Airport Commission Asks Council for Stronger 'Visioning' Process

Considering the process flawed, the commission asks for specific research on possible closure or flight reduction, with improved information flow to the public.

The Airport Commission is asking the City Council to strengthen Phase 3 of the nearly two-year-old process of envisioning Santa Monica Airport’s future and a renewal of the effort to make it more transparent.  

Commissioners say the three elements of a key Phase 3 goal—transparency, communication and trust—are still absent. The problem, the commission believes, is the lack of information on whether the city is considering curtailing or closing the facility’s air operations in mid-2015.

Commission members have repeatedly called the visioning process flawed, contending city staffers have concentrated on projects such as a voluntary "fly friendly" program to make SMO "a better neighbor," in the words of staff reports.

The lengthy motion, which passed unanimously, asks the council to have staffers examine rules and obligations regarding flight schools, fuel sales and aircraft tie-down spaces. It also asks for a survey of other general aviation airports similar to SMO, to see how they handle such sales and services.

Further, the motion asks for a survey of buildings leased to current aviation-related businesses (fixed-base operators) to determine their condition, and whether each structure’s current use is maximized—that is, whether the city could find a more lucrative use for the buildings when the current tenants’ leases expire in 2015.

In addition, the motion asks that the staff analyze how all aviation-related operations might be handled after the 1984 Operating Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration expires in mid-2015.

The FAA contends the actual expiration date is 2023 and that other agreements obligate Santa Monica to operate an airport on the 227-acre property "in perpetuity."

The commission underscored its effort to get the City Council’s ear by taking the unusual step of creating an ad hoc committee of two commissioners to formally present the motion to the council.

Ivan Campbell, of the City Attorney’s office, told the commission that staffers already have compiled information on some categories—flight schools, aircraft tie-down policy and fuel sales—which is available to the commission upon request.

Deputy Public Works Director Susan Cline said staffers have never said closure of SMO is off the table, but repeated what she’s told the commission before—that staffers are exploring the "middle ground" of possibilities for SMO’s future, leaving aside both the status quo and the possibility of closure, for now.

That brought a response from Commissioner Stephen Mark.

"It sounds like a lot of `middle ground’ is off the table, too,’" Mark said.

"Short of closure, there are a lot of things that have been brought up [by the commission]," he added, "and recommendations… from us have been ignored by the City Council, and I suspect probably on the advice of legal counsel [the City Attorney]."

Mark suggested the commission may want to consider doing its own studies, using outside sources. However, Commission Chair David Goddard already has studied a number of cases centering on cities that were able to reduce flight operations at their airports by using "proprietary rights." His request that the City Attorney’s office examine those cases and recommend similar action to the City Council has gone unanswered.

Stay connected with Santa Monica Patch throughout the day on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to our free daily newsletter for email updates.

Dan Charney December 17, 2012 at 09:35 PM
I have spent a lot of time there- and find it to be a wonderful place- in many ways- from watching the groups playing games to going to the dog park with friends- I used to know a few guys who had their planes there and we'd fly out of there often to Catalina or Santa Barbara for the day- there was never a line up to take off- never a lot of noise- and it's been there forever- way before you bought your houses- they should have appreciated ten times by now- isn't that enough? Do you have any idea how noisy and miserable and how much exhaust will be produced if they build a huge condo and business park there adding thousands of car trips per day? It will be miserable.
Glenn E Grab December 18, 2012 at 04:27 PM
charles...".learning problems in children" caused by the airport?.....the airport is to blame for stupid, lazy kids?....
Dan Charney December 18, 2012 at 09:28 PM
With all due respect Pilot Dave- we are not the group wanting to close the airport- it's the developers, home owners who want their property values to go up ( how hundreds of condos would do that I fail to understand ), and a bought city council among others- using a lot of paid for and lame studies and arguments to support yet another mindless development- we liberals are NOT DOING THAT- we want the airport-- please- don't fail me now
Pilot Dave December 18, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Dan, I accept your position. From now on I will try to use the terms "Nimby", "Whiny" "Illogical" and "Short Sighted" instead of the terms "communist" or "liberal". I may still refer to Martin Rubin as Comrade Rubin, and Natalie McAdams as Comrade McAdams, but that's only out of love. And Dan, you can be "Comrade Dan" if you like ;)
Dan Charney December 19, 2012 at 12:40 AM
NO - Natalie and the other one are against the airport-- I am for it- so they not Comrade if I am - Call me Fly Dan- that is more like me


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »