There appears to be a number of factions critical of the Venice Municipal Airport (“KVNC”). Each seems to have its own particular focus. In general, however, the complaints relate to the perception of unacceptable air traffic noise levels and the perceived impact of required compliance with contemporary FAA standards on the Venice Golf Association, Inc. leasehold improvements as well as the Gulf Shores subdivision which abuts the Airport.
The noise issue is fairly self explanatory. Airport critics who live in neighborhoods adjoining KVNC assert that increasing air traffic is unacceptable and want the City to intervene.
The FAA standards compliance issues are a bit more complex. Early in 2007 the City’s aviation consultant, MEA/Hanson (“MEA”), completed a draft of an Airport Master Plan Update (“MPU”). An MPU is a planning document typically prepared by airport owners every five to seven years and can serve as a basis for grant applications for airport improvements. The Draft MPU included certain recommendations for reconfiguring the Airport to comply with contemporary FAA airport design criteria and standards. These recommendations were based on MEA’s analysis of the most demanding aircraft that regularly visit KVNC, sometimes referred to as the “Design Aircraft”. MEA (as well as the VABA) determined that the Design Aircraft for KVNC is of the C-II variety which has a landing approach speed of less than 141 knots and a wing span of less than 79 feet. This means that the two runways at KVNC would be given an Airport Reference Code (“ARC”) of C-II.
Certain aspects of the current Airport layout are inconsistent with FAA design requirements for C-II ARC runways. In general, there are 3 such inconsistencies that appear to offend Airport critics.
First, the fence line along the western margin of the southeast/northwest runway (Runway 13/31) is too close to the runway pavement and must be relocated to the west. This would have an impact on a number of the Golf Course Holes. This is sometimes referred to as the ROFA or Runway Object Free Area issue.
Second, the Runway Safety Area (“RSA”) at the departure end of the southwest runway (Runway 22) configured for C-II aircraft is approximately 600 feet too short. RSAs are located at the end of runways to act as a buffer in the event an aircraft over runs the departure end of the runway. Increasing the RSA size to meet FAA standards would impact the current location of the Golf Course driving range.
Third, the Runway Protection Zone (“RPZ”) at the approach end of the southeast runway (Runway 13) configured for C-II aircraft overlies a portion of the homes located in the Gulf Shores subdivision which abuts the Airport.
In November, 2007 three new City Council members were elected including a new City Mayor. Prior to their election, the City Council (“Council”) declined to accept the MEA MPU and recommendations. This meant that the MPU update was left to the post election Council to deal with. To date, as of June 30, 2008, Council continues to decline to accept the MEA MPU update. Instead, Council has deliberated the hiring of a different firm to re-craft the MPU and has voted to advertise for a new consultant. During the course of these deliberations, Council has consented to allow the Mayor to present conceptual Airport diagrams to the FAA on two separate occasions. These conceptual Airport diagrams were developed through the cooperation of the VABA and several concerned citizens aligned with groups critical of the Airport (the “VABA/Citizens Group”).
The Mayor, accompanied by the City Manager, presented the first conceptual Airport diagram to the FAA in Washington D. C. early in 2008 (“Plan One”). Plan One was not endorsed by the VABA. Plan One described an airport configuration that was designed to constrain all RSAs and RPZs to Airport property. The only way that Plan One would be acceptable to the FAA would be if the Airport ARCs were downgraded to B-II. The FAA response was not encouraging. The VABA believes that the FAA is not likely to consent to downgrading facilities at the Airport. The Mayor was advised that he should consult with the FAA Airport District Office (“ADO”) in Orlando FL which has jurisdiction over KVNC.
In the interim, the VABA/Citizens Group continued to meet and was able to come to a consensus with respect to a compromise conceptual Airport diagram which embodied certain “Modifications to Standards” which were embodied in the year 2000 MPU either explicitly or implicitly (“Plan Two”) without downgrading the runway ARCs.
The Mayor, accompanied by the City Manager, the Airport Director and two members of the VABA/Citizens group met with the FAA ADO in Orlando on May 8th, 2008 to present Plan Two and ask for guidance. The FAA representatives advised that they would review the diagram and provide written comments by the end of May, 2008. The FAA further advised that the MPU update, in any event, would be due by August 31st, 2008.
On May 30th, 2008 the FAA issued its response. Again, the results were not encouraging. The FAA made it clear that it has no intention of allowing Modifications to Standards at KVNC in the absence of evidence that all alternatives to compliance have been considered. (Read the letter for yourself!)
The matter lies here as of June 30, 2008.