RECORD OFCONFERJ:NCE

- "larch 31, 1932, 10;00 A.H. Location: Airports Division, Regional Office

Los Angeles, CA ROUTING 601 602 660 670 680 At tendees : Hr. Shane St:ark. Asst. City Attorney, Santa }Ionica

Russel S. Har.huway, '\hl'-601 Herman C. Bliss, A\\'],-600 Subject: cc: ARP-1 AHP-7 AIVP-1 SMITAHUNICA

AlRFORT, CALII'ORNE REVIEH OF CITY 'S PLAI;NING EFFORT
Digest: Hr. Stark had requested cer ta in .locune u ts for the City's usc in developing a
ne w Airport Layout and :1aster Plan. l'h

e f

o ll

ox ing

we r e provided: 1. Order 5190.6 , "Airpor ts Cornp lt ance Requirements'!, 8/24/73.
2. Advisory Circular 15D;~!190-2A, "!~xcltJ:-:ive Rights at Airports", 4/4/72. 3. Advisory Circular 150/5300-:+i\, "Utili ty Airports

-- Air Access to National Transportation" 6/2L }/75.

4. Advisory Circular i50/5300-6A, "Airport Design Standards, General Aviation Airports, Ba.sie and GCi11=:ral Transport" 2/2(+/81 5. Advisory Circular 91-53, "Noise ,'.bat·emenlclkpart'.lrc, Profile", 10/17/78.
6. Advisory Circular 36-1B, "Certif icet.ed Airplane Noise Levels", 12/5/77
. 7. AdVisory Ccccular 36-3B, "Estimated ALrpl1111eNoise Levels in AHeighted Decibels (11/20/81). 8. National Airport System Plan (Revised Statistics 1980-1989). Copies of Federal l,egist"r, Sections 271'R7055 (1062), 30FR 13661 through 13662 (1965) were not available. He is to contact Orange County for these d

oc urne
n t

s , as they are part of

r e c e n t litigation, Air California vs Orange C;ounty. .." The City's consultant is to present; suggesu,d layouts and alternatives for City Council review ill ~lpproximately two to three weeks. It is their intention to then procc:ed wit.h 3. l:eqtH:::~t for Proposal (RFP) to retain ,~ 

# EXHIBIT 

# ~fvt412

consultant to develop a complete Haster Planning effort on the Airport. Nr. Stark wanted to discuss the above and obtain an opinion from FAA as to what planning and design standards we wouLd require. He was advised of the following: 1. Ee expected the plan to encorapass acti.v Ittes up through the year 2015. This is consistent with the City's obligation to provide a public airport. 2. Planning and Design standards should be consistent with the Airport category designated in the National Airport System Plan (NASP). 

### 3. Operational levels should be planned to remain at least to the levels predicated on the tmSP and the activities associated ~~th this airport prior to the City's actions to cancel leases and force tenant/ user relocation. 4. Any proposal must be coordinated by the City with the user and receive their general concurrence. 5. The plan should be solid, capable of being implemented, and not cause further unreasonable econowic impects to present and future Fixed Base Operators (FBO) or tenants/users.
Hr. Stark referenced the possibility that maybe five different layouts may evolve frmn the present consultant effort. If the City Council decided to adopt a Gener3l Utili ty category plan compared to,the Basic Transport category nOH in the NASP, vhat; would FAA's reaction be? He Has advised we would not accept f'ur ther reduction of facilities 'Nhich would impact the present forecast use. Conti.nued efforts by the City to do,.;ngradethe airport were not acceptable. fAA expected the plan to be developed around the current NASP category (Basic Transport). Tieing was revIewed and the need for the City to come up witil. a plan which could hopefully ease thei r present city-wide finencial crisis. After much diSCUSSion, Nr. Stilrkindicated he would be talking with City officials in the following vein. 1. Users must be involved in planning to develop a layout which will place the City in the black on airport operations in a reasonable time frame. ~ 2. Airport plan to consider ti.rne frame to year 2015. 

### 3. F.~ ~~ll be given informatiorral copies of RFP. F&~ does not plan to respond to City until they come up with their plan to keep the ni.rport operational until 2015.

### Review of Alternatives (Dimensional Standards) at Santa Monica Airport

Issue To keep Santa Monica Airport as a viable facility serving at least the 518-550 based aircraft it has served in the past and continue its role as a reliever to Los Angeles International Airport. Background The Santa Monica Airport has a runway 4,987' x 150', a 50' wide north parallel taxiway and a 50' wide taxiway on the south. The Airport Layout Plan approved 4/23/62 categorizes the airport as Executive (Local). In present terms the dimensions and standards would categorize the airport as Basic Transport. The National Airport System Plan identifies Santa Monica as a reliever for Los Angeles International Aiport (LAX). This indicates that Santa Monica serves traffic that might otherwise ada to traffic congestion at LAX. Fiscal year 1980 operations at Santa Monica were 225,696, while 1985 operations are forecast to be 240,000. Objectives The first objective of this review is to determine theminimum lateral dimensions using the runway length of 4,987'. Consistent with this, the airport should remain a reliever and have the potential to accommodate future precision instrument operations. This objective also includes the capability of the airport to accommodate 520 to 550 based aircraft and adequate fixed based operators. The second objective is to provide maximum residual land, consistent with the first objective, which the city of Santa Monica can use for revenue purposes. Instrumentation Santa Monica Airport has twoVOR approaches. The lowest minimums are circling at 425 feet and 1mile. The airport had a total of 21,925 instrument operations in fiscal year 1980. The installation of an ILS or MLS would provide some noise reduction under the approach path, due to more uniform glide slope adherence and fewer power adjustments during instrument approaches. Runway 21 has aVASI and the more precise verical adherence by aircraft has provided noise reduction with higher overflights of residential areas. Dimensional Standards The following matrix shows dimensions required for two airport categories. The Basic Transport Non-Precision Instrument category is an existing standard while the precision Instrument Group II Airplane category is a new standard which is under development. Each category is shown as an

### 2.

overlay to the existing airport on the attached flip charts. ~hese overlays were prepared for illustrative purposes only. For example, the aircraft parking limit line and taxiway could be shown on the south side of the runway while the building restriction line could be shown on the north side of the runway. Recommendation
~he Basic Transport Non-Precision Instrument configuration for practical purposes is what presently exists. It does not provide maximum residual land which the city desires. We recommend the Precision Instrument Group II Airplane configuration since it will accommodate aircraft which are now based at the airport. This configuration will also preserve the potential for future precision instrument operations.

### Basic Transport Precision Instrument Non-Precision Instrument Group II Airplane (Winasoan uo to 79 feet Runway Lenqth 4.987 4 987 Runway width 100 feet 100 feet Taxiway Width 40 feet 35 feet R/W Centerline to 300 feet 300 feet TIW Centerline R/w Centerline to AIC Parkinq 375 feet 366 feet R/W Centerline to 300 feet Buildinq line 400 feet Then 4:1 T/W Centerline to A!C Parking 75 feet 66 feet Approximate acreag Best for retaining to be realized Basically the existing future precision usina dimensions airoort confiauration. caoabilitv. North Area 56.4 acres 57.8 acres Runway/Taxiway Are 91.6 acres 78.7 acres South Area 52.0 acres 

## * 63.5 acres Approximate number of acres available to city for nonaviation purposes after considering 50 acres 62 acres needs of R/Ws, T/Ws, aircraft parking FBOs control tower and land owned by 

### city of Los Anaeles.


## * Objects must not penetrate 4:1 plane from building restriction line.-Mon., Sept~27, 1982 

# Alschuler,FAA discuss SMAirport reclassification . City Manager John Alschuler told Federal Aviation Administration officials in Washington, D.C., today that the city wants to reclassify Santa Monica Airport. "The FAA is considering our desire as a community to .,. reclassify the airport," Alschuler reported inatelephone call tothe 

### Evening .outlook from

,Washington. "We're interested in operating an airport that ismore compatible with the adjacent re-

.sidential neighborhood." But he said the reason for preliminary talks with. the FAA was to "exchange information," notto make any decisions onthe fate ofthe airport. "The purpose ofthis meeting wasforustolearn more about the opinions and professional judgment ofthe FAAandfor them to learn more about theconcerns of the city. We're just trying toget toknow each other better. "The most positive sign isthat we've established a dialogue (with theFAA), where previously both the FAA and the city were operating on" substantlallack of communir-nt lon "It was a fruitful and productive discussion," added Alschuler ,whowas accompanied on the trip by Assistant City Manag'.'r John Jalili. EVENING OUTLOOK



# "-

# . / Tues.,.Sept. 28, 1982-A-S

It was the third meeting between city officials and the FAAontheproposal toreclassify the airport inthenational airport system from its present "basic transport status" to a "general utility" status. No future meetings were scheduled and thenext move willbeuptotheFAA,Jailli said. FAAapproval willberequired for the reclassification which would permit shortening the existing runway and redeveloping a large part ofthe20Q-acreproper tyforother uses.

-;

# ..•