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.”

Rivals Trade Accusations of Deception in Airport Ballot Battle

from surfsantamonica.com

By Jonathan Friedman
Associate Editor

August 8, 2014 -- 

Power to the people and don’t be misled by the tricks of the other side is the battlecry for both ends of the Santa Monica Airport debate appearing in arguments for and against the two ballot measures that will go before voters in November.

In its arguments, which were released this week, the group that favors a measure requiring voter approval for all changes to the airport and opposes a rival City-created proposal kept with its campaign message it started a few months ago that its measure would prevent high-density development from coming to the property.

“Remember, airport land protects the entire city of Santa Monica from high-rise canyons like Century City because it limits development on surrounding land from the beach to the Westside,” the group wrote. “The politicians say Santa Monica voters shouldn’t decide an issue as complex as closing the airport for redevelopment.”

Opponents have called this message misleading and a cover for what they say is the real purpose of the measure – to keep the airport open indefinitely. They note that the measure, which was approved for the ballot after 9,800 registered voters signed a petition, does not address development.

“This ‘decoy’ ballot initiative is yet another in a long line of outsider attempts to control our airport parkland,” the opposition wrote. “The federal government, aircraft corporations, shopping center developers, and now, national lobbyists, all have manipulated the system to divert Santa Monica from realizing our grandparents’ dream for this land – a public park for recreational use.”

Meanwhile, the rival measure approved for the ballot last month through a unanimous vote of the City Council, addresses development. It says nothing could be built on the property (except parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities) “until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.”

The rival measure also says the council could not be prevented from making changes to the airport, including possibly closure. There are varying legal opinions on what would happen if both measures pass, including that whichever one receives the most votes would go into effect.

Supporters of the pro-airport measure say they do not believe the rival proposal gives enough power to the voters.

“They try to deceive by saying we can vote on some things but not others,” the pro-airport group wrote. “They say you will have a voice on their high-density plans. Then they make false promises about parks. But on the real issue – redeveloping 227 acres of land – the politicians, not the voters, are left in control.”
Signatures attached to the arguments in favor of the pro-airport measure and opposing the City-created proposal are all from Santa Monica residents. None has a political or any other type of title and are listed simply as “resident.”

A list of resident supporters is a sharp contrast to how opponents have portrayed the campaign as one being funded by outside interests. As of last month, the pro-airport campaign has been supported by more than $260,000, mostly coming from the Washington D.C.-based National Business Aviation Association and the Baltimore-Baltimore-based Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (“Airport Supporters Raise Over $260,000 for Ballot Battle,” July 29, 2014).

Opponents noted the outside money in their arguments.
“Hardly your neighbors, this outside special interest group has everything to gain, including perpetual preservation of their sweet-deal facilities and landing rights,” opponents wrote. “What do we get? A 30 percent yearly increase in luxury jet traffic that spews air and noise pollution across our neighborhoods.”

Among those signing the opposition’s arguments were City Councilmembers Ted Winterer, Gleam Davis and Tony Vazquez as well as neighborhood activist leaders Zina Josephs and Mary Marlow.

The proponents also look to 2015, when they believe the airport can close based on the agreement signed in 1984 between the City and the Federal Aviation Administration. Others say the airport could not close any sooner than 2023 (“Santa Monica Airport Proponents Gain Star Power in Complaint,” July 4, 2014).

Many people, including City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, say airport closure will be determined in a courtroom.

Rebuttals to the ballot measure arguments are due later this month.

Both Sides of Airport Debate Say They Support Residents

from surfsantamonica.com

		The Pico Branch Library, 2201 Pico Boulevard, is now open Harding, Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP When one lives in a city as breathtakinglybeautiful and unique as Santa Monica, inevitably that city will be shared with visitors.
By Jonathan Friedman Associate Editor June 27, 2014 -- Aviation interests who want nearly all Santa Monica Airport decisions to go before voters are repeating their earlier claim that opposition from City officials is due to a plan for major redevelopment on the property. Anti-airport activists and a City Council member say the allegation is not true. A press release was issued this week from a group called Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions in opposition to the City Council’s instruction on Tuesday to the City attorney that she and her staff draft a ballot measure to compete with one sponsored by the group and financially backed by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). “This new tactic is a charade, just the latest attempt by City politicians to achieve their development plans while keeping voters out of it,” said John Jerabek, board member of Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions, according to the press release. While the group’s proposal calls for a requirement that nearly all changes to the airport receive voter approval, the City’s measure would only have residents decide on full closure of the facility and future development on the property, which is owned by the Santa Monica government. Although the City’s measure would give voters an opportunity to decide on development of the property, Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions maintains it is an attempt to keep residents out of the discussion. “Our message for City politicians is clear,” said Jerabek, according to the press release. “If the City has a plan for 227 acres of the most valuable land on the Westside, let them get it approved by Santa Monica voters. It’s that simple.“ Airport2Park, a group that wants a park built on the airport property, issued a press release saying Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions is actually being dishonest. “The council asked the City attorney to prepare a proposal that that would address concerns about development, while allowing the City to continue to manage the airport,” Airport2Park wrote. “The AOPA, obviously concerned that voters will realize the aviation lobby is the real ‘special interest,’ not city residents, is already crying foul.” City Councilmember Kevin McKeown had challenging words for Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions in an email response to a question from The Lookout. “The special interests who profit from squatting on land owned by Santa Monicans clearly hope voters won’t notice that the only place ‘development’ is addressed in their efforts is in the deliberately deceptive name of their committee, which more properly should be ‘People Who Want To Keep The Airport Absolutely Unchanged Because It Benefits Us Personally.’” He continued, “Our community initiative will not only specify real limits on development at the airport, which the AOPA measure does not, but allow us to continue on whatever path our community supports to deal with airport safety and air quality concerns.” The people behind the AOPA-supported measure say they collected thousands more signatures than the amount required to qualify for the ballot. County officials are determining if there are enough. The council must approve the City’s measure at its July 22 meeting for it to qualify for the November ballot. The City attorney is expected to present proposed language to the council at the July 8 meeting.

Airport petitioners claim to have more than 12k signatures

from smdp.com



By David Mark Simpson on May 23, 2014 in News

SMO – The group that wants to put future decisions about the Santa Monica Airport to a vote claims they have the signatures they need.

David Shaby, who is not a Santa Monica resident, sits on the board of Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development and says they have more than 12,000 signatures. They may turn them in to county officials by June 9, he said. To make the ballot, roughly 9,100 signatures from registered Santa Monica voters will have to be verified.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a national aviation advocacy group, gave $20,000 to the group, at least $10,000 of which went to paying signature gatherers.

Shaby takes issue with those who call it the “AOPA petition,” claiming that his group is a grassroots organization. Repeated calls to the filers of the petition have gone unreturned and Shaby acknowledges that the signature gatherers are paid.

The initiative asks that any major changes to the airport, and any major development decisions in the area, be put to a public vote.

Earlier this year City Council voted to study options for downsizing the airport.

Many residents, neighborhood groups, and the city’s largest political party, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, have vocally opposed the group’s ballot initiative.

The petition is also under legal fire; 11 residents filed a lawsuit against the filers and City Hall, claiming that the initiative is “deceptive.”

Some residents have claimed that the signature gatherers are uninformed, framing the petition as purely a measure to stop massive development in the area.

Mid-City Neighbors sent an e-mail to its members asking them to contact City Hall if they signed the petition in error.

Santa Monica City Clerk Sarah Gorman confirmed that more than 33 residents have asked that their names be removed from the list of signatures.

Earlier this year, residents gathered more than 13,000 signatures in opposition to the now-repealed Hines development agreement. In that case, Gorman said, there were no requests from residents to have their names removed from the list.

“We’ve got 12,000 signatures so we’re not all that worried about 33,” Shaby said.

Shaby said he couldn’t comment on the claim that some signature-gatherers are misinformed but did say that he met an “extremely bright” out-of-state attorney who was soliciting for signatures.

This woman told Shaby some people created human blocks to stop her from gathering signatures and that she’d had the pen ripped from her hand.

When asked why they plan to wait until June to turn the signatures in, Shaby said they want to make a statement.

“There’s this vocal group of antis,” he said, “but we want to show council and the antis that there’s a lot of support for this initiative.”

Council is considering adding its own measure to the ballot that would require a public vote for any significant development in the area of the airport. This measure, unlike the AOPA-backed measure, would keep the future airport changes in the hands of elected officials rather than requiring a public vote.

The airport has long been a center of controversy in the city by the sea, with local residents complaining about the noise and pollution created by the planes. Some fear for their safety with homes located about 300 feet from the runway.

Proponents of the airport point to a City Hall-financed study that shows that the airport generates $275 million annually for the local economy. In the event of a large emergency, they say, the airport would be key.

The Federal Aviation Administration and City Hall disagree on the expiration date of some agreements that dictate the future of the airport. That one key agreement expires in July of next year is not disputed.

Closing SMO - FAQ

from  smvotersdecide.com

Frequently Asked Questions

The future of the 227 acre Santa Monica Airport is an important community issue. City politicians have proven they cannot be trusted on the matter. We think voters should decide!

• Q. What does the Charter Amendment do?

  This charter amendment requires a vote of the people before Santa Monica Airport land can be redeveloped for other purposes.

• Q. Why is this important?

  Santa Monica Airport and Business Park are low-density land uses that generate business, jobs and tax revenue for the City.
  The 227 acre airport property is one of the most desirable undeveloped, large parcels in Southern California. Major international financial and developer consortiums have their eyes on the property.
  The City’s recent approval of a large high-density development (Bergamot Transit Village) completely disregarded the concerns of nearby residents and the people of Santa Monica. The people and Santa Monicans for Voter Choice are fighting back by seeking a vote of the people before any decisions are made on redeveloping the airport.

• Q. Why can’t we trust the City to do the right thing?

  Over the years, city politicians and special interests have sought to convert the airport to many different uses, including affordable housing, a campus, a transit center and other schemes that would increase density and create new problems.
  Each time they failed. And, each time they have exposed city taxpayers to costly and lengthy lawsuits.

• Q. Who is backing the Charter Amendment?

  The amendment is backed by Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions, a citizens committee of pilots, airport businesses, and Santa Monicans who want to ensure that this low density land use is not redeveloped by special interests and developers. We believe the voters should have their say first.

• Q. But doesn’t the City support turning the airport into a park?

  No. The City has stated that it does not have the resources to develop and maintain such valuable property for low-density use, like a park. Instead, a recent City report says that once closed, Airport land would likely be redeveloped for higher density uses, bringing more traffic, noise and air pollution.

• Q. Isn’t the airport is a nuisance?

  The airport hosts 175 businesses, employing 1,500 people. And the Airport has already instituted strict rules to reduce noise, hours of operation, and to restrict the type of aircraft allowed. Closing the airport would mean a loss of significant tax revenue, shutting down businesses, and terminating hundreds of good family-wage jobs. The airport is working to be a good neighbor and closing it would impose huge costs on the City, which means taxpayers would pay again.

• Q. Does the Charter Amendment “tie the City’s hands” on the airport question?

  No. The Charter Amendment simply says that voter approval of any City decision to close or partially close the airport to change the land use is required before the City’s decision can go into effect. Unless voters approve a change, the City must continue to leave the land in airport use.

New website gathers support for Santa Monica

from aopa.org


May 8, 2014 By Elizabeth A Tennyson

A new website launched May 8 is making it easier for those who want to preserve Santa Monica Municipal Airport to show their support for a proposed charter amendment that would put any decisions to redevelop airport land in the hands of the voters.

The Santa Monica Voters Decide website answers common questions about the amendment, provides the text of the proposal, and allows visitors to register their support and make financial contributions to the amendment campaign.

“SMO is a valuable community asset and Santa Monica residents deserve to have a voice in its future. We fully support this proposed charter amendment because it would let voters, not developers or politicians, make the decisions about any plans to redevelop airport property,” said Bill Dunn, AOPA vice president of airports.

Dunn and Greg Pecoraro, AOPA vice president of airport and state advocacy, recently spent four days in Santa Monica, meeting with community leaders, local aviation advocates, and airport business owners and tenants to discuss the proposed amendment.

“The effort to get this issue on the ballot is really gaining momentum and we’re pleased to see so many aviation supporters getting engaged with this fight,” said Dunn. “Several thousand individuals have already signed the petition to put the amendment on the ballot, but many more signatures are needed to ensure the measure gets to voters in the next local elections.”

Santa Monica residents are encouraged to sign the petition now being circulated at public locations citywide.

AOPA has been heavily engaged in efforts to preserve the airport, which delivers some $250 million in annual economic impact, hosts 175 businesses, and is responsible for 1,500 jobs in the city. The field also serves as a vital general aviation reliever airport in the congested L.A. Basin. The fate of the airport has broader significance as well. More than 200 airports nationwide operate under similar agreements with the federal government. If Santa Monica is allowed to disregard its obligations and close the airport, other fields could suffer a similar fate.

Share on facebookShare on google_plusone_shareShare on twitterShare on pinterest_shareShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services0

Topics Advocacy, Airport Advocacy, Airport

Click here to view the AOPA commenting policy