Possibility of future closure raised at Sacramento Executive
City officials in Sacramento, owner of the land on which Sacramento Executive Airport is located, plan to offer for consideration at a workshop in June a formal proposal that long-range plans look at moving the airport and developing the land.
Steve Peterson, the city's long-range planner, said those who are concerned about the issue should realize it is one alternative in a plan that would not occur for five or 10 years. "Everybody needs to settle down and take a deep breath," he told AOPA Pilot. There are numerous alternatives for growth, one of them being infill reinvestment, that is, taking areas within the city and reinvesting money for other uses such as a job center and homes, Peterson said. He said there are three light-rail stations located in areas where development is restricted to four units per acre because of the nearby Sacramento Executive Airport.
News of the plan has stirred concern among businesses at the airport that were contacted by AOPA Pilot. The airport is operated by the county, and county officials were discussing a long-range master plan for the airport as this was written. The county leases the land from the city for $1 a year.
Efforts were made in the 1990s to move the airport to Sacramento Mather Airport, but now the better opportunity should plans proceed would be to move Executive's operations to McClellan Airfield, Peterson said. AOPA policy officials said McClellan, with its single runway, does not appear to meet the terms of federal law, which says any substitute airport must be equal to the airport replaced, in this case Sacramento Executive, which has three runways.
Peterson said the city can either use infill reinvestment, or sprawl outward into agricultural lands as other California communities have done. The time is ripe to consider future use of the airport land, since airport land-use plans are being updated. "It is a chance to sync the general master plan with the airport land-use plan," Peterson said. The general plan takes a 25-year outlook, and in that time the city expects 200,000 additional residents and 140,000 additional jobs. The city is trying to follow the principles of "smart growth," Peterson said.
Councilwoman Lauren R. Hammond has met privately with Peterson and has indicated her opposition to closing Sacramento Executive. "I made it as clear as I possibly could in private meetings with the planners and they are not listening. It is in my district and the neighbors want it kept as an airport for smaller aircraft. They are not interested in closing the airport and especially not interested in private development on the site. I have watched the owners of businesses there improve the property in order to attract more business and make a profit, and that is what we want to happen."
Scott Powell, president of Sacramento Jet Center at Sacramento Executive, called it "very shortsighted to think that the City of Sacramento would even consider shutting down its only in-city airport located in California's capital."
Whenever major legislative bills are debated in the Capital Building downtown, "executive jets from corporations around the world utilize the downtown airport," he said. "The city would never consider closing down Interstate 5 and developing it, yet the airport is, like the highway, a major entrance into our city," he added.
Powell noted that both the City Council and County Board of Supervisors were unanimous in their support of Sacramento Executive Airport when attempts were made in the early 1990s to close it. The city officials understood then that, "city assets should be protected for their long-term ongoing benefits, rather than sold off for a one-time financial gain," he said.
Ed Callaway, owner and chief instructor at Executive Flyers at Executive, said Executive is more suitable for student training than is the present alternative, McClellan Airfield. McClellan has only a single runway while Executive has three, he noted.
Signs that a controversy is brewing appeared in the mail in mid April. Residents near the airport anonymously received copies of articles about plane crashes in California in recent years. Speculation was that it was an individual trying to capitalize on the city's exploration of whether Sacramento Executive should be closed.
Doyle Carroll, former head of Friends of Executive that defended the airport in the 1990s, said he is gearing up once again for battle. "We're going to focus on the city planner and try to get that taken out as an option before it reaches the city council," Carroll said.
AOPA was mobilizing as well. As Carroll moved to reactivate his support group, AOPA California Regional Representative John Pfeifer was in Sacramento to set up meetings with county aviation officials. Sacramento has joined a long list of battles fought by AOPA in California. Reached by phone in Sacramento, Pfeifer rattled off a list from memory of 15 airports where AOPA has fought recent battles to keep the airport or its runways open. Additional battles have been fought over land-use issues at several other California-area airports. In fact, the majority of the major battles AOPA takes on are in California. In addition to Sacramento, AOPA is also engaged in current battles in Oceanside, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and Redding.
Livermore support group starts
The Coalition for Livermore Airport was recently organized and its first event had 75 people attending the organization's first barbeque. The purpose of the event was to update pilots on the status of a noise-monitoring program that will be implemented at the airport. The Coalition for Livermore Airport plans to represent pilots before the city council. The group is planning a mailing to all pilots in the area to enlist their support.
AOPA calls Santa Monica ground study unnecessary
AOPA has gone on record with the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources as opposing A.B.2501 that would require Santa Monica Airport to record taxi-in time, taxi-out time, and idle time of all aircraft for one year. The idea behind the bill is to determine the effect of aircraft ground operations on air pollution.
"The small piston-engine aircraft many of our members fly produce very little emissions and the community airports at which our members are based should not be faced with the excessive monitoring burden which would be imposed by A.B.2501," said AOPA State and Local Government Affairs Manager Owen M. Sweeney, Jr.
AOPA is concerned that the airport management, rather than going to the expense to hire personnel to monitor aircraft all night, would simply close the airport at night. The monitoring is supposed to be conducted 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Additionally, AOPA is concerned that the cost of the monitoring would be passed on to pilots using Santa Monica Airport.
"Given the very limited impact these airports have on air pollution and the wasted resources that would be expended to comply with the bill should it be extended to other airports, we oppose A.B.2501 and respectfully request your committee's no vote," Sweeney wrote.
Related Articles
