City Council bans fastest, largest aircraft from airport
CITY HALL Sunset Park residents who for years have complained about the risks of living near the Santa Monica Airport had reason to celebrate Tuesday night when the City Council banned the fastest and largest jets from the general aviation facility.
It could be a short-lived celebration as Federal Aviation Administration officials have indicated that they will challenge the ordinance, potentially leading to a lengthy and costly litigation path for City Hall.
The FAA on Wednesday served City Hall with an order to show cause, an administrative action giving the municipality 10 days to demonstrate why class C and D jets should be outlawed from the airport, according to FAA spokesman Ian Gregor.
The order could reawaken the FAA’s existing six-year investigation into the legality of an earlier similar City Hall proposal to ban certain jets. The investigation was put on hold while aviation and city officials worked together to reach a mutual solution to concerns regarding the possibility of an aircraft overshooting the runway.
Gregor said he could not speculate on if or when the FAA would file a lawsuit against City Hall over the newly-enacted ordinance. The ordinance will take effect 30 days from adoption.
“We very strongly believe the proposed ordinance is illegal for a number of reasons — the airport cannot unilaterally ban stage 3 jets from landing there... and moreover, under the 1984 agreement, (City Hall) agreed to keep airport access open to all users,”Gregor said on Wednesday, referring to the 1984 lease between the FAA and City Hall. The council’s decision came after a nearly four-hour long contentious discussion with Kirk Shaffer, the FAA’s associate administrator for airports, during the meeting on Tuesday. Shaffer met with city officials to formally present the FAA’s proposal to install an Emergency Material Arresting System (EMAS) on the west end of the airport, which would consist of a series of concrete blocks that give way under the weight of an aircraft, slowing it down in case it overshoots the runway. Councilmembers argued the security system, which could handle a plane traveling at 70 knots, doesn’t go far enough and questioned why the measure wasn’t proposed for the east end of the runway as well.
“Safety is number one,” Mayor Herb Katz said during the meeting. “I don’t think the FAA (is) addressing it, I think you’re dodging it.”
Shaffer estimated that between 4,000 and 8,000 operations would be affected if an EMAS bed was placed at the departure end of Runway 3. Citing an FAA modeling system, Shaffer added that under a worst case scenario in which all 8,000 operations on the east end involved jets, the risk of a runway overshoot would be one in 625 years.
“You’ve eliminated 8,000 operations a year from the airport against the risk of one overrun in 625 years,” Shaffer said. “That’s the probability. That’s the scientific fact.”
Several members in the pro-jet ban audience sighed in exasperation at the remarks, many holding yellow fliers that read “Ban the ‘C’ and ‘D’ Airplanes!”
Those sighs quickly grew to angry gasps, many residents shaking their heads when Shaffer raised the possibility of adopting a Runway Protection Zone, a voluntary program in which homeowners sell their properties to make room for a larger buffer zone. The FAA officials suggested enacting the program through a pilot phase and expanding it to several blocks if successful.
“You design the program, you pick the appraisers, you pick the relocation specialist, you set up the guidelines within the parameters of regulation to help people identify comparable housing within the community,” Shaffer said, illustrating on a map just how many residences would be affected.
“That’s two whole neighborhoods!” one woman sitting in the audience remarked out loud.
City officials rebuffed the suggestion. “It seems to me... you have an emphasis on utility and you heard from us that we really value people living here in their homes,” Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom said.
The 70-knot EMAS would be designed to stop roughly 97 percent of operations at the airport and 90 percent of C and D classified jets. The enhanced safety measure would consume more runway than the 40-knot EMAS, which the FAA previously proposed and city officials turned down as being insufficient.
Along with the enhanced EMAS bed, the FAA also offered to reduce noise and pollution by changing the alignment of aircraft on Runway 21 where the majority of operations take place, adjusting the line of planes so that emissions travel down the taxiway. The FAA is also offering adding information about the noise abatement procedures and lack of runway safety areas through electronic notifications sent to pilots who file their flight plans into or out of Santa Monica.
“We worked very hard and a very long time to come to an agreement with the city and presented them with two excellent options that would (ensure) safety and maintain access to the airport for virtually all current users,” Gregor said on Wednesday.
The meeting drew a large audience of residents living in Mar Vista and Sunset Park, all of whom spoke in support of the ordinance.
Several residents listed incidents of runway overshoots across the country, enunciating the ones that have resulted in fatalities.
“These are people’s lives we’re dealing with,” Susan Hartley, the vice chairman of the Airport Commission, said.
Margaret Williamson said she owns one of the homes that would fall within the Runway Protection Zone. Estimating that each of the homes are valued at roughly $1 million a piece, Williamson questioned whether the airport generated enough activity to warrant such an expenditure by the FAA. Williamson, her voice shaking, said the FAA could have her house, adding that the airport has the 47-year resident worried about her family’s health.
“If you think property acquisition is a recommendation, then you’re admitting there’s a real danger,” she said.
Shaffer stated repeatedly throughout the meeting that the airport is safe, pointing to data showing that fatal accidents have declined while operations have increased.
“Santa Monica Airport is a safe airport and it continues to get safer,” Shaffer said.
Councilmember Bobby Shriver suggested that city staff should study the cost and construction time of installing the EMAS bed system, noting that the litigation would be timely and there would be no safety measures in the meantime.
Two ongoing airport issues that the council chose to avoid during the discussion were pollution and noise, intending instead to focus on safety.
Among the local residents who attended the meeting was L.A. Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, who both represents and lives in Mar Vista and has criticized the FAA about the effects of jet aircraft on his constituents.
“This is one of the tightest airports in America and it’s had a substantial increase in jets the last 10 years,” Rosendahl said.
Rosendahl met with Congresswoman Jane Harman, Shaffer and several of his constituents shortly before the meeting on Tuesday night.
“I strongly disagree that air and noise pollution issues are secondary,” Harman, who represents the Westside, said in a statement.“My constituents who live directly east of the airport suffer intensely from pollution at SMO. I’m working together with them and the FAA on a solution.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 27, 2008. Read the original PDF.