sr-041376-10a
p~ at:.=
~}- c7l~ ~ Santa Monica, California, March 11, 1976
v ~,~~
T0: Mayor and City Council ~ ~~ r
FROM: City Staff ,;•,~
~q '`F-. ~ ~ IN U
SUEJECT: Proposed shortening of Airport Runway and deletion of th@"~3~ ~~~G.'s ~=~
North Taxiway area. (A proposal of the Recreation and k§~.-ra 7E3 ~e:t
Commission, dated January 14, 1976). G3°~ ea.~~xs c2€r'
~cz ~:~x~*a;
Introduction
1. The City Council on January 27, 1976, referred back to the Airport
Commission - the Recreation and Parks Commission 'Runway Shortening'
proposal, dated January 14, 1976, for said Airport Commission's con-
aideration and report back to City Council within 4 months,
2. The Airport Commission, has held three meetings, wherein it reviewed;
a. A presentation by Recreation and parka Commissioner Gary
Schwedea, Re: Runway shortening.
b. F.A.A.'e opinion (Copy attached)
c. City Attorney's opinion (Copy attached)
d. Publics' commentary
e. Staff Report by Airport Director, C. V. Fitzgerald
(Copy Attached)
Recommendation
The Airport Commission at its regular meeting on March 10, 1976
voted to report to Council that; due to the safety, noise, envfromnental,
leasehold, F.A.A. - Tenant - residential litigation potentials; it is;
1. Unalterably opposed to any shortening of the Airport Runway;
and -
2. It is opposed to any deletion of the North Taxiway area pending
the firming up of development plans for. the McDonnell-Douglas-airport
areas on .the North side.
T0: Mayor and Council
Recommendation - Continued
-2- March ll, .1976
Commissioner Lincoln Vaughn moved, seconded by Commissioner Roney
and passed with Coam~iasioner James Hoyt voting "No".
Prepared by; C. V. Fitzgerald
CVF;rh
attachmeata
. ~.,,
'~~
. ~;nL FSJa TION ADMINISTRATIO N
WESTERN ftEG10N '
• P. 0.00% 9P001, WORIOWAY POSTAL CENTER
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90009' ~aP% ~~4~
`
'
z
~*
~_ ,
FEB 27 1976
~'1~ .:
*
~
X r
Mr. Richard L. Knickerbocker °y, ~~_'
AP
A'
~
/St
City Attorney ~
,
City of Santa Monica '
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
:
~~
~-
Re: Proposal to Shorten Runway at the. ~.. `.~~~, ~ .
.-:
Santa Monica Municipal Airgort ::;;
••;.
,. ~
~:.:~ •
• :~;:
R'
~
Dear Mr. Knickerbocker: ~; `~ ~= ''~`
.w...
:~
This is in response to your request for the Federal Aviat;,io~!'~
Administration's views regarding the proposal submitted~~
the Recreation and Parks Commission of the City of Santa
Monica to shorten the runway at Santa Monica Municipal Air-
port from approximately 5000 feet to 4000 feet, We note F--~
that the Airport has only one runway. (3/21). and that the
proposed shortening would be applied to the southwest end
'
r
of the runway and its parallel taxiway. ~
"
'~~w
k'e strongly oppose. such a modification of the runway at
Santa Monica Airport for several reasons which include
safety, environmental and Federal funding considerations.
Santa Monica•Municipal Airport is identified in the National ,,. ;r
~:.:'
,:, ,
Airport System Plan (NASP) as a Basic Transport Category
Airport. The minimum runway length required for airports in
this category is 4900 feet.- The Federal government's invest- 1,+-
ment over the years to equip Santa Monica Municipal Airport
to safely accommodate all users suited to its NASP class ifi- -.
cation and physical layout has been substantial. Airport
development projects under the Federal Aid to Airports
program (FAAP) and .the installation of air traffic control
Facilities and landing aids combine for a total Federal
a:<penditure of approximately $946,000. In our judgment, '
sortening the runway would deny some users access to the '
a~.rport and thereby deprive them of the benefits intended by
this Federal investment. This result would be clearly in-
consistent with assurances given by the City of Santa Monica :.~
in airport development grant agreements to operate the airport ~~,;• ;
for the use and benefit of the public.. ~~''
ra~
~2 .
The majority of aircraft. operating throughout the United ~---
States can land and takeoff at airports suitable for their '=~`-
operational requirements without using all of the runway ;!`.~-!
length available. This means that an important safety
margin is provided by the unused portion of the runway in
the event of aborted takeoffs and potential overruns during
landings. Thus, the proposal to shorten the runway at i
Santa Monica Airport by 1000 feet would adversely affect ,~
safety and should not be implemented,
A further area of concern is the environmental impact of ,''~P~
shortening the runway. It appears to us that reducing the °~•~°~' ~ "'~-
southwest end of the runway by 1000 feet will cause aircraft
taking off towards the northeast to fly over residences and
other structures at lower altitudes. This would obviously
result in a greater noise impact to those residences and
structures,. Therefore, we doubt whether a decision to ;__
shorten the runway as proposed could meet with approval under ~°r'
State and Federal environmental standards. x~~~,:`
m,: .,,
Please do not hesitate. to contact me should .you desire to
discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
r ,
D'e`tdITTE T,, CdSON, JR,
Acting Regional Counsel.
5
i
F~.°.
~t
,,
,.n,
~.. .
~~-
•.
i __
.,, .
~,
--,.,
I ~"
! \
,`_
.~_
~,
,~:~,- CA`LIhOT~NIA
or-r[cr or rn[t.crrY nrro~~l:Y '
l"Il'Y HALL CXLrook 3.9975
December 16, T97S
hlr. lle~Pitte Lawson
Regional Counsel
federal Aviation Administration
western Region
P. O. I3o:~ 92007
'~9orld way Postal Canter
Los Angeles, California 90009
Rec Proposal to Shorten Runway At The
Santa Monica Municipal Air ort
Dear Mr. Lawson:
Pursuant to your telephone conversation with this
office on llecember 15, 1975, this correspondence is being
sent to you in order to request a formal written response
from the Federal Aviation Agency in regard to the above
referenced matter.
Ths proposal S.n question i.nvol.ves a plan suY~mittn_d
by the Recreation and Parks Commission of the City of Santa
Monica which would ca 11 for, inter ali-a, the shorr_ening oL-
the runway at the Sani:a N,olu.ca Municipal Airport from a
length of 5,000 feet to 4,000 feet.
Tn regard to such a proposed plan, ib would be
appreciated .if your office could state the position of the
federal Government in writing, with any supportive data and
infor-oration and then transmit the•sarne to this office at the
earliest opportunity.
The plan is only at the proposal stage and hays rot
been approved by the City,Cow~cil of Sani:a Monica. Your
opinion as to this matter is being requested while the plan
is still at an informal phase.
P1r. DetVitCe Lawson
- llecember lug-1975
Page Two
Thank you in advance for your courtesy and cooL,ec-
ation in regard to this matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact file undcrsin>;~1
for any further. information or assistance.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD "L. YNTCKPsR`OCi~i'it
Ctiy Attorney ~••'~
t i ~;
,, ,
~. v.~i ~J
DLDINIS.T OMOTO
DepuL-y City Attorney
DTO:cam ,
r~
i , i ,.
• ,~ CA 12T,i{:J'1L:~Y 1/L:/i6
• ~ i ,
F ~ ,
I,:t '':. 'Opinion CA76~1~
I ~ ~,
,, ~ The opinion a^efe~r~:l
,',R ,i ,.
;,,~,~ to in, this 1/_/L,/7'
J
•. n r
- ~ Metter has not bee~~
issued i;o date.
,
,; Periodic inquir:~.es
r
ti•~i:r
•.,~; '',as to when the opinicr,
will Ybe•forthcoming
` I have• been made ar.c: •r,~•
i ,,
~ ~ have been in,.o ,ed
~ .:.
,, :.
.., ,
,;+ `~ ' to date that r.'r;~
' ~,.. Y'
opinion orou,_~ L _
' ~ ,' forthcoming .. _,. ,
3_
CITY ATTORtdEY OPINTOPd
Opinion No. 76-16 March 12, 1976
SUBJECT: Legal Ramifications of Certain Airport
Modifications Including Substituted Use
For Approximately Fifteen Hundred Feet
of the Westerly Portion of the Present
Runway.
REQUESTED BY: James L. Williams, City Manager
OPINION BY: Richard L. Knickerbocker, City Attorney
Samuel I..Streichman, Assistant City~Attorney
Shirley L. Kirby, Deputy City Attorney
QUESTION PRESENTED
.Are there any legal impediments to the implementation
of such a plan in view of Attorney General Opinion No. CV74/317
and applicable law?
CONCLUSION ,.
The proposed shortening of the airport runway poses
a threat of a multiplicity of lawsuits against the City. The
most serious of these would be an action by the Federal Govern-
ment, based upon the various land use agreements. Other potential
lawsuits include suits by homeowners northeast of the airport
and suits by the lessees of Parcels 1, lA, 1B, 1C, 16A, 16B,
and 2.
ANALYSIS
As discussed in Opinion 75-63, the airport has
become subject to federal grant agreements, federal lease
-l-
agreements, and federal transfer agreements. These agreements may
impose an obligation to maintain the ai-rport in a manner
suitable for all types, kinds, and classes of airplanes.
The recent opinion from the Acting Regional Council of the
Federal Aviation Agency indicates that the FAA feels the
proposed shortening of the runway would deny some users access
to the airport and would jeopardize the safety margin at the
airport. In light of that opinion, it is apparent that if
the City proceeds with the proposed runway shortening, we
will become involved in litigation with the Federal Government.
Existing leases with lessees of Parcels 1, lA, 1B,
1C, 16A, 16B, and 2 at the airport will not expire until
1996 (l, lA, 1B, 1C, 16A, 16B), and 1981 (2), respectively.
Because the proposed runway shortening might jeopardize access
to the runway for those lessees, the lessees of the two parcels
might sue for a breach of the lease agreement.
If a shorter runway resulted in aircraft flying
lower over homes on the northeast side of the runway, then
lawsuits could be anticipated from those homeowners, similar
to the recent case of Nestle v. Santa Dlonica.
Respectfully submitted,
SHIRLEY L. KIRBY~ J
Deputy~City Attorney
/ /
APPR9VED BY • • ~ ////J
(/ ~~~~
RICHARD L,%K I'CKER OCKER, ~
City Attorney
By: SAMUEL I. STREICHMAN,
Assistant City Attorney
-2-
CITY ATTORNEY OPINION
Opinion No. 75-63 - August 25, 1975
SUBJECT: Legal Ramifications of Certain Airport
Modifications Including Substituted Use
' For Approximately Fifteen ~Iundrep Feet
of the Westerly Portion of the Present
Runway.
REQUESTED BY: James D. Williams, City Manager
OPINION BY: Richard L. Knickerbocker, City Attorney
Samuel I. Streichman, Assistant. City Attorney
QUESTION PRESENTED
Are there any legal impediments to the implementation
of such a plan in view of Attorney General Opinion No. CV74/317
and applicable law?
CONCLUSION
There are possible legal obstacles to such a proposed
use involving the diminution of the runway facility arising from
the rights o£ current lease holders, the fixation of land use
through dedication, and the rights of the federal government
arising by virtue of various land use agreements. Of these, the
latter is probably the major potential. obstacle to such a
development.
ANALYSIS
As indicated by the Office of the Attorney General,
any alteration of the use as presently existing at Santa Monica
Airport would have to be compatible with the various agreements
-1-
and use restrictions existing on the airport.
.There are five general categories `of agreements to which
the airport use has become subject: federal grant agreements.,
federal lease agreements, federal transfer agreements, state
grant agreements,.and private lease agreements. Most important
among these to the particular question in hand are the federal
grant agreements, which are subject to a sponsor's agreement
incorporated in them which provides, among other things, as
follows:
"The sponsor (City of Santa Monica)
:will operate and maintain in a safe
and serviceable condition the airport
and all facilities thereon and connected
therewith which are necessary to serve
the aeronautical users of the airport...
and will not permit any activity thereon
which would interfere with its use for
airport purposes." (Emphasis supplied).
Additionally, the same sponsors agreement provides:
"The sponsor will operate the airport
as such for the use and benefit of the
public. In furtherance of this covenant
(but without limiting its general
applicability and effect), the sponsor
specifically agrees that it will keep
the airport open to all types, kinds,
-2-
~ ~ and classes of aeronautical uses...."
The purpose of these grant agreements was to provide
federal funding for various improvements made over the years at
the airport, including construction of roads, fences, installation
of lights, construction of various improvements to the runway,
including storm drains and the construction of a new control tooter.
..Since the City has made the representations contained
in the sponsor's. agreements to the federal government, and since
the federal. government has expended monies subsequent to these
agreements, it would appear that any proposed modification of
the airport property which would include a golf course and a
diminution of the runway by virtue of a removal of approximately
one thousand five hundred (1,500)' square feet from the west end,
would necessitate at least an attempt to extract the concurrence
of the federal government. Therefore, in order to fully assess
the competing legal rights involved, ,the federal-government should
be included in the initial planning of such a project. This
procedure would serve to test the. reaction of the federal government
to such a plan and reduce the potential of federal-city litigation
over it. Based upon previous contacts with the federal government
and upon the opinion of the Strate Attorney `General, the probability
of litigation arising from unilateral action of the City in the
direction of such a modification of the airport facility is almost
absolute.
In addition to considerations relative to the federal
-3-
government,'-other,-perhaps more minor considerations exist.
.These include relocation of leasehold operators as they may
exist in the area which would become subject to modification
and the question of aircraft safety (which may be closely related
to federal cooperation), potential liability from possible designs
or a final design for the golf course vis-a-vis the airport and
the reaction of the residential property owners at the east end
of the airport runway.
Each of these above considerations must await analysis
of a specific configuration for the proposed modification and
need not completely be considered prior to some involvement of
the federal government with regard to its position.
Respe tfully submitted,
i ~ C
UEL I. ICHMAN
Assistant City Attorney
City Attorney
Santa Monica, California,. February 11, 1976
T0: Airport Commission
FROM: C. V. Fitzgerald, Airport Director
SUBJECT: Proposed shortening of Airport Runway and deletion
of North Taxiway area.
Introduction
This is pursuant to the Recreation and parks Commission proposal, dated
November 20, 1975, relative to:
1. Shortening Airport Runway to provide an adequate 'noise buffer
zone and recreational development.'
2. Deletion of North taxiway area of 200 feet x 4000 feet, to
provide for an additional 20 scree of 'useable land' to the
city.
And pursuant to the Airport Commission's position and recommendation relative
to development of Airport and adjacent properties.
Background
Santa N,onica Airport historically has been - and is today - a very important
link in the National Transportation System, and ranks high among the busiest
General Aviation airports in the world. Over the years the airfield has been
home base for one of aviation's great industrial giants, Douglas Aircraft
Company; which contributed most aignifically to the economic development and
health of the community. Known as the cradle of aviation; many 'firsts' in
the history of aviation originated right here at Clover Field, such as the
first 'round the world flight' and first airline transport - the DC-3. To
aay nothing of the tremendous national defense production of Bombers during
the war time years all which provided thousands of jobs, millions of payroll
To; Airport Commission -2- gebruary 11, 1976
dollars, and millions in taxes.. And none of this would have been possible or
generated without the existence of the airport as we know it today:
Aside from 'operating in the black° the past 18 years - the Airport has consis-
tently contributed substantially to the City's General Fund - thereby helping
to maintain one of the lowest tax rates in the county.
In addition to the healthy ecconomic contributions the airport provides many
valuable services to the community as per the following;
- AYR TRANSPORTATYON -
1. Aerial gateway to Santa Monica's great tourist industry, and
buainesa centers.
2. Base for many corporate buainesa enterprises.
3. Aero-Education - graduating hundreds of professional pilots
each year,
4. Aero-Recreation -for those who love to fly -same as those
who golf, swim, or play tennis.
5. Attraction of industry with its much-needed fobs, payrolls
and taxes.
6. .Crisis, disasters - a much-needed facility in time of peril
and defense.
7. hand Bank -for future generations.
8. Open space -several hundred scree of it - an environmentally
sound investment.
With the phasing out of the McDonnell-Douglas Company - and the approaching
expiration of certain airport land leases, the Airport Commission, recognized
that the Airport, today, stands at the threshold of a great development
To; Airport Commission -3- February 11, 197u
potential - one that could well fill or surpass, the economic vacuum - the
community stands to suffer with the lose of Douglas. In view of-this the
airport commission, in 1973, recommended to City Council an exciting bold
proposal which incorporated airport and Douglas lands into an environmentally
aesthetically acceptable Corporate/Industrial park - all integrated wil-hin
the airport complex. It was felt by the majority of Airport Commission members
that such a development would moat definitely, be to the beet intareets of the
community as a whole. Since the airport commission's 1973 recommendation to
City Council, the concept of integrating an executive-type golf course within
the Corporate/Industrial Park complex-has evolved with soma vary interesting
possibilities.
The November 20, 1975 recommendation of the .Recreation and Parks Commission
to slash 1000 feet off the airport runway and delete 200 feet X 4000 feet off
the North aide of the airport operations area, (taxiway and tiedown areaaj; would
undoubtedly create. more problems than it would solve.
First and foremost is the safety element. To reduce the runway length and
convert the deleted runway area to recreational uses would be an irrespons-
able compromise with safety, Though, it might ba true that some 80 or 907.
of the general aviation fleet can operate out of a 3500 or 4000 foot landing
strip with a reasonable margin of safety; that safety margin is greatly magni-
fied in an :emergency situation with the additional 1000 ft. of runway.
To place recreational facilities at the end of a 4000 ft. runway would be
an intolerable invite to disaster. The potential risks do .not warrant the
claimed advantages.
To; Airport Commission -4- February 11, 1976
To shorten the runway to create a noise buffer zone is also an exercise in
futility - as it would have the opposite effect of 'increasing aircraft
noise'. An aircraft taking off 1000'ft. farther down the runway would be
canxnensurately 'lower' over the homes - and the aircraft noise level would
be commensurately 'higher'.
The litigation potential by the. affected residential areas would be greatly
magnified. Tha-City just recently resolved an expensive major noise lawsuit -
why create a whole hew ball-game and invite another lawsuit? Againy it would
seem that the potential litigation risks (Residents - Airport Lessees, F.A.A.)
do not warrant the "claimed' advantages - if any.
The other Recreation and parks Commission recommendation; "That the 200 feet
X 4000 feet airport area North of the runway i. e. (North taxiway and aircraft
tiedown area), be deleted from the airport and converted to other us ea by the
City" is another example of limited knowledge of airport matters and operations.
First off; the Federal Aviation Administration regulations provides for a 7 to 1
transitional slope ratio for runway side slopes. A 250 ft. clear zone is required.
i. e. Starting with Ehe centerline of the runway - 250 Et. of clear zone on either
side of the runway centerline is mandatory. Beginning 250. feet right angle from
the runway centerline the 7 to 1 criteria becomes effective. Yn-other words;
For every 7 feet beyond the 250 ft. boundary one epuld theoretically go up
1 foot with a structure.
The assertion, that the area is vary little used = and a waste of .land, is not
quite correct. The north taxiway is frequently used and during peak times 3s
of tremendous value in safe distribution of taxiing`aircraft - and maintenance
To: Airport Commission -5- February 11, 1976
of safe acceptance rate of landing aircraft with its high speed turn-off
capability.
The City has developed approximately 100 aircraft tie-down stalls to
accommodate overflow aircraft tenants, and in many times past most of the
stalls were filled, Yf the City were to develop major portions of the south
airport area into corporate/industrial park facilities - the north tie-down
area would be in great need for re-distribution of aircraft.
Zt must be emphasized that Santa Monica Airport is a most important - strong,
viable, transportation canter - serving all the community's general aviation
needs; industrial, tourist, business, educational and including recreational.
Alternate Solutions
a. Eetablieh 750 ft. displaced thresholds for landing only at both
ends of the runway; this would have the effect of approaching
aircraft coming in higher over residential areas with cammensur-
ately less noise - and with still the built-in safety factor of
having a 5000 foot runway in the event of an emergency; and
departing aircraft, by starting at the end of a 5000 foot runway,
will be at a commensurately higher altitude with commensurately
less noise than an aircraft departing 1000 ft. farther down the
runway. Plus the safety advantage of 1000 more ft, of runway
in the event of an emergency or take-of€.
Recommendation
a. Strongly oppose the Recreation and Park's Commission recommend-
To; Airport Commiaaio~x »6r February 11, 197G
Recommendation - Cont.
a. anon rs; Ths shortening of the runway and deletion of 200 Foot. ;C
.4000 foot area north of the airport runway,
fiats; City Ffanagsr concurs with staff reooermratdation.
b. 12e-assert the Airport Commission's 1973 recommsndatian to City
Couneil relative to dsvelogment of the airport and adjacent
properties to its highest. and beat use as an Airport/Corporate/
znduatrial Fark complex with serious consideration toward irate-
gration of a $olf course within the complex. It would seem that
a concept of this type would be in the best interests, economic-
ally and environmentally to the coaanunity as a whole.
Prepared by; ' C. Y. Fitzgerald
C4.P:rh
attachments
v