- 8 -
The airport manager and the California Aeronautics Commission objected to the construction on the basis that it would be a hazard not only to aircraft on approach to the runway, but also to persons on the ground who would be concentrated in the shopping center. The Air-Transport Association objected because it might result in a reduction of runway effective length, thereby forcing air carriers to operate at reduced gross weights. The construction proposal was discussed further at an informal meeting of all concerned. The FAA determined that the construction would not be a hazard to air navigation. The plans were modified so that the heights of only three points exceeded the standards by 11, 11 and 13 feet, and the shopping center was constructed.
On July 1, 1967, the County of Sacramento assumed operational control of the airport under a lease agreement. In October 1967 all air carrier operations were moved to the new Metropolitan Airport, and Executive Airport continued operation as a general aviation facility.
In December 1969, an addition to the shopping center was proposed, and the FAA again circulated the details for comment. It was noted that the proposed building, an ice cream parlor, exceeded the height standard by 5 feet. No objections were received, and the FAA determined that no hazard existed. However, the California Department of Aeronautics, in responding to a city zoning hearing, commented that the State's study indicated that other structures in the area of the new building were of equal height so that the addition had no substantive effect on the airport activity.
In January 1970, the FAA circulated another aeronautical study regarding the proposed construction of a sign for the ice cream parlor. The sign exceeded the standards of Part 77 by 26 feet, but this was later reduced to 21 feet. The California Department of Aeronautics indicated no objection if it was shadowed by other existing structures. The Director of Airports, on behalf of Sacramento County, objected to the construction because it was in the clear zone and exceeded the 40:1 slope by 14.5 feet. Also, the size of the sign (20 feet by 30 feet) would tend to confuse pilots during low visibility conditions. Once again, the FAA determined that no hazard existed because the sign had no greater adverse effect on aircraft operations than the existing obstructions, provided it had appropriate obstruction lighting. The California Department of Aeronautics also filed objection to the sign in the city's zoning variance process, and indicated that if the runway threshold was displaced sufficiently to eliminate the intrusion into the approach surface, they would withdraw their objection. As noted earlier, the threshold for Runway 12 was displaced.
