircraft operations on an aircraft carrier. There is little or no margin for error.::

Another extremely unusual feature of the Airport's setting is its very close proximity to homes. Residential

neighborhoods lie at both ends of the runway, and the closest homes are within 300 feet of the runway ends.

Urban development entirely surrounds the Airport. In addition to residential neighborhoods, there are busy

arterial streets just outside the east and west boundaries of the Airport; and there is a gas station across the

arterial to the east, near the eastern end of the runway. Also, in addition to many hundreds of residences, there

are various public improvements in the neighborhood to the west, including a day care center.

The Airport's facilities are also unusual. There are no buffer zones or Runway Safety Areas to insulate Airport

operations from the surrounding community. Decades ago, when the Airport's design was more in conformity

with its fleet, the lack of Runway Safety Areas did not present the same safety concerns as it does today.

However, usage of the Airport has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. In the 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 the
adoption of the 1984 Agreement which guides the City's operation of the Airport today and establishes the

mutual rights and obligations of the parties.

The 1984 Agreement specifies that "[t]he Airport will be capable of accommodating most kinds of general

aviation aircraft, generally consistent with Group II Design Standards set forth in FAA Advisory Circular

150/5300.4B dated February 23, 1983". That Advisory Circular (AC) states: "The standards, recommendations,

and guidance material in this Advisory Circular (AC) 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 .... The FAA

uses the standards and recommendations in this publication to provide technical guidance for the design of safe

and efficient airports; .... " Thus, the 1984 Agreement recognized and established that the Airport would be

operated for Category A and B aircraft. It does not require the City to make the Airport available for faster

Category C and D aircraft.

The recognition in the 1984 Agreement that the Airport is a facility for less demanding aircraft in the A and B

categories with approach speeds below 121 knots reflected the aircraft fleet that used the Airport at the time. In

1984, aircraft based at the Airport could have been accommodated with a runway of 3200 feet; and, analyzing

transient aircraft using the Airport, the 1983 Airport Layout Plan found that a runway of 4500 feet would have

been sufficient.

In 1991, the City submitted a revised Airport Layout Plan. Like the documents referenced in the 1984

Agreement, that Layout Plan also designates the Airport as an ARC B-I1 Airport. The FAA approved the. 1991

Layout Plan.

Since 1984, a growing number of the aircraft using the airport has been the faster Category C and D aircraft

with approach speeds of 121 knots or greater. The number of Category C and D aircraft operations has grown

from approximately 1500 annual operations in the mid-1980's to over 9,000 annual operations in 2006, or about

25 operations per day. This increase in usage by faster aircraft has generated enormous concern in Santa

Monica because of the proximity of homes to the runway ends and because the Airport has no Runway Safety .

Areas to separate aircraft operations from surrounding residential neighborhoods.

In general, the FAA recognizes the need for Runway Safety Areas, and promotes their development. Thus, to

avert runway overrun accidents, the FAA has instituted a program to bring airports into compliance with the

FAA's Runway Safety Area (RSA) standards. As the FAA noted in one of its advisory circulars, "Aircraft can

and do overrun the ends of runways, sometimes with devastating results." AC 150/5220-22A. The FAA's'>

published guidance explains: "The objective of the Runway Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at federally

obligated airports and all RSAs at airports certificated under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 139

shall conform to the standards contained in AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design, to the 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.

In the late 1990's, the City Council expressed concerns regarding the compatibility of the Category C arid D

aircraft with the facilities of the Airport. In response, Airport staff reviewed the FAA's guidelines for Runway

Safety Areas and initiated a series of meetings with the FAA, in 2002, to discuss the safety issues and the

City's proposals to enhance the safe operation of aircraft at the Airport. With the assistance of Coffman

Associates, the Airport Staff developed a proposal called the Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) that would;

preserve the Airport's use as a B-II facility by reserving the Airport's facility for aircraft consistent with the .

Airport's design capacity and by creating runway safety areas for A and B aircraft consistent with published
FAA standards. The Airport Commission held public hearings in May and July of2002 as part of the process

offormulating the ACP and presenting it to the City Council for consideration.

Before the City Council could even consider the Aircraft Conformance Plan, the FAA initiated an

administrative action under 14 C.F.R., Part 16 ("Part 16") on October 8, 2002 challenging the Airport

Commission's right to even recommend the ACP to the 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 to the FAA's

complaint on November 7, 2002, and continued to negotiate with the FAA in order to try and reach a prompt,

mutually acceptable safety solution. .

On December 10,2002, the City Council received the Airport Commission's recommendation to approve the

ACP and a report on the pending administrative proceeding. Following a public hearing, the City Council

approved the ACP concept of implementing 300 foot runway safety areas at either end of the runway, a 300 foot

relocated threshold from the departure end of the runway, and a ban on C and D aircraft. The City Council also

directed City staff to continue to meet with the FAA in an attempt to promptly resolve the matter. "

Negotiations with the FAA went on for five years. Ultimately, the FAA recognized that the Airport is uniquely

situated in a constrained urban environment. The close proximity of the residential homes to the ends of the

runway has led to the joint conclusion that a runway safety solution for both runway ends is needed.

Nonetheless, although the FAA ultimately acknowledged that the most demanding aircraft now using the

Airport is a Category D-II aircraft, the FAA steadfastly refused to permit implementation of its own safety

standards for aircraft with Category C and D approach speeds. Instead, the FAA consistently maintained that

it would only approve lesser, non-standard safety measures, apparently to ensure the perceived convenience of

those who travel in private planes.

Given the inadequacy of the proposals made by the FAA, on October 10,2007, Council authorized staff to ~~e

the next step in implementing those portions of the 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 to the Airport's FAA design designation.

Discussion

Pursuant to Council's direction, staff has prepared the attached, proposed Ordinance for Council consideration ..

It would achieve the City's goal of enhancing Airport safety by conforming aircraft operations to the Airport's

FAA designation as a B-II airport. Specifically, it would accomplish this purpose by prohibiting any person

operating an aircraft with an approach speed of 121 knots or greater from landing or taking off at the Airport

except in case of an emergency. The proposed ordinance includes both criminal penalties and civil remedies.

Any person convicted of violating the Ordinance would be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction,

would be subject to a fine not greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment for not more than

six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Civil injunctions would also be authorized.

Approval of the ordinance is recommended as the next step in the implementation of the Aircraft Conformance

Program. That program comports with the Airport's federal designation of Airport Reference Code (ARC) BII, the 1984 Agreement, and current federal Runway Safety Area standards. References in the 1984 Agreement

establish that the Airport must be operated for Category A and B aircraft (not for C and 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 of the

fact that the Airport is designed for use by slower Category A and B aircraft. Moreover, federal standards on

Runway Safety Areas apply to the Airport because the Airport is "federally obligated", a status resulting from

the City's acceptance of federal grants through 1994. Finally, even if the Runway Safety Area requirements of

federal law were not technically applicable (which they are), it is irrational to oppose their application to this

particular busy general aviation airport because it is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, including homes

within 300 feet of the 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 it leaves the City without

the ability to create an adequate physical safety buffer for the runway. Thus, the FAA is, in effect, attempting to

force the City as the proprietor and operator of the Airport to take the unacceptable risk of continuing to permit

the growing use of the Airport by Category C and D aircraft, without the Runway Safety Areas that the FAA's

published standards mandate for such aircraft. This course of conduct by the FAA compels staff to

recommend that the City Council exercise its authority as Airport owner pursuant to another FAA published

mandate: "In the interest of safety, the airport owner may prohibit or limit any given type, kind, or class of

aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to

serve the civil aviation needs of the public." FAA Order 5190.6A and Grant Assurance 22(i) of the 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 a vast majority of the aircraft

currently using the Airport could continue to operate pursuant to the proposed Ordinance. Indeed, the proposed

ordinance would affect only 7% of operations at the Airport, but that small percentage represents a

disproportionate safety risk because the Airport's runway length, without standard Runway Safety Areas, does

not provide the level of safety the FAA has mandated in its published standards. The vast majority of

operations -- about 93% -- would be unaffected by the Ordinance. And, the small percentage of private aircraft

users and passengers who would potentially be affected by the ordinance have various options. They could use

other private aircraft, a particularly convenient option for those who participate in factional 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 in the region. "

Most important, however, is the fact that prohibiting operations of C and D aircraft at the Airport, coupled with

FAA approval of the 300-foot Runway Safety Areas contained in the Airport Layout Plan submitted to the FAA

in 2004 would enable the City to provide Runway Safety Areas that fully meet the FAA's published standards

for all aircraft (Category A and B) that would be allowed to operate at the Airport.

In opposing the City's safety program, the FAA purports to defend its position by relying on history, claiming

there have been no overruns into the residential neighborhoods at the runway ends. If this were truly the FAA's

policy, the agency would not mandate the establishment of conforming Runway Safety Areas at any airport that

had not already suffered a disastrous overrun. However, to the contrary, the FAA has embarked on an

ambitious national program to require airports to establish conforming safety areas to the extent practicable.

Moreover, there was a fatal overrun at the Airport in which the aircraft came to rest just inside the Airport

boundary. Had that aircraft been a category C or D aircraft, it could 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 Monica
Airport. Had those accidents occurred at the Airport, the results would have been absolutely catastrophic

because the aircraft would have plowed into the residential neighborhood just below the west end of the

runway.

In addition to relying on the fact that a plane overrunning the Santa Monica runway has not yet crashed into

residences, the FAA also claims that its alternate safety proposal is a better safety solution and that the City

must accept that alternative. However, the particular technological safety enhancement proposed by the FAA --

a combination of a substandard Runway Safety Area and an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS)

bed of 130 feet with a 25 foot setback from the runway end -- does not meet current, published federal safety

standards. And, even the FAA acknowledges that its proposed EMAS bed would be inadequate to stop faster

aircraft. In fact, the EMAS manufacturers submitted data to the City concerning the speed at which certain

critical aircraft would exit the back of the EMAS bed. This information is summarized on the following chart:

Leave runway/enter EMAS

50 knots

60 knots

70 knots

Exit EMAS (in knots)

5 to high 20's

low 30's to low 40's

high 40's to high 50's

Thus, the City has appropriately rejected the FAA's proposal as inadequate because: it does not meet the FAA's

own published standards for minimum 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 at unacceptably high speeds; and based on the FAA's analysis of runway

overrun accidents, 50% of runway overruns involve aircraft exiting the runway at over 40 knots. In.contrast to

the FAA's proposal, a standard Runway Safety Area would stop the same aircraft traveling up to 70 knot~:"

which would cover 90% of runway overruns. . .

Despite these clear deficiencies in its proposal, the FAA adheres to it, apparently unmoved by the peril inherit in

the present situation. Seemingly, the FAA favors protecting the convenience of those traveling by private

aircraft over the safety needs of the community and the flying public. At the August 28,2007 City Council

meeting the FAA's Associate Administrator for Airports made a presentation which confirmed that the FAA's

final "offer" to the City for resolving the dispute about the necessity of safety 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 a telephone conversation between the City Manager and the FAA's

Assistant Administrator for Airport's, the FAA confirmed that it will not accede to the City's plan to improve

safety by adding Runway Safety Areas consistent with current federal safety standards.

Given the Airport's particular setting and the proximity of the runway ends to homes, the lack of Runway

Safety Areas, the increasing use of the Airport by Category C and D aircraft, the FAA's persistent refusal to

adequately address the safety risks, the FAA's continuing opposition to the City's implementation of the FAA's

own standards, and the City's rights and responsibilities as Airport proprietor, staff recommends adoption of the

ordinance. .

CEQA Compliance
The 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 of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Examples in the Guideline

include publicly-owned utilities used to provide public utility services. The Airport is considered a public

utility. The proposed ordinance modifies the operation of the airport, an existing facility, in a manner 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 which I 5% involve jet aircraft. Only 9,000, or

7%, involve Category C&D aircraft. The average number of persons flying on airplanes landing and departing

the Airport is less than 3 persons. All jet 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 of C

and D aircraft can trade down to A and B aircraft to access the Airport. Therefore, no new aircraft u~e or

displacement of passengers based on substituting Category A and B aircraft should result from the effect of the

ordinance on the use of Category C and D aircraft. Similarly, 83% of flights to the Airport are of 1000 miles or

less, within the range of Category A and B aircraft.

Thus, current usage of the Airport would generally remain the same. As to those 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 is no methodology to predict and it is a matter of speculation 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 are no current financial costs. Staff will return with an estimate of costs when the City Council formally

approves the implementing steps for the runway safety enhancements at the Santa Monica Municipal Airp~r.

Prepared by:

Robert D. Trimborn, Acting Airport Director

Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney

Alan Seltzer, Chief Deputy
Martin 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 on file with the City Clerk (Not available

electronically)