SR-112707-7C~~~
~;tYof City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: November 27, 2007
Agenda Item: ~ -~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Robert Trimborn, Acting Airport Director
Subject: 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) of B-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
1
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
2
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
3
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 150/5300.46 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-II 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
4
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 and 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 of 2002 as part of the process
of formulating the ACP and presenting it to the City Council for consideration.
5
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 take the next step in implementing those portions of the Aircraft
Conformance Program that would enable the Airport to meet published FAA safety
6
standards. That step was preparation for Council consideration of an 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) B-II, 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
7
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
8
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 C or D 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
abetter 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
9
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 Exit EMAS (in knots)
50 knots 5 to high 20's
60 knots low 30's to low 40's
70 knots 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 knots, 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
10
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 firid out and disclose all that it reasonably can, although the City is
not required to foresee the unforeseeable.
11
The Airport has approximately 130,000 operations per year, of which15% 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 use 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 react to the elimination of the small
percentage number of affected C and D aircraft operations. There is no 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.
12
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 Airport.
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:
Attachment: Appendix listing supporting documents on file with the City Clerk
13
APPENDIX
1. Santa Monica Municipal Airport -Aerial Photograph
2. Master Plan Study -Santa Monica Municipal Airport, dated October,1983 -
Excerpt from Chapter III.
3. Santa Monica Municipal Airport -Operations figures for jet aircraft from 1994 to
2006, with projected annual figure for 2007.
4. Santa Monica Airport Agreement ("1984 Agreement"), dated January 31, 1984,
between the City of Santa Monica and the Federal Aviation Administration.
5. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.46, dated February 24, 1983 -excerpt from
Chapter 1 of the circular indicating applicability to A and B aircraft.
6. Airport Layout Map for Santa Monica Municipal Airport, approved by the FAA on
August 20, 1991, which assigns an Airport Reference Code designation of B-II to
the Airport and obligates the City to operate the Airport accordingly.
7. AC 150/5300-13, dated September 29, 1989 -Airport Design -Excerpts
8. FAA Order 5200.8, dated October 1, 1999 -Runway Safety Area Program
provides that all federally obligated airports should provide a Runway Safety
Area ("RSA")
9. AC 150/5300.13 -Designation of RSA areas.
10. Santa Monica Airport Design Standards Study, Coffman Associates
11. FAA Part 16 Notice of Investigation, dated October 8, 2002 and City of Santa
Monica's Response, dated November 7, 2002.
1
12. AC 150/5220.22A, dated September 30, 2005 -Engineered Materials Arresting
Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns.
13. Kirk Shaffer Presentation, dated August 28, 2007 -Written notes for
presentation.
14. FAA Order 5300.1 F, dated June 30, 2000 -Modifications to Agency Airport
Design, Construction, and Equipment Standards.
2
F:\MunicipalLaw\Share\LA W S\MJM\ACPOrdinance.doc
City Council Meeting 11-27-07 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADDING SECTION 10.04.06.150 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
1
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 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
2
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 II Design Standards as set
forth in the FAA Advisory Cii-cular 150/5300.46, 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 B-II to the Airport and obligates the City to operate the Airport
accordingly; and
3
WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law, the B-II 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 ah Aircraft Conformance Program which would conform
operations at the Airport to federal standards applicable to Airport Reference Code B-II
airports; and
4
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 banning C and D aircraft establishing
Runway Safety Areas for Category A and B 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 B
aircraft and the City's obligation to accommodate such aircraft pursuant to the 1984
Agreement; and
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 D aircraft, which are defined by the FAA as those aircraft with approach
of 121 knots or more; and
5
WHEREAS, during the City's lengthy but unavailing attempts to cooperatively
resolve its dispute with the FAA, the number of Category C and D 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 D
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
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
6
WHEREAS, recently in Teterboro, a private aircraft overran the runway, crossed
an adjacent roadway and came to rest in a commercial center, killing a child; and
WHEREAS,-the overruns at Santa Barbara and Teterboro involved Category C
and D 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 thaf 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
7
WHEREAS, only about 7% of current airport operations will be affected by this
ordinance; and
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 10.04.04.095 is hereby added to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
Section 10.04.06.150. 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
8
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 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.
9
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 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
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M R HA NES M JTRIE
Cit Attor
10