SR-04-30-2013-8A - 800-001-02City Council Meeting: April 30, 2013
Agenda Item: 6-' A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works
Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Santa Monica Airport Campus Phase III Findings, Landing Fee Study and
the Future of Santa Monica Airport Operations
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the proposed Resolution revising Santa Monica Airport ( "the Airport" or
"SMO ") landing fees and making them applicable to all aircraft as of August 1,
2013;
2. Approve the development of a pilot program for retrofitting aircraft used in flight
training with mufflers or other sound mitigation equipment and direct staff to
include $200,000 for the pilot program in the proposed FY 2013 -15 City budget;
3. Review and comment on the proposals formulated through Phase III of the
Airport Visioning Process and information provided by staff and the community;
4. Direct staff to:
a) Continue to identify and analyze the possibilities for current and future
actions to reduce Airport noise, air pollution and safety risks through
Airport reconfiguration, revised leasing policies, voluntary agreements,
mandatory restrictions, and all other means; and
b) Continue to assess the potential risks and benefits of closing or attempting
to close all or a portion of the Airport; and
c) Return to Council, by March of 2014, with an assessment of both so that
Council can determine whether the City should, after the expiration of its
current obligations, implement additional changes that will reduce adverse
Airport impacts and enhance the Airport's benefit to the community or
whether the City should undertake closure of all or part of the Airport.
Executive Summary
The City owns the Airport and operates it in conformity with The Santa Monica Airport
Agreement (the "1984 Agreement ") with the federal government, various federal grant
conditions, and other legal requirements and constraints, including private leases.
However, the requirements and constraints will change in 2015 with the expiration of the
1984 agreement and the Airport leases. The extent of the control that the City will
regain in 2015 is disputed. Nonetheless, in order to allow sufficient time to explore all
options, the City instituted a three -part Airport Visioning Process to explore the range of
options for the Airport's future that lie between the extremes of maintaining the status
quo and attempting to close the Airport. At the conclusion of Phase II, Council directed
staff to ensure transparency and ample opportunity for public input, prepare a more
detailed assessment of possibilities for "greening" the Airport, evaluate the potential for
making the Airport a better neighbor and community member, evaluate design
improvements for non - aviation land, and continue its dialogue with FAA representatives.
Staff has carried out those directives, and Phase III has been completed. This report
summarizes the results of that effort and also includes contextual information, additional
data gathered by staff, input from the Airport Commission and the community, and
discussion of the options. Staff seeks guidance from Council on additional staff work
that will assist Council in making its ultimate decisions about the Airport's future.
Whatever the best option may be after 2015, it is clear that the City is bound by the
1984 Agreement and long -term leases until then. So, time remains for further
exploration of possibilities for diminishing adverse Airport impacts and enhancing Airport
benefits to the community. Accordingly, based upon the information conveyed by this
report and the fact that the City cannot significantly change Airport operations at
present, staff recommends that Council provide direction to pursue opportunities for
significantly mitigating Airport impacts through various means and report back so that
Council may consider whether the potential for diminishing adverse Airport impacts and
enhancing Airport benefits warrants planning to keep the Airport open or whether the
City should endeavor to close the Airport after the expiration of the 1984 Agreement and
grant conditions. Additionally, staff recommends that Council approve the proposed
landing fee program in order to better cover and more equitably distribute Airport costs.
Finally, staff recommends approving a pilot program to facilitate the installation of
muffler and other noise - mitigation equipment on aircraft used in flight training in order to
reduce noise impacts on Airport neighbors.
Background
The Airport and Its History
The Airport's circumstances and its history provide context for considering its future.
SMO is one of the oldest and busiest single- runway, general aviation airports in the
country. It is located on 227 acres of prime land, bordered on three sides by single -
family residential neighborhoods, two of which are in the City of Los Angeles. Today's
Airport campus, which is shown on Attachment A, consists of 187 acres of land legally
designated and used for aviation activities and 40 acres that are used for other
purposes not inconsistent with airport activities, such as park space, educational
facilities and art studios. The Airport has a single runway, oriented roughly east -west,
with takeoffs occurring westward over Sunset Park and toward the ocean during
2
prevailing wind patterns. Last year, there were 102,675 total operations of which
12,414 were jet operations.
The Airport has played a major role in the histories of the City and modern aviation.
Attachment B summarizes the Airport's history. It was acquired by the City in 1926,
when the surrounding area was mostly farmland; and the City has continuously owned
and operated it ever since, except during World War II, when it was leased to and
operated by the federal government. Before, during, and for a brief period after the war,
the Airport was home to the Douglas Aircraft Company. It was, by far, the largest
employer in the City; and Sunset Park was developed largely to house its enormous
workforce.
Prior to World War II, the Airport was smaller than it is today; and the layout included
two runways configured in an "X ". During World War ll, the federal government
enlarged and reconfigured the Airport, creating the current runway and taxiway
configuration. After the war, the federal government transferred the Airport back to the
City in two conveyances undertaken separately, each with its own transfer document.
One of the documents, the Instrument of Transfer, contains language purporting to limit
the parcel to airport use in perpetuity. The other document is a Quit Claim Deed, which
purports to convey a fee title to the City and contains no such limitations. Attachment C
shows the two parcels.
The Post War Years and the Emergence of Conflict
In the years that followed, Douglas reduced its workforce and later left the Airport; and
the fleet mix at the Airport changed with the development and proliferation of jet aircraft.
These changes sparked substantial conflicts between the Airport and the residential
neighborhoods that had grown up immediately adjacent to the Airport and its runway
ends.
3
Attachment D is a photograph showing the proximity of the Airport to these
neighborhoods. The City responded to the conflict by adopting local regulations
restricting operations to protect neighbors' quality of life by imposing: a night curfew;
bans on touch - and -go, stop- and -go, and low approach operations; a prohibition against
helicopter flight training; a noise limit; and a jet ban. The aviation community and the
federal government challenged the regulations. Litigation ensued, most notably Santa
Monica Airport Assoc. v. City, 659 F.2d 100 (1981), in which a coalition of Airport users
challenged City ordinances. The federal trial court upheld all of the ordinances except
the jet ban, which was invalidated on constitutional grounds; and the federal appellate
court affirmed.
Legal and political conflicts over the Airport continued, waxing and waning for almost
fifty years. The disputes have included lawsuits and other proceedings against the City
initiated by Airport neighbors, members of the aviation community and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). Overall, there have been seven appellate court
decisions about operations at the Airport rendered in the last 45 years, and many more
cases and administrative proceedings. Attachment E lists the appellate decisions about
the Airport.
There was, however, one period of relative quietude in the post -war history of the
Airport. In 1984, the City resolved its then - current differences with the FAA through
adoption of the 1984 Agreement, which minimized conflict for almost 20 years. Among
other things, the Agreement requires the City to operate the Airport until 2015,
establishes operational restrictions, and imposes certain requirements about the mix of
facilities and businesses at the Airport. More recently, controversy re- ignited, with
neighbors, the aviation community and the federal government all asserting claims
against the City in the last 10 -15 years.
0
Changes in Law & Recent Disputes
Following the adoption of the 1984 Agreement, changes occurred in federal law. Most
significantly, the courts established that airport proprietors are not federally preempted
from regulating airport noise in order to protect residents' health and welfare. This
doctrine is referred to as the airport proprietor's exception to federal preemption, and it
protects local airport proprietors' authority to protect their communities by regulating
airport operations. However, in 1990, Congress responded to the court decisions by
adopting the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA). Basically, it limits local control of
noise by requiring local entities to undertake a specified process and meet very
stringent standards to justify local noise restrictions. To staffs knowledge, no local
entity has successfully utilized the ANCA process to strengthen noise regulations.
Fortunately, regulations that predate ANCA, like Santa Monica's, are grand- parented;
and Santa Monica's have been incorporated into the Municipal Code.
In the last ten years, the City fought a protracted legal battle with the federal
government, after the FAA challenged the City's proposed Aircraft Conformance
Program. The program would have implemented federal runway safety standards for
the design of new airports by effectively shortening the length of the Airport's runway so
that runway safety improvements could be installed to protect homes and
neighborhoods from aircraft overruns. The runway safety program entailed prohibiting
Category C and D aircraft, which have high approach speeds, from using the Airport.
After repeatedly attempting to negotiate a runway safety solution with the FAA, the City
Council ultimately adopted an ordinance prohibiting C and D aircraft from using the
Airport in order to promote safety. In response, the FAA immediately sought and
obtained injunctive relief in federal court. United States v. City of Santa Monica, 330
Fed. Appx. 124 (9th Cir. May 8, 2009) (Unpublished). Basically, throughout the
litigation, the City contended that it has the right to protect Airport neighbors by
implementing current federal runway safety area design standards for new airports.
The federal government argued, among other things, that the Airport is safe, that the
ban on C and D aircraft violated federal grant assurances, and that the assurances do
not expire until 2023. The controversy was long, costly and hard - fought. The City hired
a team including outside counsel and experts; staff worked with them. Over the course
of nine years, the case made its way through a lengthy administrative process, a federal
trial court and two federal appellate courts. Ultimately, in 2011, the FAA prevailed on
the narrow ground that the program violated the grant assurance prohibiting unjust
discrimination. City v. FAA, 631 F.3d 550 (DC Cir. 2011).
While the City was battling the FAA on the Aircraft Conformance Program and C and D
ban, an aviation industry organization, the National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA), filed an administrative complaint with the FAA, alleging that the City's landing
fee program violated grant assurances, the 1984 Agreement and the post -war
Instrument of Transfer. In early 2004, the FAA issued a 55 -page Director's
Determination invalidating the City's landing fee program and concluding that the fee
structure disproportionately and unreasonably allocated airfield costs to a very small
group of users who operated heavier aircraft. In 2005, with the runway safety /jet ban
fight ongoing, the City opted to resolve the landing fee dispute by submitting a
corrective action plan, which called for adoption of the current fee program. It sets the
landing fee at $2.07 per 1,000 pounds of maximum certified gross landing weight and
exempts based aircraft.
The Visioning Process and Completion of Phase III
Since the litigation against the FAA ended, City staff has focused on assessing
opportunities that will arise with the expiration of the 1984 Agreement, the federal grant
conditions, and the Airport leases. The Airport Visioning Process was formulated to
identify and assess options between the extremes of maintaining the Airport status quo
(which many Airport neighbors perceive as completely unacceptable because of the
0
Airport's adverse impacts on them and their property) and closing the Airport (which
would entail a long and costly legal battle of uncertain outcome). The process has also
served to make a record supporting the Council's ultimate choice.
On December 14, 2010, Council authorized a professional services agreement with The
RAND Corporation to study best practices and uses that might be compatibly and
beneficially located at the Airport. Council also authorized a contract with Point C
Partners to formulate and undertake a preliminary community interview process
regarding the range of possibilities for the Airport's future.
On February 22, 2011, Council directed staff to proceed with Phase I of a
comprehensive, three - phased Airport visioning process. Council also approved a
contract with HR &A Advisors Inc. to analyze general economic and fiscal impacts of
current Airport operations and activities. On October 4, 2011, staff reported to Council
on Phase I, and Council directed to proceed with Phase II.
On December 6, 2011, Council approved the Phase II professional services contract
with Moore Icafano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) to facilitate thirty community discussion groups
and provide both a report and raw data to the City. The discussion groups, which
began in January of 2012, provided a forum for community members and all other
interested persons to share their views about the Airport and its future. Over 300
community members and others participated, making this the largest, in depth public
process ever undertaken by the City.
On May 8, 2012, MIG's report was presented to Council. The report includes the
demographics of the participants (most community members who participated lived near
the Airport) and lists their positive and negative comments about the Airport.
The positive comments included that the Airport:
INA
• Represents the history of both aviation and the City;
• Plays a critical role in emergency preparedness and certain medical
services;
• Serves as a reliever airport to LAX and a vital link in the air transportation
system;
• Provides training and educational opportunities related to aviation;
• Provides recreational opportunities and a home for the arts community;
• Contributes to the local economy, partly by attracting desirable
businesses; and
• Is a low density use in a time of very rapid development.
The negative comments, which were much more numerous, were about:
• Noise pollution, particularly from jets and flight school operations;
• Perceived health impacts of aircraft emissions;
• Safety risks related to flight training and the proximity of homes and a gas
station to the runway ends;
• Perceived growth in Airport operations;
• Damage to residents' life quality and property values without equal
benefits;
• Environmental impacts inconsistent with City policies and values; and
• Lack of local control and corresponding feelings of disenfranchisement.
The MIG report distills the community input into three general positions between the
extremes of maintaining the status quo and fighting to close the Airport:
(1) Close the Airport unless a firm agreement is made with the FAA that
guarantees operational changes sufficient to significantly mitigate adverse Airport
impacts on surrounding neighborhoods; and
(2) Keep the Airport only if operations and the Airport "footprint" are significantly
reduced because the Airport has outgrown its residential setting; and
91
(3) Preserve the Airport as a potential asset if the City can implement various
mitigation measures sufficient to reduce impacts because the results of litigation
are uncertain, subsequent repurposing of the Airport land would likely include
development that would greatly exacerbate traffic problems, and closure might
allow flights incoming to LAX to overfly Santa Monica at lower altitudes.
After considering the MIG report, hearing public testimony, and assessing steps the City
was taking or might take to address community concerns about adverse Airport
impacts, Council directed staff to proceed with Phase Ill. On August 14 2012, Council
approved a professional services agreement with IBI Group to prepare enhancement
concepts for the Airport non - aviation land.
Council's directions to staff for Phase III, included: continuing the community dialogue
on the Airport's future and providing more information to the community; assessing
possibilities for transforming SMO into a model "Green" airport; evaluating the potential
for making SMO a better neighbor by identifying best practices at other airports;
conducting a fee study; trying to reduce flight school operations by moving some to
other airports; and making physical improvements to the Airport; evaluating possible
design improvements for non - aviation land; continuing communications with the FAA
about the Airport's adverse impacts and its future; and continuing to monitor information
relating to emission impacts and to assess the City's right to close the Airport.
Much of this work is completed, and the remainder is ongoing. As to continuing the
community dialogue, two community workshops were conducted at Airport Commission
meetings on November 26, 2012 and April 1, 2013. At the first, sixteen members of the
public spoke. Generally, they supported small - scale, incremental enhancements to the
non - aviation Airport land. And, both the public and Commission requested that the
Phase III work be expanded to include future possibilities for the aviation land; including
the elimination of flight schools, leaded fuel sales and all aviation activities on the quit-
claimed parcel; and reduction in the number of FBO's and tie - downs. Staff explained
that these proposals were outside the scope of the consultant's work. At the second
workshop, the public input included: complaints from the aviation community about both
F
the legality and potential impacts of the proposed landing fee program; and questions
about how to reconcile the HR &A report on the economic impacts of the Airport (which
notes that the Airport has positive impacts on the local economy) with the landing fee
study (which notes that the current fee structure does not cover costs of operating the
Airport). In addition to the two workshops, staff publicly presented information at
Commission meetings throughout the year, including information about flight operations,
operational restrictions at other airports and muffler testing. Additionally, information
was shared on both the Airport website and the Airport Visioning website, which will be
maintained through the end of this year.
As to the potential for "greening" the Airport, Airport staff worked with the Office of
Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) to update the Airport's sustainability plan and
complete energy and water audits. Additionally, staff has completed some water -
conservation improvements and has identified three other small projects: reducing
operational hours for the HVAC system, installing heat pump economizers and installing
return air programmable thermostats. This effort will result in the Airport Administrative
Office earning its Green Office Certification by June 2013 and serving as the pilot for the
City's Green Office program. Additionally, IBI analyzed the prospects for a sustainable
transportation incubator. Staff also continued to monitor possibilities for emission
reduction and to facilitate and support efforts to assess health impacts of aircraft
emissions. Those efforts are ongoing. The Airport Cooperative Research Program,
which is studying lead emissions at four airports, will conduct its research at SMO in
July. The City is also partnering with the University of Kansas to seek funding for a
research center dedicated to studying green aviation technology.
As to making the Airport a better community contributor, staff implemented Council's
direction to study landing fees by hiring WJ Advisors to conduct a study and make
recommendations. That work is completed and is summarized below.
10
As to making the Airport a better neighbor by reducing flight school operations, staff
studied relocating operations to other airports through a financial incentive program.
This possibility was ultimately abandoned based on strong opposition from community
members and other cities. Staff also identified possible changes to the configuration of
leaseholds that would reduce adverse impacts. Additionally, staff surveyed operations
and noise restrictions at 43 comparable airports located throughout the United States.
Attachment F is a chart showing the results. As to all 43 airports, staffs research
included an interview with each airport's noise management staff and a review of each
noise management program as described in a data base developed by The Boeing
Company, which is updated annually. Of the 43 airports surveyed, 27 have some
mandatory aircraft operational restrictions. These restrictions include limits on:
maximum allowable noise levels, departure and arrival times (curfews), maintenance
run -up, pattern flying, auxiliary power units, and night operations; but each airport has
different restrictions.
In addition to outright restrictions, many of the 43 airports also have voluntary programs
intended to reduce neighborhood impacts. These programs include, among other
things, recommended noise limits, voluntary curfews, recommendations on
maintenance run -up hours, and requests regarding pattern flying. Generally speaking, it
is difficult to compare the effectiveness of these programs because the restrictions vary
significantly. For instance, most airports that have noise restrictions measure and limit
the real -time noise level. However, other airports enforce a maximum allowable noise
level based upon FAA certified and published noise levels for specific aircraft. If an
aircraft exceeds the FAA "certified" noise level, that aircraft is not permitted to operate
at the airport.
Staff also continued its intermittent discussions with FAA personnel on possibilities for
reducing adverse impacts of Airport operations sufficiently to make voluntary resolution
of Airport issues a viable alternative to a legal battle over Airport closure. The FAA
11
representatives expressed their strong commitment to their central mission of keeping
airports open in order to maintain a robust national air transportation system. However,
they also indicated their willingness to consider changes to the Airport within the
restrictive parameters of federal law. Additionally, staff met with representatives of the
national aviation associations who have conveyed their concerns about maintaining the
Airport and Airport access. And, of course, legal staff continued its assessment of the
City's legal rights and work on the City's legal arguments.
Other Information And Views Obtained During The Last Year
The Airport Commission's Recommendations
During the Phase III period, the Airport Commission has provided significant input,
including four sets of written recommendations to the City Council. The Commission's
recommendations include, but are not limited to:
• Increasing landing fees sufficiently to cover costs and eliminating the exemption
for based aircraft:
• Discontinuing leases with tenants whose business activities adversely impact
Airport neighbors;
• Gathering more information on impacts of emissions and urging the Air Quality
Management District to act to curtail emissions through adoption of an Indirect
Source Review Rule;
• Installing runway safety areas at both ends of the runway;
• Requiring Airport users to maintain toxic tort liability insurance;
• Requiring flight operations permits issued by the City;
• Removing from Airport operations the 18.269 acre parcel that was quit - claimed to
the City after World War II as soon as possible and take any other actions to
reduce Airport operations to the legally required minimum;
• Reducing operations through exercise of the City's proprietary powers to the
maximum through the adoption of ordinances, similar to those adopted
elsewhere, that will reduce operations to protect neighbors, including a Non -
addition Rule and Operation Reduction Rule.
WA
In addition to making written recommendations, the Commission also shared its views
with the community and staff at the two, Phase III workshops. Among other things, the
Commission asked if staff could expand the Phase III study to include: the elimination of
aviation use of the parcel quitclaimed to the City after World War ll; the elimination of
flight schools, reducing the number of tie down spaces and FBO's and eliminating the
sale of leaded aviation fuel -- after the expiration of the 1984 Agreement.
Staffs Collection of Data On Mufflers and Patterned Operations
While the consultant studied possible improvements to the non - aviation land, staff
focused on operations, undertaking various projects intended to gather data and
information to inform Council's consideration of the Airport's future. In addition to the
information about operational restrictions at other airports, staff also surveyed landing
fee programs at other airports. This information showed that most general aviation
airports charge no landing fees, most that do exempt based aircraft, and some charge
landing fees to all aircraft, including based tenants.
Additionally, in order to identify and evaluate all possible options for addressing
neighbors' concerns about noise, staff took two actions. First, staff asked the City's
noise consultant to evaluate the Airport's noise contours in order to determine whether
the City could make the showing required by ANCA to lower noise limits. (The
conclusion was that it could not.) Second, in December 2012, staff conducted a noise -
level flight -test program to determine the effectiveness of an aftermarket exhaust muffler
system in reducing the noise level of the most common flight training aircraft used at the
Airport.
The test was conducted on two days, using a single- engine Cessna 172 and a Low
Noise Engine Exhaust Silencer Kit System, which the FAA has approved for use on the
Cessna 172. On December 6, 2012, staff measured the aircraft's noise level with the
factory- installed muffler system. Eleven days later, staff measured the same aircraft's
13
noise level with the after - market exhaust muffler system installed. Weather conditions
were practically identical on the two days, the plane flew identical maneuvers, and noise
measurements were taken from all six of the Airport's remote noise monitoring sites on
both days. During analysis of the data, staff opted to use the noise measurements from
remote monitoring stations (RMS) #1 and #4 because the data collected from these
sites, which are 1500 feet and 4000 feet from the western runway end respectively, was
most distinct. (As to other sites, it was somewhat difficult to distinguish between aircraft
noise and background noise.) Sunset Park residents observed on both test days.
The results indicated that the muffler system reduced noise levels. The Single Event
Noise Exposure Level was reduced at Site #1 between 4.8 and 8.3 decibels and at Site
#4 between 3.5 and 5 decibels. And, the duration of the noise event was reduced by
two to six seconds at RMS #1 and by four to nine seconds at RMS #4. Sunset Park
residents reported perceiving that noise was reduced when the aircraft approached and
that the noise dropped off significantly when it passed by. Staffs observations were the
same: the aftermarket muffler decreased noise from approaching aircraft and caused
the noise level to drop off dramatically when the aircraft passed.
The graph below depicts sound measurements taken during the test at RMS #1, which
is located approximately 1,500 feet from the runway's west end. Attachment G shows
the location of all six monitoring stations.
14
EP
78
76
74
72
o a 70
z
0 68
N 66
64
62
60
Factory Exhaust System vs. Aftermarket Silencer Exhaust System
Co �� 7� 0 ��? c �y �O �0 nn ^h ^rV ryh ,�^b �y
TIME (SECONDS)
Without Silencer 82.4 dBA SENEL with Silencer 77.6 dBA SENEL
Staff also continued its ongoing monitoring of Airport operation statistics. Last year's
operations were the lowest of the last ten years, with an annual total of 102,675 of
which 12,414 (12 %) were jet operations. The graphs below depict operational trends
for the last ten years.
15
In the past, residents have questioned both the FAA's and the City's statistics,
particularly with regard to the percentage of total operations consisting of patterned
operations. To address this dispute and attempt to resolve conflicting views, staff
conducted a detailed count and analysis of aircraft operations. This project was
undertaken during a two week period beginning September 10, 2012. Staff and student
interns visually observed and recorded all aircraft operations that occurred during non -
curfew hours (7a.m.- 11p.m. on weekdays and 8a.m.- 11p.m. on weekends.)
Additionally, staff recorded operations during curfew hours utilizing the Airport's noise
and operations monitoring system. After gathering data, staff verified it by correlating
the observed aircraft operations with Air Traffic Control radio recordings.
16
10 Year Operational Trend
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
2004
2003
2005
2006 2007
2008
2009 2010 2011
2012
Opera Bons
142,859
135,300 133,904
136,949 127,036
123,038
111,688 704,950 110,694
102,67:
10 Year Jet Operational Trend
In the past, residents have questioned both the FAA's and the City's statistics,
particularly with regard to the percentage of total operations consisting of patterned
operations. To address this dispute and attempt to resolve conflicting views, staff
conducted a detailed count and analysis of aircraft operations. This project was
undertaken during a two week period beginning September 10, 2012. Staff and student
interns visually observed and recorded all aircraft operations that occurred during non -
curfew hours (7a.m.- 11p.m. on weekdays and 8a.m.- 11p.m. on weekends.)
Additionally, staff recorded operations during curfew hours utilizing the Airport's noise
and operations monitoring system. After gathering data, staff verified it by correlating
the observed aircraft operations with Air Traffic Control radio recordings.
16
The results were as follows:
Type Operations
Propeller Aircraft 2,816
Jet Aircraft 517
Helicopter 144
TOTAL 3,477
Percentage of Operations
81%
15
0
100%
Data on patterned flying was also collected during this period. Staff found that there
were 918 total patterned operations, which equates to 26% of all operations and 33% of
piston aircraft operations. Staff also analyzed the percentage of operations attributable
to flight schools. The data showed that 41 % of total operations and 81 % of patterned
operations are attributable to flight schools. These pie charts illustrate the results.
% of Local Flight School -
Operations to Total Operations
%of Local Flight School
Operations to Pattern
Operations
Attachment H provides additional information on operations.
Also, during the Phase III period, consultants conducted the City -wide, bi- annual
Resident Satisfaction Survey. In response to an open -ended question about residents,
main concerns, only one percent of those surveyed stated that Airport noise was a
concern. This is similar to the results in 2009 and considerably lower than in 2011,
when 10% listed it as a concern, perhaps because that was the first survey after the
FAA tested the 250 degree heading, which routed departing aircraft. The survey data
17
suggests that Airport impacts are not a significant concern City -wide. Survey
respondents ranked them as number 18 out of 23 possible concerns.
During Phase III, staff communicated with the local aviation community on many
occasions and on a variety of issues. And, staff has also had contact with
representatives of the national aviation associations who contacted staff to convey their
strong interest in the future of the Airport. Representatives of the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA) and the NBAA have both conveyed their interest and
concerns to City management. Additionally, senior staff met with FAA representatives,
both in Washington and locally. They have expressed their strong commitment to their
central mission of keeping airports open and available to the public for aviation use.
However, they have also indicated their willingness to work with the City on changes to
the Airport within the restrictive parameters of federal law.
Staff has also continued to monitor trends and changes in the aviation industry. Most
notably, business jets have become more fuel efficient and quieter, which is the trend
locally and nation -wide. And, the government and the aviation industry have begun
working diligently to develop viable bio -jet fuel and unleaded gasoline. In July of 2011,
the federal government approved bio -jet fuels for commercial aviation use. Also, there
have been significant navigation improvements with the development of GPS
technology which will, in the future, be utilized to define flight tracks more precisely and
efficiently. Indeed, the FAA is working on its Metroplex program, which will reconfigure
the airspace over the Los Angeles region. Exactly when and how this development will
impact SMO remains unknown. Likewise, the local impact of the federal government's
current plan to close airport towers is unknown; and that plan, which is currently the
subject of multiple lawsuits, may change.
Discussion
The Airport controversy reflects changing circumstances and disparate goals. The
Airport was first built in an agricultural field; today; 90 years later, it is surrounded by
M
dense residential neighborhoods on three sides; and its runway ends are less than 300
feet from homes. Residents want to live in quiet, safe, and healthy neighborhoods; the
aviation community wants to continue its historic use of the Airport. The City's mission
is to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of its residents; the FAA's is to
protect and promote the national air transportation system.
The City's challenge in achieving successful resolution of these conflicts is exacerbated
by the legal realities. The City owns, operates and is responsible for the Airport. But,
aviation activities are governed by federal law, which predominates pursuant to the
supremacy clause of the Constitution. And, federal aviation law is interpreted and
administered by the FAA. Moreover, the City, as owner of the Airport, has proprietary
rights; but their exact scope is subject to judicial interpretation, and the federal court
decisions vary across the circuits.
For decades, the City's ability to protect residents and their quality of life against
adverse Airport impacts has been severely constrained by legal and contractual
limitations, including those arising from the 1984 Agreement and grant conditions.
However, the Agreement and grant conditions will expire relatively soon — the
Agreement in 2015 and the grant conditions in either 2015 or 2023. Their expiration will
bring new opportunities, and the community debate about which opportunities to pursue
has intensified as the expiration dates approach. This section discusses present and
future opportunities.
Modifying Landing Fees
As noted by both Council and the Airport Commission, one important opportunity is
modification of the landing fee program. While the HR &A study showed that the Airport
contributes to the local economy, its impacts upon the City budget are negative. For
many years, the City's General Fund has subsidized Airport operations; but, demands
upon the General Fund have increased. And, current fiscal realities, including the end
19
of redevelopment, dictate that all City enterprises, including the Airport, must become
self - supporting. Additionally, City residents living near the Airport have expressed
growing opposition to "subsidizing" Airport operations with General Fund dollars.
Landing fees are an important mechanism for insuring that airfield operations are as
self- sustaining as possible and that the cost of maintaining and operating the Airport is
born principally by those who use and profit from it. Accordingly, Council directed staff
to study landing fees and propose any changes warranted by the study, including
increasing the fees and eliminating the exemption for based aircraft. A copy of the
landing fee study is attached to the brief, separate report covering the fee resolution.
The fee study's basic methodology included examining Airport revenues and
expenditures to separate aviation from nonaviation - related activities and calculating the
annual gross landed weight for all Aircraft using the Airport. The results showed that
recovering all of the City's costs of maintaining and operating the Airport's public -use
aviation facilities would require that the landing fee be increased from the current rate of
$2.07 to $5.48 per thousand pounds of certificated maximum gross landing weight and
that the fee be made applicable to all aircraft, including those based at the Airport.
These changes would provide sufficient revenues to maintain the public -use runways,
taxiways, taxi lanes, ramps, and grounds, which comprise the public -use aviation
facilities. Thus, based on the fee study, staff recommends that Council adopt the
attached resolution revising the landing fee program to help ensure that, to the extent
possible, the cost of maintaining the public- use aviation facilities at the Airport is borne
by the users of those facilities. Staff also recommends eliminating the landing fee
exemption for the 370 aircraft currently based at the Airport. This would ensure that the
operators of those aircraft pay their fair share of maintenance costs and operations
based on their actual use of the facilities.
20
In addition to the fee study, staffs recommendation is also based on its research into
practices at other general aviation airports serving urban areas. This research showed
that most general aviation airports do not charge landing fees at all (because they want
to encourage usage) or do not charge them to based aircraft (because the owners pay
rent). But a number of general aviation airports do charge landing fees to based
aircraft. Specifically, staff identified at least seven other urban, general aviation airports
that charge landing fees to based aircraft: Imperial County Airport (California), Teterboro
Airport (New Jersey), Adirondack Regional Airport (New York), Montauk Airport (New
York), New Castle Airport (Delaware), Republic Airport (New York) and Willow Run
Airport (Michigan). And, charging landing fees to based aircraft is becoming more
common as airport owners begin funding control towers and as technology facilitates
fee collection.
Staff gave presentations of the fee proposal to the aviation community both before and
after the Airport Commission meeting of April 1st. Members of the aviation committee
opposed both the proposed increase in fees and the proposed elimination of the
exemption for based aircraft. They expressed concern about adverse impacts upon
Airport businesses (particularly flight schools) and upon nonprofits that utilize the Airport
for humanitarian purposes, such as Angel Flight. And, aviation community members
indicated that they may file legal challenges to the proposed fee program. At this time,
the impact of the proposed fee increases upon Airport businesses is uncertain. As to a
legal challenge, staff believes that the fee would be upheld but will continue to monitor
and assess any specific legal issues raised by opponents of the proposed fee.
In order to enforce the proposed landing fee program, the City would need to purchase
and install new camera equipment to record landings attributable to patterned
operations. Therefore, staff recommends an effective date of August 1, 2013 for the
proposed landing fee program. This delay will also give the City and Airport businesses
time to plan for the change.
21
Improvements to Public Spaces and Potential Uses of Non - Aviation Land
While most of the community debate about the Airport's future has focused on aviation
operations, many participants in the visioning process complained that the Airport does
not afford benefits commensurate with its adverse impacts. They noted that the
Airport's non,- aviation facilities, with the exception of the park, are not consistent with the
City's general standards for the quality of public streets and public spaces. Thus,
Council directed that Phase III of the visioning process should include exploration of
changes to the infrastructure and uses of the non - aviation land which would bring the
Airport up to City standards and enhance its benefit to the community.
IBI studied these issues and formulated recommendations responsive to community
concerns and the Council's direction. In general, IBI recommends: limiting development
of non - aviation lands to protect quality of life and prevent increased traffic; expanding
recreational and educational uses and facilities; upgrading infrastructure, grounds and
facilities to improve aesthetics and meet City standards; and improving pedestrian and
bike facilities and mass transit connections. IBI's work and specific recommendations
fall into four categories: access and parking; uses, alignment and design; facilities
design and engineering; and incubator feasibility. For each category, IBI has divided
the possibilities into those that could be implemented before and after 2015.
Access and Parking
IBI evaluated public streets, sidewalks and parking at the Airport, focusing on potential
multi -modal improvements to Airport Avenue. IBI concluded that, prior to 2015, the City
could make street repairs, meet ADA standards, improve walkability and bike
friendliness, encourage use of multimodal access, and resurface and restripe parking
areas. After 2015, the City could improve the intersection at 23`d St. and Walgrove
Avenue, and could significantly enhance Airport Avenue through streetscape
improvements including tree planting, sidewalk widening, and installation of traffic -
calming devices, construct a bike path, and install street furniture, among other
enhancements. Additionally, the IBI suggested that the City could create activity spots
for community use in underutilized spaces, including parking areas.
22
Non - aviation Uses
IBI also analyzed the current uses of the non- aviation land and developed scenarios for
a future mix of recreational, entertainment and commercial uses consistent with the
community priorities expressed in Phase II, which include enhancing recreational space
and facilities, providing light community - serving retail, and protecting and possibly
expanding uses related to arts and education. Four scenarios were identified: (1) a
baseline scenario of maintaining current buildings and uses with adequate
maintenance; (2) retrofitting current buildings to increase the quality of the building
environment and maximize rents, perhaps with a change in the tenant mix; (3)
maintaining the existing built environment and uses and focusing on converting
underutilized land into recreational open spaces; and (4) maintaining current building
and uses and complimenting them with key community- oriented enhancements such as
pocket parks and community activity spots, and with small in -fill buildings. IBI
recommended the fourth approach as the most strategic and noted that, before 2015,
implementation could be studied, improvements could be made to Airport Avenue, and
more events could occur at the Airport. After 2015 and if the City decides to maintain
and modify the Airport, this strategic approach could be applied to aviation land through
formulation of an Airport facilities improvement plan. However, implementation would
be contingent on the availability of funding.
Facilities Design and Engineering
IBI also studied the condition of existing facilities and infrastructure to assess
opportunities and limitations. IBI concluded that before 2015, the City could: develop
architectural standards for new construction that would maintain the Airport's historical
quality and low- intensity; determine which facilities would be re -used, renovated or
potentially demolished and rebuilt; soften the existing infrastructure with greening and
alternative storm water management; and integrate active transportation. After 2015,
the City could identify and implement access strategies on the south side of the Airport
and ensure that all future, onsite projects align with the community's vision for the
Airport.
23
A Creative Innovation - Manufacturing District Instead of an Incubator
As to the feasibility of developing a Sustainability Transportation Incubator and a
Sustainability Center, IBI recommends an alternative: a Creative Innovation District,
rather than a singular incubator project. IBI envisions the City in role of "curator" of
certain activities, rather than as a developer of a structure or structures that would
provide incubator space.
Three groups of activities or uses could be encouraged through this decentralized
quasi- incubation concept. The first could be a core group of local entrepreneurs /tenants
dedicated to manufacturing handcrafted products through sustainable practices. This
group might include makers of furniture and musical instruments, new - technology
bicycle manufacturers and coffee roasters. A second group could be tenants of
emerging creative -class businesses, including startups of media /web -based services,
architectural firms, fashion designers, and other members of the entertainment and arts
communities. The third group of occupants could be local entrepreneurs that would
provide venues for social interactions, such as microbreweries, cafes, restaurants, and
book shops.
IBI recommends the creation of a creative innovation manufacturing district, rather than
an incubator, because, among other things, the concept is more flexible and less costly
to the City. Moreover, this• approach would better reflect input received in Phase II
because it would better maintain the Airport's current context and scale and better
reflect a wider range of City values. Prior to 2015, the City could do additional
assessment, form a multi -party entity to administer the district, secure funding, and
develop model lease guidelines for groups of tenants. After 2015, the City could,
among other things, develop a communications and marketing plan, begin leasing
existing buildings for non - retail uses, and later lease to retail spaces (once the area is
established). Staff supports the IBI recommendations and requests that Council
discuss and comment on them and provide appropriate direction to staff.
24
Potential Changes to Airport Operations, Policies and Uses of Aviation Land
Approaches to Reducing Adverse Impacts
Council directed staff to identify possibilities for restrictions on operations and other
measures that would reduce adverse impacts and to continue communications with the
FAA about such possibilities. Staffs communications with the FAA and with the local
and national aviation communities indicate some flexibility and willingness to consider
alternatives. They understand that, because of adverse Airport impacts, accepting the
status quo is not an option from the City's and many Airport neighbors' perspective and
that, if the Airport cannot and does not change, a closure fight appears likely. This
understanding may foster acceptance of voluntary operational limitations and even
outright restrictions.
Generally speaking, the FAA strongly favors achieving City goals through voluntary
measures, rather than through restrictive regulations, and through approaches that have
already been successfully utilized at other airports. Additionally, the FAA has indicated
that it will willingly consider, and is not inclined to oppose, even novel voluntary
measures that would reduce impacts so long as those measures respect federal law.
However, the FAA has noted that, given its adjudicatory responsibilities, it cannot
prejudge the legality of any issues related to Airport operations or take any other actions
that would compromise its ability to determine any administrative cases that may arise
from any dispute about operational restrictions, landing fees or the Airport's future.
Staffs dual goals in this effort have been to identify restrictions that would minimize
adverse Airport impacts and ascertain the full extent of any improvements that could be
made voluntarily or unilaterally but without litigation. Once more is known, the Council
will be situated to fully understand and assess the City's options. Meanwhile, staff
believes that there is more to learn about the prospects for reducing adverse Airport
impacts. And, given the existence of the 1984 Agreement and the grant conditions,
there is more time for learning.
25
Proposals for Limiting Impacts Through Leasing Policies Layout Modifications, and
Voluntary Restrictions and Other Nonregulatory Means
Most of the discussion about reducing adverse impacts has focused on operational
restrictions which would directly or indirectly limit access to the Airport. However, other
approaches exist and will become increasingly available to the City with the expiration
of the Airport leases, the 1984 Agreement, and the grant conditions. These approaches
should be fully explored because they are significantly less likely to be challenged by
the federal government than outright restrictions on operations or access and because
there is some additional time for exploration. Therefore, staff recommends continued
evaluation of improvements possible through: modifying leasing policies and the tenant
mix; imposing performance standards through leases; reconfiguring the Airport to
minimize adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods; and continued discussion with
the FAA and the aviation community.
Staffs investigation of these possibilities to date indicates that they could yield a
significant reduction in the adverse impacts of noise, which is the residents' number one
concern. Staff and the Airport neighbors agree that a high percentage of operations
and noise complaints result from flight school operations. This is not surprising. There
are six flight schools at the Airport. Their patterned operations constitute a significant
percentage of total operations. These operations are undertaken at low altitude and
consist of repetitive over - flights above residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica and
Los Angeles. Thus, noise could be significantly reduced if patterned operations were
reduced.
A reduction might be accomplished by altering the mix of aviation businesses through
future leasing policies, which could change the tenant mix so that aviation needs and
legal requirements are met, but the number of businesses that adversely impact
neighbors are minimized. For example, at present, the 1984 Agreement requires three
full service FBO's. Once the Agreement expires, that requirement will no longer apply.
26
And, at present, there are six flight schools on the Airport. When the current leases
expire, that number can likely be reduced.
Additionally, flight school operations might be limited through lease terms or other
voluntary agreements. In 2011, flight school operators agreed to a stricter voluntary
curfew on repetitive operations than the general curfew imposed by the Municipal Code.
(The voluntary agreement covers repetitive operations after 8 p.m. during Daylight
Savings and on Sundays and after 9:00 p.m. at other times.) This program has been
successful. Since its inception in January 2012, staff reports that there have been only
ten instances of deviation. This could be a model for more stringent restrictions, which
flight school operators may be willing to consider in order to avoid the risks of a closure
fight.
Similar approaches could be used to address air pollution. For instance, leasing policy
might be changed to favor the selection of tenants who agree, for example, to dispense
the most environmentally friendly fuels available.
Staffs research shows that noise impacts of patterned operations can also be reduced
through other means. The muffler testing project demonstrated that significant noise
impact reductions can be achieved by retrofitting aircraft with mufflers. Additionally,
staff is evaluating other sound mitigation equipment that allows pilots to reduce noise
and conserve fuel by adjusting propeller pitch and revolutions per minute.
Theoretically, the City may be able to incentivize or require retrofitting of some or all
training aircraft through its leases with flight school operators. Staff proposes to further
explore this possibility and is therefore recommending development of a pilot project to
retrofit aircraft used in flight training and including $200,000 for funding the project in the
upcoming budget. At present, staff anticipates that the pilot program would involve
matching grants.
27
Other gains are possible through reconfiguration of the uses on aviation land. For
example, the aviation related businesses and activities could all be relocated from the
south side of the Airport, where they are near a residential neighborhood, to the, north
side of the Airport, which is adjacent to a business park. This possibility might entail
decommission and removal of the lower -south taxi lane (east of the American Flyers
leasehold) and the removal or relocation of other facilities, including the 22 -T hangars,
transient aircraft parking, and ramps. These possible changes would have the
advantage of separating aviation from residential uses, which could mitigate both noise
and air pollution. Staff proposes to assess the extent of the potential gains afforded by
all of these possibilities.
Staff also proposes to continue working with the FAA and aviation community to try and
achieve these goals through all possible means and to also pursue other goals that the
City cannot attain through local regulation — the most important being headings on
takeoff. This issue became a source of heated conflict in 2009 -2010 when the FAA
tested its proposed 250 degree heading, which routed slower, propeller- driven aircraft
over Ocean Park rather than straight to the coast. The FAA has stated that a revised
heading is or may be necessary to achieve the required separation between planes
departing from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and SMO. Staff has argued that
the advent of GPS technology affords navigational precision that may allow for flexibility
in separation requirements. Additionally, staff has argued that a waiver from separation
standards would be appropriate in Santa Monica's case because routing departing
planes over Ocean Park's hills effectively decreases their altitude. So far, the FAA has
not indicated flexibility. Instead, it has announced that the issue will be considered later,
as part of its Metroplex study, which will redesign airspace for the entire region. And,
whenever the issue is considered, residents of Venice will argue that departures from
Santa Monica's airport should be routed over Santa Monica. Staff proposes to continue
working on this difficult issue, but since the City cannot control aircraft in flight, local
regulation is not an option. Therefore, staff proposes to continue working with the FAA
formally and informally.
W-
Proposals for Limiting Operations Through Local Regulation
Through the Visioning Process and otherwise, staff has received many suggestions for
local laws that would restrict operations in order to reduce noise and air pollution and
enhance runway safety. Generally speaking, most of these suggestions involve:
banning types of aircraft; banning or limiting flight schools and patterned operations;
lowering noise limits; or expanding curfews. Other suggestions involve changes to the
runway for the purpose of enhancing community health and safety, which would have
the effect of limiting Airport access.
Community members propose eliminating all flight schools or banning patterned
operations. These goals would probably be difficult to achieve. Pilots with aircraft
based at the Airport must periodically "qualify" to maintain their certifications, and this
requires undertaking patterned operations training at the base airport — a requirement
that functions to promote safety. Staff has been unable to identify any airport that
prohibits patterned operations. And, the City's current restrictions on repetitive
operations are relatively strict — only one of the surveyed airports in the region has
comparable restrictions. Thus, the FAA and aviation industry would almost certainly
oppose any attempt to prohibit patterned operations or entirely eliminate flight schools.
And, they could challenge a City law or policy that allowed only one flight school on the
basis of the federal prohibition against creating "exclusive rights" at airports, which
exists independently of grant conditions.
Nonetheless, the aviation community may accept more stringent imitations to avoid or
resolve an Airport closure fight, particularly because flight training at the Airport, beyond
what is necessary to maintain pilots' certifications, may be perceived by the federal
government and aviation community as less vital than protecting Airport access and
SMO's reliever function. Thus, it may be possible to significantly curtail patterned
operations through a combination of restrictions and voluntary measures. And, given
the significant percentage of operations attributable to flight training and its
29
environmental impacts, staff believes that this dual approach affords significant
possibilities for reducing adverse Airport impacts.
Other proposals for regulations include strengthening noise limits and expanding
curfews. Specifically, staff has considered the possibility of reducing the maximum
allowable noise limit. This change would effectively require operators of noisier aircraft
to change their mode of operation, primarily by reducing aircraft takeoff weight, which
would reduce the overall noise signature of the event, thereby reducing the adverse
impact on Airport neighbors. However, the FAA apparently takes the position that
further reductions to Santa Monica's noise limit could only be undertaken pursuant to
ANCA requirements, and the City's noise consultant reports that the City cannot meet
the ANCA standard. The City might successfully argue that the ANCA requirements do
not apply once the grant conditions expire. This is a legal issue that requires more
exploration. Meanwhile, staffs research indicates that the City's current noise
regulation, which preceded the adoption of ANCA and is grandparented, is one of the
most stringent in the nation — a fact which could make it difficult to defend adoption of a
more stringent standard in a legal proceeding. Nonetheless, because noise is the
number one community concern, staff proposes additional work on all possibilities for
noise regulation.
Regulatory changes to curfews have also been proposed. The Municipal Code
currently prohibits engine starts or departures between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on
weekdays and 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekends. There is no curfew on arrivals.
Staffs survey shows that only eleven of the 43 airports surveyed have curfews. And,
among airports in the region included on Attachment F, only Torrance has an earlier
departure curfew. As to arrival curfews staff has identified only two airports in the
country that have them. Staff will obtain more information on those airports.
Meanwhile, staff has considered trying to expand the curfew by one hour. However,
this would likely have minimal impact because so few planes depart after 10:00 p.m. or
30
arrive after 11:00 p.m. And, since this would be a direct limit on access, it is more likely
to generate litigation. So, this option probably poses a clear litigation risk for a minimal
gain.
Residents' other major concern, besides noise, is air pollution. Some have suggested
banning fuel sales altogether. This goal is probably unattainable. Staff is unaware of
any airport in the country at which fuel sales are prohibited, and the federal government
would likely strenuously oppose any such restriction. Other community members have
proposed banning the sale of certain classes of fuels. Given that considerable federal
and private resources are being expended on the development of alternative aviation
fuels, staff recommends monitoring and promoting developments in green aviation fuel,
continuing to cooperate in air quality and health - impact studies, and continuing to
evaluate prospects for addressing issues of air pollution through lease terms and
incentives, rather than through regulation. The City's exploration of green aviation fuels
will continue with a symposium at the Airport, scheduled for June of this year.
Also, as in the past, many community members suggest addressing adverse impacts
and enhancing safety by expressly banning jet aircraft outright or by reconfiguring the
runway and installing runway safety areas, which would enhance runway safety by
shortening the useable runway and thereby restrict jet access. Community members
who favor attempting to ban jets rest their arguments on the Airport's size and location,
which make it more suitable for smaller, piston- driven aircraft than for faster and larger
aircraft. Homes are located within 300 feet of the runway ends, and there are no
runway safety areas or buffer zones. The Airport is sited below the hills of the
residential neighborhood immediately to the east and above the residential
neighborhood immediately to the west. Busy arterial streets lie between the Airport and
both neighborhoods. Residents of both Santa Monica and Los Angeles therefore
continue to urge that jets should be banned and that runway safety enhancements
(which would effectively shorten the runways) must be installed.
31
This is exactly the position that the City took in its long and difficult battle with the FAA
over the Aircraft Conformance Program. The FAA argued in that case that, because jet
aircraft have a better safety record than piston aircraft, it is discriminatory to ban them.
The FAA prevailed; and, today, the agency takes the position that the jet ban litigation
legally determined the Airport to be safe for jets. Therefore, while the FAA strongly
supports safety enhancements at airports, it will continue to vigorously oppose any
attempts to ban jets from the Airport or to effectively exclude them by shortening the
runway. Thus, it appears unlikely that the exclusion of jets is attainable short of closure
or partial closure of the Airport, which would entail its own set of issues and concerns.
Nonetheless, staff recommends continuing to explore possibilities for enhancing runway
safety.
Finally, other suggestions for restrictions include restrictions that have been adopted
elsewhere and upheld in court. These include Van Nuys' "Stage II Non - addition Rule"
and New York's "Operation Reduction Rule" for helicopters. Staff agrees that any
restriction, which has been upheld in court, is worth considering. However, both of
those cities' restrictions address circumstances quite different than Santa Monica's.
Fighting for Closure: Uncertain Results
Although the City -wide resident satisfaction survey shows that Airport impacts are not a
major concern to most residents, the Visioning Process made one thing very clear:
many Airport neighbors will not accept maintenance of the Airport status quo after the
expiration of the 1984 Agreement and the grant conditions. And, the work done to date
shows that adverse impacts can be reduced and improvements can be made. Thus,
the questions for Council consideration become: can the City envision and create an
improved Airport that is a good neighbor and that benefits the community? Or, should
the City fight to close the Airport?
32
That attempting closure would necessitate a legal fight is certain. In general, the FAA
and the national aviation community share the core mission of keeping airports open.
AOPA reports that, in 1969, there were 7,192 public use landing facilities in the country;
and, in 2009, there were 5,178. Both the FAA and the larger aviation community
staunchly and unswervingly oppose this trend. The FAA condones no closures and
allows or suffers them only on very rare occasions. The industry is very well organized,
politically influential, and expert at fighting closures. As to SMO, the FAA has previously
and strenuously argued that Santa Monica cannot close the Airport because the post-
war transfers obligate operation of the Airport in perpetuity. The FAA has also argued
that the grant obligations require the City to operate the Airport until at least 2023. In
response, the City has argued that the grant conditions expire in 2015 and that the post-
war transfers do not obligate the City to continue to operate the Airport indefinitely.
Ultimately, a court would have to resolve these issues. However, the City's ultimate
chance of prevailing in court is difficult to predict. What is certain is that the issues
would likely take several years to resolve and that the final decision would not be the
City's, but the judiciary's.
Moreover, there is additional uncertainty, which could be an even more significant
consideration. Closure and reuse of the land for another purpose or purposes would
have collateral consequences, which are difficult to predict but must factor into Council's
consideration of the Airport's future. One of those consequences is very likely
increased density and traffic.
Many Airport neighbors who favor closure advocate creating a large park or dedicating
the land to other passive use. But, the City simply does not have, and will likely not
have the General Fund resources to create and maintain such a very low density use of
this valuable property, particularly in this post- redevelopment era. Based upon recent
City experience, the design, demolition, and construction costs of a large park would far
exceed $50 Million and might well be multiples of that; and yearly operational costs
33
would be in the millions. And, City residents, as a whole, might be reluctant to pay the
huge cost of a large park located on the City's border with Los Angeles, which would be
heavily used by Los Angeles residents. Thus, if the City fights for and finally achieves
closure, the Airport land, or much of it, will likely be redeveloped. Moreover, given
current trends, the development would likely be dense. This would be a very significant
change because the current Airport is a .very low- density use of the land. Therefore,
one likely eventual consequence of Airport closure and redevelopment of the land would
be significant development and attendant impacts, such as increased traffic. And, one
more immediate consequence would likely be a difficult and protracted land use debate
akin to what Irvine has experienced in the aftermath of the El Toro closure.
Also, if the Airport were closed, flight patterns over the City could be subject to change.
Specifically, closure might allow air carrier aircraft arriving at LAX from the northwest to
fly over Santa Monica at lower altitudes. Currently carriers bound for LAX from the
northwest overfly a navigational aid at the west end of the Santa Monica Airport at
approximately 7,000 feet. These aircraft are held at this relatively high altitude to avoid
conflicts with Santa Monica Airport traffic and other aircraft transiting through a special
flight rules area over 'LAX. In effect, Santa Monica Airport's presence creates what
amounts to a protective bubble in the airspace over Santa Monica. Aircraft, using the
Airport, fly through that bubble. But, much larger, commercial aircraft, travelling to and
from LAX must stay above it.
Concerns have been expressed that, if Santa Monica Airport closed, these LAX arrivals
might be allowed to fly at much lower altitudes. Such a change could have significant
noise impacts upon residential neighborhoods throughout the City and in West Los
Angeles.
City staff sought information about this possibility from the FAA's Operations Support
Group, which, among other things, promotes the effectiveness and efficiency of the
34
National Airspace System by analyzing and managing airspace and developing air
traffic procedures. FAA reviewed staffs request and responded with an email stating:
"the Operations Support Group capabilities simulate the cumulative effects of adding
noise to a location on a defined air traffic route or at a specific terminal location, but we
do not have the ability or resources to speculate what air traffic patterns or operations
might look like in a "no airport" scenario. There are too many variables to consider and
the resulting modeling would likely not be representative of the ultimate end result."
Thus, the FAA apparently will not speculate on the impacts of closure upon commercial
air traffic over Santa Monica and the West Side. The closure would certainly make
more air space available to commercial carriers, and they might benefit from elimination
of the sharp descent currently made by planes incoming to LAX from the north.
Legal uncertainties about the City's authority to close the Airport, and practical concerns
about the collateral consequences of closure, have fueled interest in the possibility of a
partial closure. This would entail closing only the quit - claimed parcel to aviation use
and allowing aviation use to continue on the parcel covered by the Instrument of
Transfer, which the FAA claims must be utilized as an airport in perpetuity. Staff
recommends further exploration of the issues related to this possibility. Some are legal.
Some are policy. Others relate to practical realities, such as the extent of the aviation
facilities and operations that could be accommodated on the significantly reduced
Airport foot print, the complexity and cost of creating a smaller airport, and the likely
consequences of doing so.
35
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
Approval of staffs recommendations will have no direct financial impacts.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Susan Cline, Assistant Director of Public Works
Stelios Makrides, Airport Operations Administrator
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
;//,io
Marsha Ja s Moutrie Rod Gould
Cit�A tore L. City Manager
Approved:
Attachments:
A. Airport Campus (shown on aerial photo)
B. Airport Partial History
C. Parcel Transfers (shown on aerial photo)
D. Aerial photo of SMO and Surrounding Neighborhoods
E. List of SMO Appellate Court Decisions
F. Matrix of Noise Programs at Other Airports
G. Map Showing Remote Noise Monitoring Stations
H. Graphs of Aircraft Operational Trends
0
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
A Partial History of the Santa Monica Airport
iLeSM�Z[dr iTa: TiIMM V
Circa 1917 - Pilots flying World War I biplanes begin using the site as an informal landing
strip.
1922 - Donald Douglas forms the Douglas Aircraft Company. He starts producing and
testing military and civilian aircraft at the future site of the Santa Monica Airport and also at an
abandoned movie studio on Wilshire Boulevard, which is now the site of Douglas Park.
April 15, 1923 - The Army Air Corps dedicates Clover Field, named after World War I pilot Lt.
Greayer "Grubby" Clover, who grew up nearby and was killed in action.
1924 - Douglas Aircraft and Clover Field gain fame when Douglas World Cruiser biplanes
are the first aircraft to circumnavigate the globe in the weeks between April and September.
April 14, 1926 - The City holds a special municipal election on park bonds to acquire much of
the existing Airport property.
July 10, 1926 - The City acquires a portion of Rancho La Ballona commonly known as the
Clover Field Parcel for $755,000.
August 30, 1926 - The Council accepts the Grant Deed for Clover Field.
June 15, 1927 - The Council changes the name of Clover Field to Santa Monica Airport
(SMO).
1928 - The City acquires an additional 60 acres to expand the Airport.
1929 - Douglas enlarges its Santa Monica Airport operations, closes other facilities, and
begins to ramp -up production and testing of its early airliners, the DC -3 and DC -4.
August 19, 1929 - Pioneer women aviators participate in the first Powder Puff Derby, taking
off from Santa Monica and flying to Cleveland, Ohio, where the race ends one week later.
Amelia Earhart, Pancho Barnes, and 18 other participants bring international attention to
women aviators and to Santa Monica.
The War Years and the 1950's:
1941 - 1944 - During World War II, Douglas Aircraft becomes a major defense contractor,
employing up to 44,000 workers who work three shifts, seven days a week. This economic
engine transforms the City as thousands of new homes are built for the Douglas workers,
creating Sunset Park and other neighborhoods.
1941 - The Federal Government leases most of the Airport from the City to provide
protection for Douglas Aircraft and participates in expanding the facility to 227 acres to
accommodate the burgeoning production of military aircraft. The expansion includes
replacing the old, two- runway, "X" configuration with a single runway, approximately 5,000
feet long, designated as Runway 21 (for departures to the west) and Runway 3 (for
departures to the east) and two, full - length parallel taxiways.
May, 1944 - The City enters into the first of its 20 -year grant agreements with the Federal
Government for Airport improvements. The grant agreements obligate the City to maintain
the Airport and operate it in compliance with Federal Regulations. At about that time, pilots
trained in the military start returning home, triggering the rapid growth of general aviation.
1948 - With the War ended, the Federal Government relinquishes its leasehold, the City and
Federal Government execute the Instrument of Transfer, and the City resumes operation of
the Airport. The Airport continues to grow during the 50's and 60's as pilots return home from
the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
1949 - Bill Lear opens a manufacturing facility on a ten -acre parcel immediately south of the
Airport on Bundy. The company grows to 5,000 employees.
April 9, 1949 - The Federal Government, by quit claim deed, transfers an additional 18 -21
acres of Airport land back to the City.
1950's - Douglas continues to expand its propeller- driven commercial airliner business -
culminating in the production of the 166,000 pound DC -7C, which is capable of transporting
110 passengers at speeds of up to 400 mph for 5,600+ miles.
1959 - Douglas develops the DC -8 to compete with Boeing's 707, and Douglas proposes
that the City lengthen the runway to accommodate this new aircraft and also acquire
additional acreage to build new corporate offices. The City declines, and Douglas later shifts
jet manufacturing to the Long Beach Airport. However, research and development, missile
production, and sub - assembly work continue at the Santa Monica Airport plant for a time.
Ultimately, after 50 years at the Airport, Douglas closes down its Santa Monica operation,
having manufactured a total of 10,724 aircraft at the Airport plant.
2
The Post War Era: the Advent of Civilian Jets, and the Early Regulations and
Litigation
1960's - The first civilian jets arrive at the Airport as the decade begins. They are "pure jets ",
about 10 times louder (and more polluting) than present -day fan jets. The noise impacts
upon neighborhoods adjacent to the Airport are very significant.
January, 1962 - A public hearing on Airport operations and jet impacts is held at the Santa
Monica Civic Auditorium. Later that month, the City Attorney takes the unusual step of
issuing a formal opinion on the subject of the City's authority over the Airport. The Opinion
states that California law authorizes land acquired for park purposes to be used for airport
purposes and that the grant agreements and the transfer documents, executed at the end of
World War II, effectively prohibit the City from closing the Airport.
1966 - Western Commander, an established Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the Airport
begins sale and service of the Jet Commander - one of the loudest jet aircraft in the fleet at
the time. Western Commander flies prospective buyers to Las Vegas late at night and returns
before sunrise. This marketing campaign creates significant, adverse impact for Airport
neighbors.
1967 - A large group of Airport neighbors sue the City, claiming that jet operations, which
average 5 -6 per day, have damaged their property values and created a nuisance. The case
eventually makes its way to the California Supreme Court, which decides that, although the
plaintiffs' evidence failed to establish their case, the City could be sued by neighbors for
Airport impacts on nuisance and other theories. Nestle v. City, 6 Cal.3d 920 (1972). The City
reacts by considering a wide range of regulations to shield itself from liability, including a jet
ban, jet curfew and even Airport closure.
1968 - The City, having adopted a jet curfew, prosecutes a pilot who violated it. The pilot
challenges the validity of the curfew, and the Court of Appeal eventually concludes that
adoption of the jet curfew is a valid exercise of the authority to regulate airport usage
conferred upon the City by State law. Stagg v. City, 2 Cal.App.3d 318 (1969).
Late 1960's - The growth in General Aviation peaks nationwide. At Santa Monica Airport
total operations (takeoffs and landings) reach an all -time high of over 356,000 per year, which
equates to 975 per day or 40 takeoffs and 40 landings per hour over 12 hours.
The 1970's - More Controversy, More Regulation, and More Litigation
1974 - The City creates the "Airport Neighbors Forum" (Forum) consisting of representatives
of local airport neighborhoods and interested in aviation for the expressed purpose of
developing proposals to mitigate aircraft noise.
1975 - The City Council adopts ordinances designed to reduce aircraft noise based upon the
Forum's recommendations. These include, among other things, a total jet ban, a ban on
3
helicopter flying, a noise limit of 100 decibels, a night curfew, and a weekend and holiday ban
on touch and go, stop and go, and low approach operations.
1975 - Douglas leaves the Airport to consolidate its operations in Long Beach.
May, 1975 - The California Attorney General issues an opinion stating that the City cannot,
at present, "stop using the Airport land for airport purposes because of the existence of
contracts including grant agreements, Federal lease agreements, the Federal transfer
agreement, State grant agreements and private leases."
1977 - A coalition of Airport users and businesses file suit challenging the City's ordinances.
The Federal District Court upholds all of the ordinances except the jet ban. That Ordinance is
determined to be unconstitutional because the evidence showed that newer jets were at least
as safe as other aircraft and not necessarily noisier. Santa Monica Airport Assoc. (SMAA) v.
Cam, 481 F. Supp. 927(C.D.Cal.1979). The Ninth Circuit eventually affirms the decision,
holding that Federal law does not preempt the City as "airport proprietor" from adopting
ordinances intended to limit its liability and protect the City's "human environment." 659 F.2d
100 (9th Cir. 1981).
1977 - The Douglas facility is demolished. The City subsequently conducts an economic
analysis of the property to determine the best use of the site and explores the possibility of
closing the Airport.
The 1980's - Continuing Controversy Resolved With a Landmark Agreement
1980 - The City again conducts an economic impact analysis of the Airport and determines
that more revenue could be generated if the Airport were closed and converted to mixed
commercial use. The City notifies Airport tenants on month -to -month leases that their
tenancies will be terminated in one year. An Airport business operator sues the City,
claiming, among other things, that the City's regulation of his fixed -base operation has
unlawfully greatly diminished its value. (California Aviation v. City), The case is litigated in
both State and Federal court, and the City eventually prevails.
June, 1981 - The City Council adopts Resolution # 6296 declaring its intention to close the
Airport when legally possible. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Santa
Monica Airport Association (the Airport Association) file another lawsuit, challenging that
intent and the new, lowered decibel limit. The matter is assigned to the same judge who
decided SMAA v. City. He enjoins the new 85 dB limit Ordinance on the grounds that it was
a disguised jet ban, and the City reinstates the 100 decibel limit.
1982 - The parties to the lawsuit reach an agreement to conditionally dismiss, providing the
City adopts new Airport Master Plan and Noise Mitigation Project by November 1983.
1983 - The City adopts a new Master Plan that creates two new FBOs on the north side of
the Airport (away from the residential areas) and releases a significant amount of aviation
rd
land on the south side of the Airport for non - aviation purposes.
1984 - The City's highly charged dispute with the FAA is resolved through the Santa Monica
Airport Agreement, which obligates the City to operate the Airport through 2015 but
recognizes the City's authority to mitigate aircraft impacts through the existing noise limit,
curfew, helicopter ban, and pattern flying restrictions. The 1984 Agreement also limits the
number of aircraft tie - downs, removes land from aviation use, and provides for relocating
aviation facilities to the north side of the Airport, away from residential neighborhoods.
1986 - The FAA approves the new Airport Layout Plan. The plan designation indicates that
Santa Monica Airport is classified as an ARC B -II Airport.
1986 -1989 - Airport improvement projects are undertaken, including a runway overlay, new
perimeter road, construction of sound walls and installation of aircraft noise mitigation
equipment such as the aircraft noise monitoring system. Also, a major portion of the aviation
facilities are moved to the north -side of the Airport and others are moved closer to the
southern edge of the runway and farther away from homes.
Late 1980's - Airport operations drop to their lowest level since the early 50's.
The City Council considers, but ultimately rejects, a proposal for a large business park on
Airport residual land at the southeast edge of the Airport (the Reliance development project).
The property remains undeveloped until construction of Airport Park.
1990's - Controversy Rekindled By Changes in the Fleet Mix
1990 - Congress passes the Airport Noise & Capacity Act (ANCA), which grandparents
existing noise ordinances /noise restrictions but prohibits airports and their sponsors from
adopting new access restrictions based on noise impact without conducting an impact
analysis pursuant to Federal regulations. As a result of these new restrictions, Santa
Monica's restrictions become among the most restrictive in the nation.
1991 - FAA approves amended Airport Layout Plan again confirming that Santa Monica
Airport is an Airport Reference Code B -II airport.
1994 - The City of Santa Monica accepts its most recent Federal grant for airfield
improvements, including a blast wall to deflect emissions, runway lights & signage, taxiway
slurry seal and restriping, and repair of mid -level tiedown ramps and infield areas.
Mid- 1990's - With the booming economy, new development on the Westside, and the advent
of fractional ownership of aircraft, jet operations increase from about 5 to 6 per day to around
15 per day. Larger, faster jets in Categories C and D constitute an increasing percentage of
jet operations.
1996 - The City begins the process that will enable the construction of Airport Park on the
.,residual land" set aside by the 1984 Airport Agreement.
5
1996 - The City convenes an Airport working group consisting of residents, Airport tenants
and interested government agencies to review issues involving the Santa Monica Airport.
This process eventually yields a lengthy report containing numerous recommendations
including conforming Airport usage to the Airport's B -II designation and to current runway
design standards.
1998 - The Airport Association files a Federal Administrative (Part 16) complaint with the
FAA alleging multiple breaches of the 1984 Agreement. The FAA eventually issues a
determination in favor of the City, and the complainant Association seeks review by the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals; ultimately, the case is dismissed in 2006 when new leases are
entered into with two limited FBOs.
1999 - The Airport Association files a State court action raising issues similar to the prior Part
16 complaint. Several years later, the Los Angeles County Superior Court rules in favor of
the City on 28 of 29 issues; and eventually, the California Court of Appeals dismisses the
entire action on grounds that the Association lacked standing to enforce the 1984 Airport
Agreement between the City and the Federal Government. The dismissal was subsequently
affirmed by the California Supreme Court.
July, 1999 - Los Angeles neighbors file a lawsuit against the City in State court (Cole v. City)
seeking damages and injunctive relief claiming that aircraft operations at the Airport created
liability for the City based on inverse condemnation, adverse health impacts, and nuisance.
Eventually, following a lengthy trial, the Court dismisses all the inverse condemnation claims
and most of the other claims. Three plaintiffs receive minimal damage awards.
2000 - 2009: The Controversy Over Runway Safety
2000 - 2002 - The economy booms, the FAA approves fractional (shared) ownership of jets,
and the Airport fleet continues to evolve with total jet operations increasing to about 30 to 40
per day. The City initiates a review and study of the Airport's runways and other operational
design features to determine their compatibility with the changing fleet. The study concludes,
among other things, that the more demanding Category C &D aircraft now account for 5% of
jet operations, that the critical design aircraft using the Airport is now the D -II aircraft (the
Gulfstream IV), and that the Airport (which has no runway safety areas), lacks sufficient
runway safety areas per current FAA design guidelines for all aircraft approach categories.
Additionally, the review concludes that the Airport's geographical layout and the close
proximity of runway ends to roadways and residential neighborhoods effectively precludes
the construction of the traditional graded runway safety areas. Therefore, the report suggests
designating runway safety areas by displacing the landing thresholds 300' at both ends of the
runway to create safety areas consistent with the Airport's B -II designation by effectively
shortening the usable runway; however this would leave the usable runway too short for C &D
aircraft.
December 5, 2000 - The City Council approves guidelines for leasing nonaviation property at
the Airport for use as artists' studios partly to mitigate the displacement of artists from the
community due to rising property values. In the ensuing years, many artists move to the
Airport.
July 22, 2002 - The safety recommendations of the Santa Monica Airport Design Standards
Study are presented to the Airport Commission.
October 2002 - The FAA initiates a Part 16 complaint against the City challenging "the
legality of the Santa Monica Airport Commission's apparent decision to recommend that the
Santa Monica City Council adopt and implement the Airport Conformance Program."
December, 2002 - In response to increasing complaints from neighbors about jet emissions
and their impact on air quality and health, the City requests that the Southern California Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) study air quality issues related to SMO. Studies are
eventually undertaken, after SCAQMD receives a federal grant. The study concluded that
that there were no exceedances of federal air quality standards at the Santa Monica Airport.
December 10, 2002 - The City Council unanimously approves the Conformance Program's
concept and directs staff to continue to seek a voluntary agreement with the FAA.
April 29, 2007 - The 7' /z acre Airport Park is dedicated. It includes soccer fields, a dog park,
and new landscaping and hardscape around the park.
November 27, 2007 - After more than five years of unsuccessful negotiations with the FAA
about the Conformance Program, the City Council approves on first reading an ordinance
that would promote safety and protect adjacent neighborhoods from overruns by conforming
the Airport by prohibiting the generally larger, faster Category C &D aircraft from using the
Airport.
March 25, 2008 - After further negotiations and Congressional intervention, both fail to yield
a resolution, and the City Council adopts the ordinance on second reading.
April, 2008 - The FAA issues a Cease and Desist Order and later obtains a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court prohibiting
the City from enforcing the Ordinance. The City appeals the decision to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, where the FAA eventually prevails.
May 27, 2008 - The FAA issues an administrative determination that the Ordinance is
inconsistent with Petitioner's contractual obligations under the grant agreements, and the City
requests an evidentiary hearing before the Agency.
March 16, 2009 - The FAA conducts a four -day Part 16 Hearing on the validity of the City's
Ordinance banning Category C &D aircraft and later issues a decision holding that the
Ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates between aircraft and thereby violates the
grant assurances, the Instrument of Transfer and the 1984 Agreement. This holding is based
7
on the conclusions that the Ordinance is not reasonably justified on grounds of safety,
alternative safety measures are available to the City, the Ordinance unnecessarily limits the
Airport's usefulness, and the City over - estimates its legal risks because the City could show
in court that C &D usage does not create a dangerous condition.
March 21, 2009 - The DC -3 Spirit of Santa Monica Monument is dedicated at the Airport,
celebrating the Airport's rich aviation history and the role aviation played in the growth of the
City.
May 12, 2009 - The City Council adopts a plan for enhancing the Airport's environmental
sustainability through a list of measures that includes, among other things, working to
enhance air quality, reduce noise, minimize the use of hazardous material, maximize
recycling and the use of renewable energy.
July 8, 2009 - The FAA Associate Administrator issues a final Agency decision against the
City. It holds, among other things, that Federal law preempts the Ordinance and that the
Ordinance violates the grant assurance prohibiting unjust discrimination.
September 3, 2009 - The City files an appeal of the final FAA decision in the Federal
Appellate Court in Washington, D.C. That Court ultimately rejects the City's arguments and
issues a narrow ruling in the FAA's favor, based largely on the well - established principle that
courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations. Because the D.C. Circuit
concludes that the City Ordinance violates the Federal regulation prohibiting unjust
discrimination, the Court finds it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the City's action is
also preempted by Federal law. The City assesses the decision and concludes that the
narrow decision affords no recognized basis for Supreme Court review and that, if review
were nonetheless granted, it might open the door to consideration of other issues raised in
the case that were either decided in the City's favor or not decided at all, such as the
preemption issue.
November 17, 2009 - A UCLA faculty member in the School of Public Health releases a
study of ultra -fine particulate pollution released from jet aircraft at SMO.
Late 2009 - The FAA begins testing a new departure heading of 250 degrees for piston -
powered, instrument departures. This routes planes over portions of Ocean Park and results
in protests from residents. Scrutiny of departures spawns increasing concerns about pattern
flying, in which aircraft repeatedly land and take off, circling over residential neighborhoods.
2010 and Beyond - Planning for the Future
December 1, 2010 - The City Council directs staff to proceed with a comprehensive public
process regarding the Airport's future and authorizes hiring consultants to assist. Total
Airport operations for the year are down to 104,000, less than one third of their all -time high
in the late 1960's.
February 22, 2011 - The City Council authorizes the City Manager to commence Phase I of a
three - phased process for developing possible alternatives of future roles for Santa Monica
Airport within the community post 2015, with the phases consisting of initial research and
surveying, extensive public workshops, and Council hearings and deliberations.
September, 2011 - Residents' general complaints about the Airport and specific complaints
about pattern flying connected to flight schools increase significantly after a plane piloted by a
student pilot crashes into a home in Sunset Park. The City Manager releases an Information
Item listing actions staff is taking to address residents' concerns.
Prepared by: Bob Trimborn
Rod Merl
Marsha Jones Moutrie
0
9/26/11
F' t s S.J yr ,.�',' } • .' V �i ~-t'+F` t 6 iV
i �Ay7{
�+rl ♦ •r .� '�c � F�� ?� ' '•,II Y• �•� l � � � �.� 'a 'y3"b.� .., r i � �'S � I
V v n. lair
VO
Al
Residual Property
Released January 31, 1984
NoW. This property is inside airport
boundary �`�!'+ `Zf1 ;J� 1':�'" .;•r� h +ice r I :� , ppro8/91.
i„'g�r- OS
'� �• a3' �'.a• - a-� -x ,,. 7.
44.
Ate! N< 4 'i''
�1 YE•F
< ` ► °a
���♦ �► `�.v a� Yyx r r r
♦� `# aY `.• �_ �� �' -wavy r. a C . "^••' � s, ` \- ..,ate !'e "O .
ry � o`�" � ems, • a4 .. .' ♦ A � �. $
♦tip , r „ ,� ros .! til +k
L=
+( , j ,
` 4 of ♦ tJ W it C r . *_
- _4 -�•J• \ u�„ f' .4.. : •�R Leased Government. , ♦ r ,'�O. J i•! ?!t
♦ +� `�' �` W' � rr' r rr it r i <, -
i � J
Condemnation with City firnds
Deeded to City April 8, 1949.
.
ATTACHMENT E
Santa Monica Airport Appellate Court Decisions (1969 -2011)
Stagg v. City, 2 Cal.App.3d 318 (1969)[Pilot who took off in a jet in violation of curfew seeks to
prohibit misdemeanor prosecution; Court of Appeal holds, among other things, that the jet
curfew ordinance was not invalid as preempted by state law and was a valid exercise of the City's
police power].
Nestle v. Citv, 6 Cal.3d 920 (1972) [Homeowners residing adjacent to Airport sue for money
damages claiming that Airport operations damaged their property through inverse condemnation.
Court holds that evidence on noise supports judgment for City and that plaintiffs' nuisance claim
is not precluded by statutory immunities.]
Santa Monica Airport Assoc. v. City, 659 F.2d 100 (1981)[Coalition of Airport uses challenges
City ordinances imposing: night curfew; ban on touch - and -go, stop -and -go and low approach
operations; helicopter training; noise limit; and jet ban. In the trial court, jet ban is invalidated
based on the equal protection and commerce clauses, and the other ordinances are upheld. On
appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirms, discussing the airport proprietor's exception to federal
preemption.]
California Aviation v. Citv, 806 F.2d 905 (1986) [Airport lessee initially claims that City
ordinances and lease terms unlawfully damaged his business; federal appellate court eventually
concludes (on sole remaining federal claim) that City is exempt from antitrust liability with
respect to lease.]
Santa Monica Airport Association v. City, Not Officially Published, 2005 WL 2031181
(Cal.App.2 Dist.)[Airport Association seeks, among other things, to enforce 1984 Agreement,
City claims Association lacks standing to enforce agreement and ultimately prevails on all but
111 Cause of Action; both parties appeal. Appellate court discusses the history and context of
the 1984 Agreement and concludes that the Association lacks standing to enforce it.]
United States v. Citv, Not Officially Published, 2009 WL 1295333(9th Cir.) [Upholding District
Court's preliminary injunction halting implementation of C & D aircraft ban pending outcome of
FAA's administrative proceedings.]
City v. FAA, 631 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 2011)[Upholding FAA's administrative decision that C &
D aircraft ban violated federal government conditions prohibiting unjust discrimination.]
F.* XMUNICIPALLAW\SHARE VvffiMOS\MSMMANTA MONICA AIRPORT APPELLATE COURT DECISIONSO4172013.DOC -MAY 2012
Comparative Matrix of Noise Management Programs at Other Airports ATTACHMENT F
Airport Analysis Index
Page 3 of 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
1
2
1�u w
y_i tt NNPORT U
.. { r ,.z lx J
sr; i z
.,
L
5lATE
L c i
t
,.,
s , {
L 4P,ERhT10MS1.
Y 20}1
1
ti � ra YLtl
OPLEaA019.51
a r � <
: I
a
41 zs s r
YtMfSfIMUM
L�b�
r SE,UMrtS
.... .,�.'
MANbATARY
tL�
,} WyPEW t
N`PS'LWCI70N5 }
MAYNFENdNGG0.0
t r r NUP
{it @EttKIETJONS
{
si
sOTHEk4PERATIWdAL
t 11ESP111d10flt
Lst
t Y r s
:.. MAXIMUMq
; N
w MITI"
i VOLUNff�,CY {OPEPf1TlG�lpL
s '
WNFEWtY
1 Le
RES'�AIiCIjON'Yl`ts
t s
MNNTENANCEii11N1J
?YLE6LPIG(bN
t
�t L a
4'jOTiyfE�O`PLEN�TIREI�
L
t LJLAIGHT.K1ib015
t t 1
t { ?1�bmtiuofPllBMtiL
3eh x
s z ;
NrmiYuwMfllSht
5thPbl Almroli
3
Sama MOn'w A "matt
CA
11,694
0,M)
X
X
X
X
�%
X
%
6
32
4
Deer Vailev Airport Phoenix
q2
317,449
189,435
X
X
2
0
5
Phoenix Mesa Gateway A'rnprt Mesa
q2
171,200
92 ,835
X
X
4
58
6
Bob Have Aimort BUrbdpk
G
123,092
19,475
X
X
X
X
%
X
0
0
2
1 Buchanan Airport. Cpncprd
CA
28,166
32,249
I X
X
X
X
X
2
14
8
Camarillo Aimort
G
133,03
61,693
X
■
3
18
9
Charles M.Schula. 5anta R.,.
a
29,562
24,613
%
X
3
32
10
Gillespie field El C.'pn
u
219,621
131,622
X
X
2
42
21
NAnyai tl Executive Hayward
fA
89,282
44,829
X
X
X
6
27-00
32
Jphn Wayne Airport Santa Ana
CA
261,812
21,623
X
X
X
X
3
0
13
Lake Tahoe Airport SoutM1 Lake Tahoe
CA
Unavailable
Unavailable
X
X
X
X
2
5
14
Lone Beach A,,,,n
u
295,902
146,642
X
X
X
X
X
9
22
A
Mttiellan- Palomar Airport Carlsbad
CA
143,620
",528
X
X
X
4
39
16
Modesto COYnty A'roort Modesto
CA
44,608
11,412
X
X
X
1
3
171
Peninsula Airport Monterey
W
1 54,404
10,664
1
X
X
X
1
10
18
MontepmervField San Dieeo
G
199,141
89,221
X
X
X
X
6
%
19
Palo Afro Airport. Palo ASP
172,814
99,059
X
5
25
28
Reitl NillView Airport San JOSE
W
M,092
80 ,913
X
4
0-50
215acramento
Executive Airport
Cq
91,80
23,598
X
X
X
4
28
22
Sacramento Mather Airport
CA
23,121
17,865
%
0
0
23
Torrance Airport
CA
129,029
65,019
X
X
X
X
%
2
23
24
Van Nuvi Aimort
CA
298,049
95,076
X
X
X
X
X
8
56
29
Asoen2Pitkin County Airport
CO
32,615
3,516
X
X
1
1
26
IBOr Sikorsky Memorial Airport Brideeo
R
64,03
31,743
X
X
X
X
X
2
11
22
Clearwater Air Park
FL
Unavailable
Unavailable
X
X
X
1
3
26
d XAGA ve Airoott
FL
15,197
23,620
X
X
X
X
4
2933
29
Nap les Municipal Airport
FL
83,10
12,617
X
X
X
X
4
45
30
2 LOCka.Miami
FL
10,553
33,022
X
X
2
33
31
Orlando Execu -V Airport
FL
109,189
47,638
X
X
X
3
24
32
Vero Beach Muninpal Airp'M
FL
149,915
24,942
X
2
115
33
West Palm eeacfi International
FL
143,194
1 ,526
X
X
%
X
0
0
34
Chi Ex uti eAi ort Pros ttH hts
11
84,110
22,906
X
%
6
50
35
laur m"Hanscom
MA
162,992
60,393
X
X
2
20
36
Spirit of St LOUis
MO
102,654
37,50
X
X
2
11
37
Me¢arcounty Airoorc Trenton
M
26,283
34,095
X
X
2
9
38
Morristown MUnicioal Aimort
NJ
103,806
33,656
X
X
X
3
33
39
Teterboro Airport
NJ
161,043
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
40
66o L. i. MaNrthur Airport Lone isiantl
ryV
135,265
62,991
X
X
X
4
21
41
Republic 0.irpprt Lone Island
ryV
188,219
80,391
X
X
X
14
50
42
Weachester CppnlV. Waite Plains
ryV
194,732
24,041
X
X
X
X
3
19
43
Paine Fleld Everett
WA
113,070
52,092
X
X
4
45
a4
Renton Airport
WA
82,032
42,024
X
5
30
46
Jackson Hole Airport
WY
25,226
1,961
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT G
Location of Remote Noise Monitoring Stations (RMS)
RMS — 1 18" Street, Between Dewey Street & Navy Street, Santa Monica
RMS — 2 Sardis Street and Granville Street, West Los Angeles
RMS — 3 Penmar Golf Course, 1233 Rose Avenue, Venice
RMS-4 West end of Penmar Golf Course on Warren Avenue, Venice
RMS-5 23`d Street & Navy Street, Santa Monica
RMS-6 Bundy Ave & Clarkson Road /Ct, West Los Angeles
allowable noise level.
— • -- - -, --- ---- - - - - --
ATTACHMENT H
2012 Aircraft Operations
The total number of aircraft operations (aircraft operation is defined as one takeoff or
one landing) recorded during 2012 was 102,675; which is a decrease of approximately
5% from the recorded 110,694 operations in 2011. This represents the lowest number
of operations recorded since staff has been keeping records.
2003 1 2004 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 1 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 2012
142,859 135, 300 133, 904 136, 949 127, 036 123, 038 111, 688 104, 950 110,694 102, 675
Approximately 12,414 of the total operations for 2012 were jet aircraft operations. In
2012, jets represented 12% of the total operations. In 2012, the number jet operations
decreased by 6% compared to calendar year 2011. This was the lowest number of jet
operations recorded since calendar year 1999.
Approximately 87,014 of the total operations for 2012 were propeller aircraft operations.
In 2012, propeller aircraft represented 85% of the total operations. In 2012, the number
propeller operations decreased by 8% compared to calendar year 2011. This was the
lowest number of propeller aircraft operations since staff has been keeping records.
Reference Resolution No.
10744 (CCS)