SR-11-D (7)
.. t'_ . Santa Mon1ca4llr-lifornla, December 20, 1977
....,..-+ ~
zttJtJ -- tJtJZ - &3
TO ~1ayor and Cl ty Councll J I D
FROM" CIty Staff
SUBJECT AIrport Runway DIsplaced Threshold JAN 1 0 1978
IntroductIon
This report transmIts the State DIvisIon of Aeronautics response
(copy attached) to the City's request for State ~vlatlon Funds
to establish a d1splaced threshold at each end of the runway at
Santa MonIca ~Irport"
Background
On February 1, 1977 the Councl1 approved a staff recommendatIon
to lmplement a 750 foot displaced threshold at each end of the runway.
On September 27th, 1977, the CounCIl approved a resolutIon authorlz1ng
applIcatIon for State funds to construct the dIsplaced threshold.
In response to the CIty'S applIcation, the State Div1sIon of AeronautICS
ln the attached letter, has IndIcated that they do not support the dIsplaced
threshold proJect, and Instead suggest that the CIty shorten the runway to
4,200 feet by relocat1ng the end of the runway by 750 feet
Staff feels that the effect of shortenIng the runway as suggested by the
State ~eronautlcs DIviSIon, WIll in practIce create more nOIse by causlng
the aircraft to be further down the runway upon take off, thus
redUCIng the average altItude level over the homes throughout the depature
pattern.
II D
JAN 1 0 1978
70.
Mayor and c~~councl1
4iJcember 20, 1977
....- '-
-2-
Recommendat~ons
In consIderatIon of the lImlted effect on nOIse reduct1on, staff
can only recommend implementatIon of d1splaced threshold If CalIfornIa
AIrport AId Program Funds ~ere appropr1ated. Consequently, pursuant
to the unavaIlabIlIty of these funds, it IS staff's recommendatIon
that the dIsplaced threshold not be Implemented, SInce 1t would cost
approximately S6l,000 of CIty funds, and produce only a margInal
improvement in nOIse levels for aIrport reSIdents.
Prepared by
Clyde FItzgerald, Airport DIrector
Larry J. Kosmont, ~dmInistratIve Assistant
CF:LJK.dvl
Attachment (1)
~_ ... -III. .
":f .='A:~F ~~I';IlNIA-BIJSINesS AND TRA AT10N AGENCY
~ ,~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
1120 "N" STREET
SACRAtI.ENTO, CA 95814
(916) 322-3090
EDMUND O. BROWN JR.. GDW.noo,
O. r:C 0
-L. ~.
J ltO PH '77
SAI;Tt. ;:'JNIC,\
I 4 ~ ,.. I, _.
I ........ ~ ~... j~:r~..,ORT
December 2~ 1977
James D. Williams
City Manager
City of Santa Monica
City Hall - l6~5 Main Street
Santa ~onica~ CA 90401
Dear Mr. Williams:
Tne Division of Aeronautics has completed its review of the
Ci ty of Santa Monica's request for' CAAP Acquisition and
Development funds for improvements on the Santa Monica
Airport.
Our project review revealed the following Matters which must
be resolved before we may continue action on your application:
-
Project - Resurface taxi and shoulder areas. We recognize and
support the need to resurf'ace t;1e lldriftoff" areas along the
southeast side of the runway. Since these areas are used by
aircraft during ground op=rations~ t~ey must be eng~neered
to ensure they provide the life expectancy required for a
CAAP A&D project. T~e engineering data included with the
application was not adequate to confirm this fact. We ~ecom-
mend that a structural section be developed by your engineering
staff based on the subsoil tYPE and authorized aircraft ~eights
that satisfies this requ~rement. Also, since the area near
the threshold of TIunway 3 1.3 subject to a "birdbath" probleM~
the reengineering should include drainage for this area so
that water will not stand and caU33 possible damage to the
subgrade.
ProJect - Shorten runway to 4,200 feet. In its present form~
we question that the overal: project is a capitel i~proveMent~
and are concerned that ~t ~ay not be to the best advaDtage of
the airport. Recognizin~ t~e co~t~oversy associated with the
project, we offer the followlng su~gestions which, if accepted~
would allow us to present ~t to th~ Aeronautics Board with the
strongest possible reconnend&tion.
Instead of displacing t~~ thres~o~d to Runway 21, we suggest
the runway end be relocated to the point of proposed displace-
ment. This would provide the following benefits:
1. Increase safety by providing an adequate runway end
safety area.
. ,-,...
'f~"~ -
, v:
.
.
James D. Williams
Page 2
December 2, 1977
2. Permit the establishment of a larger taxi/runup area on
the southeast side of the runway end.
3. Preclude the requirement to add additional runway lights.
~. Permit the removal of the existing nonstandard threshold
lights.
5. Provide the noise buffer requested by the citizens' groups.
This project would be el~3ible for consid~rat1on by the Aeronautics
Board. However, since the exiGtinr, VASI and RElLs are the
property of the Federal Aviation Administration, if CAAP funds
are involved 1n their relocbtion) a COMMitment must be obtained
that ensures they wLll not be r~moved ~rom the airport without
the approval of the Depal'tmcnt.
Our only comment pertaining to the ~unway 3 threshold displace-
ment proposal is to SUZ~~Jt removal of the existing threshold
lights completely to pr ;:~e a standard medium intensity runway
lighting configuration. ~fi~S would be acco~plished with the
installation of the disp~aced threshold liGhts as proposed.
The resurfacing matter must be resolved before we may present
it to the Aeronautics Board for consideration. If our suggestions
concerning the runway shortening project are not acceptable,
please advise us and we wil~ present it to the Aeror.autics Board
in its present form; however, this will be deferred pending
receipt of the revised paving project.
We realize this is a substantial revjsion to your original re-
que3t. However, we feel it is necessary in the accomplishment
of our primary goal of ensuring CAA? dollars are expended on
projects that provide the greatest benefit ~o the user dnd
increase the safety aspects of t~e airport.
Please keep us advised of your actions in t~is Matter. If
additional information 1s required, please contact us.
Sincerely,
E. J. McKENNEY, Chief
Division of Aeronautics
~~~
Earl A. ':'ucker
Area Chief