_____________________

Cover Letter to SM City Council:

Feb. 21, 2007

Dear Honorable City Councilmembers,

After careful consideration of the information available to us, Friends of Sunset Park has taken a position on the current FAA/City of Santa Monica proposal for safety enhancements at the Santa Monica Airport.

This latest version of proposed safety enhancements was presented by the FAA and the Santa Monica Airport Staff at a Dec. 12, 2006 meeting held at the FAA’s Western-Pacific headquarters.  The aviation community was invited.  The general public was not.   Even community members most impacted by the proposal were not allowed.

We were able to gain knowledge of the information presented at this meeting only because one of our members who is a pilot contacted the FAA and asked for an invitation.

As you may recall, the Santa Monica City Council approved in concept a Safety Enhancement Program entitled the Aircraft Conformance Program over four years ago on Dec. 10, 2002.  The major components of this proposal included 300 foot runway safety areas (RSA) on each runway end and aircraft conformance to standards consistent with the FAA’s Airport Reference Code’s B-II Designation for Airports with Santa Monica’s dimensions.  In other words, all faster Class C and D aircraft (currently over 50% of the jet traffic) would be eliminated.  The recommended FAA runway safety area standard for B-II class aircraft is 300ft.  Three-hundred-foot runway safety areas at the Santa Monica Airport were to be created by declaring portions of the existing runway as safety areas and to re-striping them accordingly.

The current consensus plan is vastly different than the plan approved by the City Council in 2002.  Friends of Sunset Park has the following concerns:

· This consensus plan clearly was formulated to preserve access to the airport by as much of the present fleet (including the C and D aircraft) as possible.  Why has priority been given to aircraft access over the neighborhood safety?

· EMAS installation is a multimillion dollar proposition.  Why wasn’t funding part of the discussion?  The city opposed AB2501 under the argument that it was an unfunded mandate at an estimated cost of $400,000.  Yet, the City didn’t insist upon resolution of EMAS funding as part of the consensus plan.

· Why was the consensus plan presented at a public meeting by the FAA with apparent City approval but without City Council deliberation and consent in a public forum so that residents whose safety is in jeopardy would have an opportunity to weigh in?

These concerns are the basis for the attached position statement of Friends of Sunset Park.

In the present form, we consider this plan unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Cathy Larson

Chair Friends of Sunset Park Airport Committee 

fospairport@labridge.com