RECORDOF CONFERJ:NCE- "larch 31, 1932, 10;00 A.H.

Location: Airports Division, Regional Office

Los Angeles, CA

ROUTING

601

602

660

670

680

At t e nd e e s : Hr. Sh a ne St:ark. Asst. City Attorney, Santa }Ionica

Russel S. Har.huwa y, '\hl'-601

Herman C. Bliss, A\\'],-600

Subject:

cc: ARP-1

AHP-7

AIVP-1

SMITAHUNICAAl RFORT, CALII'ORNE

REVIEH OF CITY 'S PLAI;NING EFFORT

Digest:

Hr. Stark had requested c e r t a i n .locune u t s for the City's usc in developing

a ne w Airport Layout and :1aster Plan. l'h e f o l l ox ing we r e provided:

1. Order 5190.6 , "Ai r por ts Cornp lt anc e Requirements'!, 8/24/73.

2. Advisory Circular 15D;~!190-2A, "!~xcltJ:-:ive Rights at Airports",

4/4/72.

3. Advis or y 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 Av i a ti on Airports, Ba.sie and GCi11=:ral Transport" 2/2(+/81

5. Advisory Circular 91-53, "Noise ,'.bat·emenlc lkpart'.lrc, Profile",

10/17/78.

6. Advisory Circular 36-1B, "Cer tif ic et.ed Air pl ane 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 pr e s ent; suggesu,d layouts and alternatives for

City Council review ill ~lpproximately two to three weeks. It is their

intention to then procc:ed w i t.h 3. l:eqtH:::~t for Proposal (RFP) to r e t a i n ,~

EXHIBIT

~fvt41
2

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 wou Ld require. He was advised

of the following:

1. Ee expected the plan to encorapas s ac ti.vItt es 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, vh at; wou ld FAA's reaction be? He

Has advised we would not accept f'urth er reduction of facilities 'Nhich

would impact the present forecast use. Conti.nued efforts by the City

to do,.;ngrade the airport were not acceptable. fAA expected the plan to

be developed around the current NASP category (Basic Transport).

Tieing was revI ewed and the need for the City to come up wi til.a plan

whi ch could hopefully ease thei r present ci ty-wide finencial crisis.

After much diSCUSSion, Nr. Stilrk indicated he would be talking with City

officials in the following vein.

1. Users must be involved in planning to develop a layout wh i ch will

place the City in the black on airport operations in a reasonable time

frame. ~

2. Airport plan to consider t i.rnef rame 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 the minimum 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 two VOR approaches. The lowest minimums are

circling at 425 feet and 1 mile. 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 a VASI 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. caoabili tv.

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 SM Airport

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 asa community to .,.

reclassify the airport," Alschuler

reported ina telephone call to the

Evening .outlook from

, Washington. "We're interested in

operating an airport that is more

compatible with the adjacent re-

. sidential neighborhood."

But he said the reason for

preliminary talks with. the FAA

was to "exchange information,"

not to make any decisions on the

fate of the airport.

"The purpose of this meeting

was for us to learn more about the

opinions and professional judgment of the FAA and for them to

learn more about the concerns of

the city. We're just trying to get

to know each other better.

"The most positive sign is that

we've establisheda dialogue

(with the FAA), where previously

both the FAA and the city were

operating on" substantlallack of

communir-nt lon

"It wasa fruitful and productive discussion," added

Alschuler, who was 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

FAA on the proposal to reclassify

the airport in the national airport

system from its present "basic

transport status" toa "general

utility" status. No future meetings were scheduled and the next

move will be up to the FAA, Jailli

said.

FAA approval will be required

for the reclassification which

would permit shortening the existing runway and redeveloping a

large part of the 20Q-acre proper

ty for other uses.

-; ..•