Council
Bans Faster Planes at Airport |
By Anita Varghese
Staff Writer
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.
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, SMO 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 Trimborn, 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, Trimborn said.
For SMO, Trimborn 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,” Trimborn 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.”
Trimborn said the City’s ordinance banning C and D aircraft at SMO 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 International Airport -- can accommodate C and D aircraft flying in
and out of the Southern California region.
The ordinance will not significantly reduce air and noise pollution at SMO,
Trimborn 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 settlement 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
concerned 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 Vernez, the Santa Monica City Manager’s
Office assistant for community and government relations.
After the meeting in Washington, D.C., Vernez said the City Council will hold
a public hearing in January to review new findings.
|
