> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # A guarded approach - URL: https://www.smdp.com/a-guarded-approach/ - Published: 2007-10-11T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-25T01:06:11.000Z - Author: Kevin Herrera - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica Airport, #archive-import *City Council moves to ban jets; braces for battle with FAA* (sub) Council moves to ban jets; braces for court battle By Kevin Herrera Daily Press Staff Writer CITY HALL — Jet aircraft currently using Santa Monica Airport could be in for a rough landing, if the City Council gets its way. The council voted Tuesday in favor of banning larger, faster jet aircraft from using the airport after hearing evidence from city staff and residents about the dangers posed by such flights, which have little room for error given the shortness of the runway and its close proximity to homes on either side. Those in support of the ban point out that the airport, which dates back to the 1920s, was not built to accommodate today’s faster jets, claiming the Federal Aviation Administration has gone against its own safety standards and forced City Hall to let jets use the airport because it relieves air traffic at LAX. Following five fruitless years of negotiations with the FAA for added safety enhancements at the airport, city officials decided they’ve waited long enough, voting to move forward with the ban to protect residents and users of the airport, even though the move could expose Santa Monica to litigation. 497,“We have to keep our feet on the ground,” Mayor Richard Bloom said. “There will be a tough discussion and perhaps a battle ahead of us. While we all have high expectations and feel positive about it, we have to maintain some sense of reality... We need to keep this in perspective.” Residents by the airport seeking immediate relief will have to remain patient, however, as city staff must draft the ban and then present it to the council for a first reading. A date has yet to be confirmed, but officials hope to move forward soon. The ban will almost certainly be challenged by the FAA. Officials there have repeatedly said that they would fight any attempt to restrict certain types of aircraft from using the airport, setting the stage for possible litigation. The FAA has already blocked attempts to take more control over airport operations, most recently in 2002, when City Hall proposed making federally recommended safety enhancements that would have shortened the length of the runway by 300 feet on both sides. By shortening the runway, City Hall would have made it impossible for faster jets to land safely, forcing them to go elsewhere or carry lighter loads. What makes the airport so dangerous is its location, according to city staff. Situated atop a plateau, there is a significant drop-off at the end of the runway, about 30 feet. Immediately west of the airport is 23rd Street, a busy two-lane road which feeds into the Santa Monica Freeway. Just over 300 feet from the runway ends are single family homes. The runway’s west end sits above the roofs of the closest homes. On the eastern end, the airport is bounded by another busy roadway, Bundy Drive. Across from Bundy, there is a dense residential neighborhood with a gas station to the south of homes. Ian Gregor, a communications manager for the FAA, said that, despite claims by city officials, the FAA is willing to continue negotiating. “The lines of communication between Santa Monica city staff and the FAA remain open,” Gregor said. The FAA was aware of City Hall’s plan to ban the faster jets, which are capable of approaching speeds of 121 knots, or 131 mph. However, since an ordinance has yet to be drafted, Gregor would not comment on what action the federal agency will take. Santa Monica must abide by a 1984 agreement that governs airport operations until 2015\. The FAA claims that agreement prevents City Hall from implementing any safety measures that would limit the types of aircraft that can use the airport. City staff sees it differently. They said the agreement states clearly that the airport would be capable of accommodating “most kinds of aircraft,” and set forth standards making the airport suitable only for slower aircraft, not the jets using the airport more frequently than ever before. During the 1980s, when the agreement was signed, jet aircraft used the airport about 800 times a year. That figure grew to 9,000 annual operations in 2006. FAA deal shot down The FAA has proposed its own runway safety plan for Santa Monica. It included the installation of two, 130-foot collapsible concrete beds at each end of the runway that would be capable of stopping large aircraft exiting the runway at 40 knots (46 miles per hour) or less. The council deemed that plan to be unacceptable. Congressman Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, who represents Santa Monica, is said to be arranging meetings with fellow legislators and the FAA to come to a conclusion that satisfies City Hall’s concerns. Kate Vernez, an assistant to the city manager, said Waxman’s office is trying to hold a meeting as soon as possible, no later than November. “It is in their hands how quickly they can put this together,” Vernez said. During the public hearing, councilmembers heard from scores of residents from Santa Monica and Los Angeles who expressed their desire for a ban, not only because of fears of a runway overrun, but also because of the harm caused by the idling jets’ emissions. “The air pollution danger is clear and present, it’s proven, immediate and severe,” Martin Rubin, president of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution, told the council. “Your operation of the airport is torturing the neighbors day after day.” Susan Hartley, vice chair of the city’s Airport Commission and a resident who lives near the airport, said she wanted to shout “hurray” after learning that the council was in favor of a ban on jets. She has been pleading with the council for years to take action out of fear that something deadly could happen. AD,“It has been stated many times that this is an accident waiting to happen, Hartley said. “We have to keep our feet on the ground.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 11, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/101107.pdf?ref=smdp.com)