City Hall: Aviation less valuable to the regional economy than imagined

from smdp.com

By David Mark Simpson on October 6, 2014 in Airport

5

SMO — If you’re a frequent reader of this newspaper, there are a couple phrases you’ll see over and over.

One example: “Residents opposed to the Santa Monica Airport complain about the noise and pollution caused by planes taking off and landing.”

Another: “Proponents of the airport point to a City Hall-financed study that shows that the airport generates $275 million annually for the local economy.”

Well, City Hall is clarifying that 2011 study, claiming, in a report released on Thursday, that the measured economic activity cannot be said to be a direct result of aviation use at the airport.

At a City Council meeting last month, City Manager Rod Gould explained the study as council considered awarding a contract — unrelated to the airport — to HR&A, the consulting agency responsible for the SMO study.

“The study indicated that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the Santa Monica Airport’s contribution to the regional economy was far smaller than had been imagined as was the case with the city itself,” Gould said. “In fact, I believe the Principal Consultant Paul Silvern likened the tax and employment impact of Santa Monica Airport to a medium-sized strip mall.”

The airport is actually a loss for City Hall’s budget, he said.

“Until last year the airport was never able to cover its operating and capital costs and therefore amassed a $13 million debt to the General Fund,” Gould said, “which thanks to the increased landing fees that you approved last year, we were able to improve a half-million of that dept. We hope to bite that down over time.”

Thursday’s report summarizes the findings of the 2011 study, which has not been updated since.

HR&A’s analysis looked at the airport campus as a whole, which includes aviation and non-aviation businesses on aviation and non-aviation land.

“Primarily, this work established a baseline of economic data for the entire Airport by providing an estimate of the contribution that the Airport makes to the City’s economy,” the report said. “Because this model does not segregate the impacts of aviation and non-aviation businesses, it is difficult to quantify the total economic impact from each sector.”

The airport directly creates 894 jobs, according to HR&A’s estimate, with 61 percent of them located on airport land. Of those, 178 jobs are directly related to “transport by air.”

The study estimates that another 593 jobs are created indirectly by the airport’s economy.

This results in an estimate of 1,487 total jobs in the city’s economy from all operations at SMO, according to the report.

“These are not only aviation related jobs, as jobs in other industry sectors may be directly related to aviation activity,” the report said.

The airport campus generates $187.5 million directly, with $54 million of that coming from “transport by air.” Legal services generates $24 million. Motion picture and video industries generate $22 million.

Another $87.7 million in output is generated indirectly. This, combined with the direct output, gives you that $275.2 million.

“However,” City Hall’s report said, “the measured economic activity can not be said to be a direct result of aviation use of the Airport. It is impossible to measure the jobs directly related to aviation activity.”

This point is driven home in the conclusion of the report:

“It is also inaccurate to conclude that all 1,487 jobs and $275.2 million in economic output are related to aviation use.”

dave@smdp.com

- See more at: http://smdp.com/city-hall-aviation-valuable-regional-economy-imagined/142398#sthash.zKklMvHU.dpuf

Sierra Club Throws Support Behind Santa Monica Ballot Measure LC

from smmirror

POSTED OCT. 4, 2014, 7:19 AM

MIRROR STAFF

The Sierra Club has announced its recommendation for voters to support Santa Monica ballot measure LC at the Nov. 4 election that mandates voter approval for any proposed development other than park or open space at Santa Monica Airport (SMO) if the airport closes or if it is decreased in size.

Measure LC was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the Santa Monica City Council, and, if passed, would be an amendment to the City’s charter. Sierra Club is recommending a “no” vote on a competing ballot measure, “D.”

Hillary Gordon, Chair of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter’s Conservation Committee, summed it up in a declaratory statement after the Club’s decision was approved.

“Let’s bring cleaner air, less noise, and more green space to the Santa Monica Airport area,” said Gordon.

Sierra Club finds itself in good company with its support of measure LC, as LC has strong support from community groups in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles and is supported by 12 of the 14 candidates running for Santa Monica City Council, as well as Los Angeles Councilman Mike Bonin and California State Senator Ted Lieu.

Over the years the Sierra Club has supported California state legislation aimed at addressing the environmental impacts of air pollution, noise pollution and safety concerns from SMO aircraft operations upon densely populated neighboring communities in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles.

Sierra Club has gone on record in support of turning SMO into a park, being one of the initial organizations to sign on to the citizens campaign called Airport2Park.

The organization leaders believe that the replacement of SMO with a great park, including plenty of public open space and bringing back some native wildflowers and wildlife would not only solve the public health concerns that exist today, but would offer very much needed open space and nature to the west-side of Los Angeles and the Santa Monica area.

In its opposition to Santa Monica City ballot measure D, Sierra Club warns of the serious problems that could visit Santa Monica and West LA if it were to pass.

Measure D was placed on the ballot by national aviation interest groups, and would, if passed, preserve the status quo at the airport, which includes significant air pollution and continued carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.

Measure D would require a vote to make even basic changes to mitigate the critical toxic environmental impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. The measure also has no requirements about future development limitations if the airport were to close, and many fear that, if the airport closes, overdevelopment will continue to march forward in this area if D passes and LC does not.

“Our message is strong and clear. Vote ‘yes’ on ballot measure LC. Vote ‘no’ on ballot measure D,” said David Haake, Chair of Sierra Club’s West LA Group. “Measure LC clearly is favorable to closing Santa Monica Airport and replacing it with a park and open space.”

The Sierra Club is the nation’s largest and oldest grassroots community-based environmental organization.

Can This Airport Be Saved?

from airspacemag.com

The fight over the nation’s busiest single-runway airport.

By  Stephen Joiner 

Air & Space Magazine

October 2014

On a hot afternoon in August 1945, the voice of Donald Douglas boomed over loudspeakers in the cavernous assembly buildings of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation at California’s Santa Monica Airport. All up and down the queues of C-47 Gooney Birds and A-26 Invaders, rivet guns and impact wrenches fell silent as Douglas informed the first shift that World War II was over. Japan had surrendered. “We all put down our tools and streamed out onto Ocean Park Boulevard, laughing and singing and hugging each other,” one employee recalled in a book on the manufacturer. Like many Douglas workers who lived in neighborhoods surrounding the airport, she hurried home and later celebrated through the night at the Santa Monica pier with most of the city. That was then.            http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/can-airport-be-saved-180952758/

Santa Monica Sues Heirs of Pilot That Crashed at City-Run Airport

from nynewsla.com



POSTED BY JOHN SCHREIBER ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 IN CRIME | 163 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE


File: Santa Monica Airport. Photo by John Schreiber.

The city of Santa Monica filed a negligence suit against the heirs of the pilot of a small plane that crashed into the local airport and killed four people two years ago.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court against the estate of Mark Benjamin as well as the Cessna 525A Citation’s owner, CREX-MML LLC. The suit seeks more than $54,000 in cleanup costs stemming from the crash.

According to the lawsuit, the city’s expenses related to the accident included removing plane debris from the runway, securing the site until the Santa Monica Fire Department finished its investigation and the conducting of testing to see whether hydrocarbons from the plane and chemicals from the fire suppressant foam seeped into the soil.

The suit alleges Benjamin negligently landed the aircraft by veering to the right side of the runway and striking some objects before hitting a hangar. The complaint further alleges that the estate did not respond to a creditor’s claim filed April 17.

Robert Given, the personal representative of the Benjamin estate, could not be immediately reached.

Killed in the Sept. 29, 2013, crash were Benjamin, 63, the president of a Santa Monica-based construction company; his son Lucas, 28; Lucas Benjamin’s girlfriend, 28-year-old Lauren Winkler; and Kyla Dupont, 53.

A report released last year by the National Transportation Safety Board found that all of the tires were inflated and there was no debris on the runway when the plane slammed into the hangar and burst into flames. The hangar collapsed onto the plane, which had taken off from Hailey, Idaho.

Last Nov. 4, three sons of Dupont also sued the Benjamin estate. Charles Dupont, Elliot Dupont and Jackson Dupont allege Benjamin failed to maintain proper control over the plane, did not act “reasonably in the ownership of the plane,” did not undertake the necessary actions to accomplish a safe flight, did not act reasonably in landing the plane and failed to keep it in good repair.

— City News Service

Future of Santa Monica Airport from August 19, 2014

from smdp.com


By Barry Brewer on August 19, 2014 







 — In the seventies I was a student pilot and I flew out of Santa Monica Airport. I enjoyed my experiences and have a fondness for the airport. But with the passage of the decades, I have come to believe that the Airport should be closed and the land should not be commercially developed, but should remain parkland.

I encourage all to go on line and read the City Council Report (3/25/14) entitled “The Future of Santa Monica Airport” because there is so much disinformation put forth by those who want to keep the Airport open and allow jets to fly in and out of the Airport. 

This report confirms that the City owns the land, and that the bulk of the land was purchased with general obligation bonds that were approved by the voters and issued for “park purposes.” When bonds are used to acquire land for “park purposes” that land must remain as parkland until the voters vote otherwise or the president issues a proclamation stating that there exists an “unlimited national emergency requiring military, naval, aviation and civilian readiness to repel any and all acts or threats of aggression.” 

In the days after Pearl Harbor (12/7/41) President Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamation 2487. During World War II, according to the City Council Report of 3/25/14 “airport and community interests were aligned” especially since an invasion of the West Coast was a real possibility in the early days of World War II.

The war ended and the problems/disputes began which resulted in a multiplicity of litigation being filed over the airport. To resolve this litigation, in 1984 the City and the AAA (federal government) entered into a written agreement which put an end to the litigation, required the City to operate the airport until 2015, and permitted the City to close the airport when the 1984 agreement expires in 2015.

The aviation industry, aware of the very real possibility that the City might decide to close the airport when the agreement expires in 2015, has placed a measure on the
ballot designed to keep the airport open, and the aviation industry has sent out a flier designed to scare the public by erroneously telling the public that their choice is between the noisy and polluting and arguably unsafe airport with jet flights coming in and out many times each day, or, some sort of mega-development which will generate tens of thousands of car trips each day. But there is a third choice, which is to use those acres for the purpose for which they were intended, which is parkland and recreational use.

The People of Santa Monica already own these acres of land. They belong to you and me – we the people. This land was acquired for the people to be parkland. We could put together something similar to the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy and turn the 227 acres referenced on the aviation industry’s flier into something wonderful which would benefit all of Santa Monica – not just the wealthy one per cent who fly private jets in and out of the Airport, and the privileged few who can afford flying lessons and ownership of the private planes that are parked at the Airport.

With all those acres available (which we already own) we could have: bike paths, hiking trails, multiple dog parks scattered throughout the many acres of the parkland, a “walk of art” comparable to the UCLA Sculpture Garden which would display public art, after-school and/or summer nature-oriented recreational space for children similar to the UCLA Bruin Camp which is available to children during the summer we well as programs focusing on nature, gardens of drought-resistant native California plants, groves of drought-resistant native California trees, space for kite-flying, playing fields for soccer, baseball, softball, etc., dedicated space for rollerskaters and skateboarders, public gardens where people could grow their own vegetables, a rock climbing wall, a conservatory similar to the one in Golden Gate State Park, a senior center, an observatory or planetarium.

I live north of Wilshire and I own no property in the Sunset Park or Ocean Park Avenue. However, I used to live in Sunset Park until I moved with my family out of Sunset Park in part because of the constant noise from the airport.

I have heard the accusation thrown about that the only Santa Monicans who care about the airport issue are those who own property in Sunset Park; I am here to tell you that I care deeply about this issue though I live elsewhere in the City, and I would like to see all the people in the City benefit from this land, which could become a reality if this land is used for its intended purpose, which is parkland and recreational land.

Airport Commission to hear from tenants

from smdp

By David Mark Simpson on September 5, 2014 in Airport - See more at: http://smdp.com/airport-commission-hear-tenants/141749#sthash.c1FcZBf8.dpuf



CITY HALL — Airport Commission members have expressed a desire for stricter airport leasing policies have been recommended by City Hall. 

Last month, City Council decided not to vote on leases at the airport and instead sent the recommendations back to the Airport Commission, which voted 4 to 1 to start its review process with input from the current tenants. Santa Monica Airport tenants will be invited to attend the next commission meeting, scheduled for Sept. 22. 

Next year, a key airport agreement is set to expire, giving City Hall more control of the leasing process. Many aviation and arts tenants in buildings on SMO land are currently paying below market rate for their spaces. All leases have expired or are set to expire along with the agreement. City officials recommended that, among other things, council raise the rents to market rate and that they allow three-year extensions of all the leases. 

Many residents urged council to consult the Airport Commission before moving forward, claiming that the proposed guidelines don’t go far enough to restrict aviation uses at SMO. Last week, the Airport Commission discussed some alternative leasing guidelines but did not make a final decision. Some commissioners suggested amending the recommendations so that leases are offered on month-to-month or six-month terms. 

Current tenants, particularly those in the arts community, have asked for longer leases, which would allow them to more actively plan for their futures. Other commissioners, like Chair David Goddard — an outspoken opponent of the airport — suggested the council could legally rezone the land, only allowing tenants that conform to certain guidelines. 

Under this proposed zoning, many of the aviation tenants would not be allowed leases, making the airport less attractive to pilots in general. 

City attorneys say this would invite a lawsuit from aviation interests. Goddard maintains that there are legal precedents for the rezoning. At one point Goddard accused city officials of deliberately delaying information requests he’d made, an accusation that several officials and a fellow commissioner vehemently denied. The commission agreed that they’d need to hear from the current tenants before making a decision. 

“I’m suggesting that we hold a workshop,” Goddard said, “or maybe two workshops, and invite the artist tenants and then the business and aviation tenants, arguably in separate workshops, and solicit information from them and find out their concerns so we can recommend a strategy that will address their concerns.” 

Commissioner Lael Rubin said this could take an unnecessarily long amount of time and instead proposed they send tenants a questionnaire. “I think it’s really fairly predictable what the answer is going to be and I would hate for us to be wasting our time,” she said. 

Ultimately, only Rubin voted against the notion of a workshop. Commission Peter Donald suggested that, given the tense divide between the aviation community and airport opponents, police coverage might be necessary at the workshop, a notion that Goddard rejected. dave@smdp.com

Flight Schools Could Face Greater Restrictions at Santa Monica Airport

from surfsantamonica.com


By Jonathan Friedman
Associate Editor


August 11, 2014 -- 

Use of quieter aircraft and accepting limitations on when flying can take place could be requirements for flight schools and clubs to operate at Santa Monica Airport. The City Council will consider these rules Tuesday when it votes on new lease guidelines for businesses operating on the City-owned property.
If these guidelines are approved, they could be voided later this year depending on whether voters approve the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association-backed measure in November. The measure calls for voter approval to make most changes to the airport, including any decisions made by the City Council since the measure was officially proposed earlier this year.
City staff’s proposed guidelines, based on recommendations from the City Council in March, state that all flight schools will be given the opportunity to renew their leases and new ones could come to the airport. But preference will be given to those who agree to specific criteria.
“All flight schools and flying clubs will be requested to use newer [types of] aircraft that are quieter … or use Federal Aviation Administration-approved noise reduction technologies in reducing their noise footprint,” the proposed guidelines state.
They continue, “All flight schools and flying clubs will be requested to avoid performing pattern operations at Santa Monica Airport during weekends, holidays and evening hours.”
Residents living near the airport are concerned about the use of leaded fuel in the airplanes. Airport Director Martin Pastucha wrote in the staff report that the request from some community members to ban fuel sales on the property was not feasible because “such action would most likely lead to litigation.”
Pastucha wrote that the City could require fuel with reduced or no lead be offered for sale, although these options are not widely available at this time.
“Staff is currently in talks with fuel manufacturers to determine the timeline of availability of these fuels,” Pastucha wrote. “Once commercially available, fuel service providers at the airport would be required to offer [fuel with reduced lead or no lead].”
The leases for all restaurants and other businesses on the property will expire by June 30, 2015. They could renew their leases for up to three years (with longer periods being subject to council approval), according to the proposed guidelines. Annual renewals after three years would be possible.
“Rents, fees and charges on the airport shall reflect fair market value for both aviation and non-aviation properties,” the proposed guidelines state. “Fair market rents for individual buildings on non-aviation airport properties and prevailing market rents for aviation properties will be appraised in the as-is condition quantified in the spring 2014 appraisal.”
Other features proposed are that the City could add a charge to the rent based on a percentage of the business’ sales, whole building leases could be subject to a Request for Proposals process “intended to optimize leasehold occupancy and the self-sustainability of the airport” and subleases would be prohibited unless authorized by the City.
Also included in the guidelines are several environmental and other standards tenants must meet.
Pastucha wrote, “The Guidelines identify programs that mitigate, as much as possible, environmental impacts to the community and maintain the viability of the Airport Fund (consisting of revenue collected through tenants]  ... while the legal constraints on the City’s authority to control the airport and airport usage is resolved.”