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.”

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.