Council Bans Faster Planes at Airport

November 28 -- Flying in the face of threatened federal litigation, the City Council approved

an ordinance Tuesday to restrict faster, larger jets at the 62-year-old Santa Monica Airport.

The unanimous vote -- which bans C and D aircraft with approach speeds faster than 121

knots -- comes after fives years of negotiations with the FAA, which opposes City proposals

to shorten the runway and add safety areas at either end that abide by current federal

standards.

City officials and residents who live near the airport worry that soaring jet traffic -- from

4,829 jet operations in 1994 to 18,100 last year -- is putting neighboring homes, as well as

pilots, in danger. Before casting their vote, council members blasted a proposal by Federal

Aviation Administration officials to address the problem by purchasing neighboring homes.

"I think we went above and beyond the call of duty trying to get somewhere with the FAA,

but it is just not happening when we get a letter that suggests we seriously consider buying

up homes," said Mayor Richard Bloom. "The FAA is clearly not paying attention to the

beliefs and norms in Santa Monica," Bloom said. ''We support letting people keep their

homes and taking away housing when there is another reasonable alternative is offensive and

absurd."

Anticipating the council action, FAA officials vowed to take action Monday.

''What you are considering by this proposed ordinance is flatly illegal as drafted," Kirk

Shaffer, FAA associate administrator for airports, wrote in a letter to the City. "The City

should expect the agency to expeditiously use its authority and all available means, if the

ordinance is adopted as proposed, to ensure that all federal rights, investments and

obligations are protected and that no aircraft is denied access to SMO." The threatened

litigation -- which will likely tie up the new law in the courts -- is not the first time the City

restricts jets and is sued by the federal agency.

In 1979, the City banned some jet access to the airport, whose B-II classification means the

airport is suitable for category A and B aircraft with approach speeds slower than 121 knots.

But litigation resulted in a 1984 settlement agreement governing airport operations until

2015. The agreement, FAA officials say, allows newer category C and D aircraft, which tend

to be larger and faster jets. Shaffer, who said larger jets have always used the airport, said his

administration is obligated to keep access available to C and D aircraft, because Santa

Monica Airport is an important reliever airport in the national system of airports.

EXHIBIT

I.2:7ZJ1' J..J
City officials contend that the airport does not meet the FAA's own safety standards for B-II

airports and for airports that would accommodate C and D aircraft. To stop A and B aircraft

overruns, SMa would need 300-foot runway safety areas at both ends of its sole runway,

airport officials said. "The ordinance is necessary because the airport has unique

circumstances -- homes are just across the street from the runway ends and within 300 feet

of the runway ends," said Robert Trimbom, acting airport director. "Dangers resulting from

homes being in close proximity to the runway and topography (the airport sits on a plateau)

are worsened by the change in the fleet." Federal standards for C and D aircraft are 1,000-

foot runway safety areas at both ends of a runway, Trimbom said.

For SMa, Trimbom said Shaffer has proposed a substandard runway safety area and

another inadequate safety enhancement called an Engineered Materials Arresting System

(EMAS), a bed of crushed concrete designed to capture the landing gear of a wayward

aircraft. The combined runway safety area and EMAS bed, at 130 feet with a 25-foot runway

end setback, that Shaffer is suggesting does not meet the federal government's published

standards and will not catch any aircraft careening at speeds more than 40 knots, said

Trimborn.

"The number of faster aircraft has increased dramatically in recent years, faster aircraft that

could travel further into residential neighborhoods in the event of an overrun," Trimbom

said. "Any minimal inconvenience to those traveling by private jet aircraft and any minor

impact on commerce will be greatly outweighed by the benefit of protecting the safety of

airport neighborhood and the flying public." Trimbom said the City's ordinance banning C

and D aircraft at SMa would only "minimally impact" air travel because only six planes in

those categories are based at the airport and fractional-share jet owners can easily trade down

to A or B aircraft. Municipal airports in Long Beach, Van Nuys, Burbank and Torrance--

and Los Angeles Intemational Airport -- can accommodate C and D aircraft flying in and

out of the Southem California region.

The ordinance will not significantly reduce air and noise pollution at SMa, Trimbom said,

nor will it ban jets because many models of jet aircraft can be classified as A or B.

Some airport operators worried the ordinance would hurt their businesses, which were

tailored to the 23-year-old settlement agreement between the City and FAA. "The 1984

setdement agreement was material inducement to the development of our parcel," said Jay

Becker, a representative for an airport leaseholder. ''We spent millions of dollars relying

upon the fact that access to aircraft that could become our customers would be guaranteed.

"If you eliminate the top portion of our clientele, how do you expect to compensate us?"

Becker asked Council members. ''Would you write us a big check?" "A big part of our

growth comes from having an aircraft based in Santa Monica," said Dennis Gomez, director

of aircraft operations for an investment company that has a C aircraft. ''We are a category C
aircraft operator, would be affected by this ordinance and therefore oppose it," Gomez said.

Council members were not persuaded.

"I have sympathy for those people whose business plans are affected," said Council member

Kevin McKeown, "but in the interest of safety, we as a responsible City Council can do

nothing but pass the ordinance." Cathy Larson, co-chair of the Friends of Sunset Park

Airport Committee, is concemed the proposed ordinance will be used by the FAA as a

bargaining tool to establish a substandard runway safety area and EMAS bed. "The City

Council should direct staff not to trade the aircraft performance plan for a lesser option,"

Larson said. "The tone of Mr. Shaffer's letter only confirms that the FAA is interested in

preserving access over the safety of airport neighbors." In addition to his runway safety area

and EMAS bed suggestion, Shaffer wrote in his letter that many communities throughout

the United States have considered home buyouts in cases where airport officials could not

establish the standard FAA protection zone because neighborhoods are too close to airport

property.

Shaffer said home buyouts are "the only certain way to remove all risk of harm to persons or

property on the ground in those areas." Council member Bobby Shriver said airport

neighbors should not expect a sudden halt to jet traffic because the FAA may seek an

injunction while a potentially arduous federal litigation process makes its way through the

courts. Federal law trumps local and state laws, Shriver said, and the City could lose the case

given the FAA's administrative and regulatory power. Litigation may have a positive effect,

Shriver said, because airport neighbors can use the case to lobby their local Congressional

representatives to pass new legislation governing airports in favor of safety for nearby

residents.

A December 5 meeting about the airport will be held in Washington, D.C. that will include

City officials, FAA officials and U.S. House Reps Jane Harman, John Mica, James Oberstar

and Henry Waxman. ''We received a call from Congressman Waxman's district and

Washington staff requesting that the City use this rare opportunity to win safety

enhancements for our airport," said Kate Vemez, the Santa Monica City Manager's Office

assistant for community and government relations. After the meeting in Washington, D.C.,

Vemez said the City Council will hold a public hearing in January to review new findings.'

I http:« www.surfsantarnon ica .corn.ssrn __site/the] ookout/ news/N ews-Z007!N overnber20071 ' __28_07 __Council , Bans _Faster _Planes_ at_ Airport.htrn