1 Richard	K.	Simon,	Esq. 1700	Decker	School	Lane Malibu,	CA	90265 (310)	503‐7286 rsimon3@verizon.net
September	19,	2016

Office	of	the	Chief	Counsel Attention:	FAA	Part	16	Airport	Proceedings	Docket AGC‐610 Federal	Aviation	Administration 800	Independence	Avenue,	S.W. Washington,	DC	20591

Re: Supplement and Objections (Docket No. FAA

‐ 16

‐ 16

‐ 02)

Mark Smith, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Bill’s Air Center, Inc., National Business Aviation Association, Inc. and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, California

Dear	Sir	or	Madam:
Pursuant	 to	14	C.F.R.	§	16.23(j),	Mark	Smith,	Kim	Davidson	Avia tion,	 Inc.,	Bill’s	Air Center,	 Inc.,	 National	 Business	 Aviation	 Association,	 Inc.	 and	 Aircraft	 Owners	 and	 Pilots Association,	 Inc.	 (collectively	 “Complainants”)	respectfully	se ek	leave	 to	supplement	 their prior	filings	in	this	case	in	order	to	object	for	good	cause	to two	specific	components	of	the Rebuttal	filed	by	the	Respondent	City	of	Santa	Monica	(“City”) on	September	13,	2016.		See generally	 Centennial	 Express	 Airlines	 v.	 Arapahoe	 County	 Public Airport	 Authority,	 FAA docket	 no.	 16‐98‐05,	 Final	 Agency	 Decision	 and	 Order,	 at	 6	 n.4 (February	 18,	 1999) (allowing	motion	to	identify	fact ual	misstatements	in	reply	bri ef).

First,	 the	 Rebuttal	 is	 accompanied	 by	 a	 previously‐unseen	 set	 o f	 documents	 in Exhibit	R	–	annotated	versions	of	2013	City	documents	(previous ly	included	as	Exhibit	28, p.	6	and	Exhibit	35	d	to	the	Complaint),	which	purport	to	expla in	the	underlying	rationale for	how	 the	costs	of	operating	Santa	Monica	Municipal	Airport	( “Airport”	or	“SMO”)	were allocated	between	airf ield	and	non‐airfield	cost	centers.		The	City	fails	to	explain	the	origins of	these	documents.		If	they	were	recently	created,	they	could not	have	been	the	basis	for the	allocations	made	in	2013.		In	contrast,	if	they	existed	in 2013,	the	City	failed	to	provide them	 to	Airport	 tenants	and	 users,	 or	 to	 produce	 them	in	 respon se	 to	 subsequent	 public2 records	requests.		See	Complaint,	at	24	n.	15.		Santa	Monica	sh ould	not	be	allowed	to	“game the	 system”	 by	 unveiling	 these	 documents	 at	 this	 late	 date	 –	 an d	 accordingly	 Exhibit	 R should	be	disregarded	by	the	FAA.

Second,	 in	 its	 Rebuttal	 Santa	 Monica	 continues	 to	 insist	 that	 t he	 leasing	 policy adopted	by	its	City	Council	in	March	2016	–	despite	the	undispu ted	fact	that	it	has	not	yet actually	been	implemented	 for	Complainants,	or	 for	any	other	Ai rport	 tenant	–	moots	 the fourth	count	of	the	Complaint.		But	Santa	Monica	fails	to	discl ose	that	in	a	report	submitted to	the	City	Council	on	August	23,	2016	(subsequent	to	Complainants’	last	filing),	City	staff unequivocally	 stated	 that	 leases	 will not be	 offered	 to	 aeronautical	 tenants,	 and	 instead that	the	City	will	“[t]ransition aircraft	hangar	uses	from	lease	agreements	to	permits”:
The	City	seeks	to	avoid	binding	real	estate	commitments	that	wo uld	preclude the	 City	 from	 swiftly	 ending	 aviation	 uses	 as	 soon	 as	 legally	 p ermitted.	 A permit	system	is	a	reasonable	accommodation	until	the	City	prev ails	in	court and	expeditiously	closes	the	Air port	per	the	subject	City	Council	Resolution.
See	 Exhibit	 92,	 at	 18.	 	 Accordingly,	 the	 City’s	 purported	 relia nce	 in	 its	 Rebuttal	 on	 its leasing	 policy	 appears	 to	 conflict	with	 the	 candor	 obligations of	 14	 C.F.R.	 §	 16.13(e)	 and also	should	be	disregarded	by	the	FAA.
Finally,	the	Complainants	also	restate	their	prior	objection	(p reviously	set	forth	at	p. 22	of	their	Answer	dated	August	1,	2016)	to	the	City’s	proposed submission	by	September 30,	2016	of	a	corrective	action	p lan	–	which	apparently	will	in clude	new	evidence	and	new calculations	–	for	its	under‐collection	of	rent	from	Santa	Moni ca	College.		That	date	is	long after	 both	 the	 deadline	 for	 the	 City’s	 Answer	 and	 the	 deadline for	 the	 City’s	 Rebuttal. Complainants	again	reserve	the	r ight	to	respond	to	that	submiss ion.
Respectfully	submitted,

1700	Decker	School	Lane Malibu,	CA	90265 310‐503‐7286 rsimon3@verizon.net3 Certificate of Service
I	hereby	certify	that	I	have	this	day	caused	the	foregoing	comp laint	to	be	served	on the	following	persons	by	first‐class	mail	with	a	courtesy	copy by	electronic	mail:

Rick	Cole City	Manager City	of	Santa	Monica 1685	Main	Street,	Room	209 Santa	Monica,	CA	90401 manager@smgov.net Marsha	Moutrie,	Esq. City	Attorney City	of	Santa	Monica 1685	Main	Street,	Room	310 Santa	Monica,	CA	90401 marsha.moutrie@smgov.net

Susan	Cline Acting	Director	of	Public	Works City	of	Santa	Monica 1685	Main	Street,	Room	116 Santa	Monica,	CA	90401 susan.cline@smgov.net Stelios	Makrides Airport	Manager City	of	Santa	Monica Airport	Administration	Building 3223	Donald	Douglas	Loop	South Santa	Monica,	CA	90405 stelios.makrides@smgov.net

Nelson	Hernandez City	of	Santa	Monica 1685	Main	Street Santa	Monica,	CA	90401 nelson.hernandez@smgov.net Scott	Lewis,	Esq. Partner Anderson	&	Kreiger	LLP One	Canal	Park,	Suite	200 Cambridge,	MA	02141 slewis@andersonkreiger.com
Dated	this	19th	day	of	September,	2016.

1700	Decker	School	Lane Malibu,	CA	90265 310‐503‐7286 rsimon3@verizon.net

## Ci ty Council Report

City Council Meeting: August 23, 2016

Agenda Item: 11.A

1 of 20 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Cole, City Manager
, City Manager's Office, Administration Subject: Resolution Regarding Local Control and Closure of the Santa Monica Airport;

Policy for Eliminating Private Provision of Aeronautical Services and Es tablishing Exclusive Public Proprietary Fixed Based Operations With City Provision of Aeronautical Services Required By Law; Consideration of Other Lawful Means of Curtailing Adverse Airport Impacts, Including, Among Others: Applying to the FAA for Runway Alterations; Enforcing Local, State & Federal Laws Relating to Airport Operations; Transitioning From Leases to a Permit System for Certain Airport Uses; Eliminating Lead Fuel; and Enhancing Airport Security

Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution declaring that it shall be the policy of the City to close the Santa Monica airport to aviation uses, as soon as legally permitted, with the goal of on or before July 1, 2018, and directing the City Manager to implement all necessary administrative measures accordingly; and 2. Adopt a Policy for Establishing Exclusive Public Proprietary Fixed Based Operations (FBO) Services with City Proprietor Services and directing the City Manager to implement all steps necessary or advisable to implement that policy.
Executive Summary The passage of Measure Local Control (Measure LC ) in November 2014 and the subsequent expiration of the City’s 30 year agreement with the FAA to continue to operate the Airport as well as the disputed expiration of the 20 year Grant Assurances in 2015 have set the stage for the City of Santa Monica to definitively re -exert local control over 227 acres of land owned by the City for more than a century. During that time, it was the site for the making of aviation history and performed a vital function in peace and war. In recent years, however, an airport originally established for biplanes has become an ever-more- active jetport for personal and corporate jet traffic. The adverse impacts of noise, pollution and safety hazards of Airport operation have long been documented. At the unanimous direction of the City Council, the staff recommends adopting a Resolution and policy to move forward decisively to exert and test our local authority by officially asserting the City’s intention to close the Airport as soon as legally permitted with the goal of doing so by June 30, 2018 or sooner if possible.2 of 20

Acknowledging the many legal challenges regarding that authority now pending, the City should continue to exercise its legitimate authority to enforce its recently adopted leasing policy; replace the existing FBOs with exclusive City operations; consider removal of the Western Parcel from aviation use; and take other such steps for an orderly transition as are appropriately within its legal jurisdiction. Finally, the Council expressed a commitment to initiate the lengthy and complex process of planning and environmental review for transition to a complete park campus containing uses consistent with the terms of Measure LC. The recommended resolution authorizes the commencement of that future planning to establish and fund an array of natural, recreational and cultural resources and amenities to serve the residents and neighbors of the City of Santa Monica for generations to come. On July 26, 2016, the City Council agreed to consider a resolution expressing the City Council’s intention to close the Santa Monica Airport to aviation use, as soon as that is legally permitted with a goal of June 30, 2018 and earlier if possible, and, authorizing the City Manager to initiate all administrative measures necessary to implement the resolution. The land currently occupied by the Airport consists of 227 acres of multiple parcels, much of which has been under exclusive City ownership since 1926 when Santa Monica voters approved a park bond ballot measure. Beginning in the late 1950s, with the advent of jet aircraft, the relationships among Douglas Aircraft, the City of Santa Monica, and the residents soured and became adversarial. In 1981, the City Council declared its intention to close the Airport when legally possible. After a series of negotiations, FAA and the City reached a 30 year comprehensive settlement that expired in 2015. Despite the settlement, the adverse impacts of airport operations continue, and in some respects accelerated, due to the significant increase in jet aircraft operations, continued use of leaded fuel, and the fear and actuality of accidents. In June 2014, Santa Monica voters were presented with two opposing Airport ballot measures. Measure D was supported by aviation interest and Measure Local Control (Measure LC) was backed by community residents; Measure LC received 60% of the vote and Measure D was defeated when it earned only 40% of the vote. Measure LC reads: Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport
, manage Airport leaseholds, condition leases, and permanently close all or part of the Airport to aviation use. If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses. There are multiple reasons to transition the land currently occupied by the Airport into uses consistent with Measure LC: c losing the Airport would s top adverse impacts of Airport operations; effectuate Measure LC; and greatly improve the quality of life. I t would be a major transformative event.3 of 20

The City is involved in two legal proceedings that have material effects on when the City can close the airport. First, the federal lawsuit regarding the effect of the Instrument of Transfer (IOT) is hugely determinative. The case is scheduled for trial August 2017. The second case is a Part 16 administrative proceeding. This case involves the date when Federal grant obligations expire, thus freeing Santa Monica from the need to comply with key federal regulations regarding the Airport. On August 15, 2016, as expected, the FAA upheld its previous determination that the City is obligated until 2023. The City should appeal the FAA determination to the federal courts. If the resolution and policy are adopted the City Manager intends to implement a series of actions that may include all of the measures below but is not necessarily limited to these actions: 1. Commencing the park planning process, including conducting an environmental analysis as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). 2. Investigating whether certain fractional jet operators are operating as scheduled airlines. 3. Submitting an application to FAA which would alter the Airport runway by removing the 1949 Quit Claim Parcel, also known as the “Western Parcel” from aviation use. 4. Ceasing forbearance of lax enforcement of the Santa Monica Airport noise ordinance and apply enforcement as written. 5. Transitioning aircraft hangar uses from lease agreements to permits. 6. Creating a City of Santa Monica Fixed Based Operation and eliminate the current providers. 7. Eliminating lead fuel.

8. Enhancing airport security.

BACKGROUND Few issues have as long, contentious or significant a history as the struggles over the future of the Santa Monica Airport. “Exerting Local Control” over the City -owned land occupied by the Santa Monica Airport is one of the City Council’s top five Strategic
Goals. On July 26, 2016, at the request of Mayor Tony Vazquez and Mayor Pro Tem Ted Winterer, the City Council agreed to consider a resolution (1) expressing the City Council’s intention to close the Santa Monica Airport to aviation use, as soon as that is legally permitted with a goal of June 30, 2018 and earlier if possible, and, upon compliance with applicable legal processes, to transition the land currently occupied by the Airport to uses consistent with Measure LC (Local Control), and (2) authorizing the
Cit y Manager to initiate all administrative measures necessary to implement the resolution, including commencement of planning and environmental review processes4 of 20

required by the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Planning Act. The motion passed by unanimous consent. The subject resolution is a clear acknowledgement by the City Council to implement Measure LC and it intends to close the Airport as quickly as legally permitted and by
lawful means.

Evolution of the City and Airport Relationship According to Cloverfield.org, as early as 1922 the land currently occupied by the Airport was used as a landing field. In 1926 Santa Monica voters approved a park bond ballot measure to purchase the land currently occupied by the airport. Below is an excerpt of
the 1926 ordinance.

The property has been under city ownership from that time to present, having undergone expansion during and after World War II. Since its establishment over 90 years ago, the Airport has played an important part in the evolution of Santa Monica. For instance, the Douglas Aircraft factory at the Airport produced more than 6,000 DC- 3 and other fighter/bomber aircraft to help the United States win World War II. Beginning in the late 1950s, with the advent of jet aircraft, the relationships among Douglas Aircraft, the City of Santa Monica, and the residents soured and became adversarial. The City (responding to residents’ protests) refused to extend the SMO runway even at the cost of losing local jobs to avoid “locking in” noise f rom the DC- 8 jetliners that Douglas proposed to build in 1958. In 1962 a public hearing was held at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium to discuss the impacts of airport operations on residents. In 1967, a large group of residents sued the City, claiming jet operations had5 of 20

damaged their property values and their quality of life. Five years later, the City adopted an ordinance designed to reduce aircraft noise and ban jet aircraft. In 1981, the City Council adopted Resolution 6296 declaring its intention to close the Airport when legally possible. After a series of negotiations, FAA and the City reached a comprehensive settlement in 1984. “The 1984 Agreement” recognized the City’s authority to mitigate aircraft noise, impose curfew limits, ban helicopter training, limit the number of aircraft tie-downs, and remove certain land on the south side of the airport from aviation use. In return, the City agreed to: 1) operate the airport until June 30, 2015 and 2) permit fixed base operators (FBOs) to serve passengers, service and maintain aircraft, and sell avgas and jet fuel. Fractional aircraft is a common term for fractional ownership of aircraft where multiple owners share the costs of purchasing, leasing and operating the aircraft. Commercial programs for large aircraft include LuxJet Group, NetJets, Flexjet, Flight Options, PlaneSense, Executive AirShare, AirSprint and Autumn Air. Fractional jet operations transformed business jet operations nationally and ushered in the escalating jet operations at SMO that continues today. The bar chart below clearly shows the trend in the growth of jet aircraft at the expense of piston aircraft.6 of 20

By 1999, increased jet traffic caused Los Angeles City residents to sue the City of Santa Monica based on adverse health impacts and nuisance caused by the Airport. By 2008, the City Council passed an ordinance banning (larger and faster) Category C and D aircraft from using SMO due to their adverse environmental impacts and increased safety hazards resulting from faster landing speeds coupled with the short (4,970 foot) SMO runway length. The FAA enjoined enforcement of this ordinance and later prevailed in Federal Court.
A common theme in th is long-running issue centers on the environmental impacts of jet operations, particularly the loud noise of jets that residents nearby the Airport find intolerable. According to the City noise violation database from May 1, 2013 to April, 30
2016

– jet operations account for 92 % of all the (95 decibel) SMO noise violations. For

context , a 95 decibel jet noise seems as loud as a jackhammer at 50 feet. The Santa Monica Municipal Code imposes a 75 decibel maximum five-minute noise exposure limit for the community.7 of 20

As shown below, total operations have decreased significantly since the 1999 peak.

However, jet operations continue to increase at SMO, thus exacerbating and increasing noise pollution and the potential for a significant large scale accident. Because jets are typically much larger and carry far more fuel (a Gulfstream IV weighs as much as 75,000 pounds and carries 15 tons of jet fuel), jets pose far greater risks to residents than do propeller aircraft, should an accident occur.8 of 20

Aircraft accidents, noise, and air pollution are not the only risks that the Airport poses to nearby residents. For nearly 25 years, California has banned lead as an additive for automobile fuel because of its toxic effects on humans, particularly children. Leaded auto gas was banned because of the highly adverse environmental impacts it has on people and the environment. Since 2008 the EPA found there is no safe lead particulate exposure level (especially for infants) and it recommended limiting the use of lead in aviation fuel because the lead particles from avgas comprise more than 50% of
the total US lead emissions. Unlike jet aircraft, piston aircraft utilize leaded fuel. In 2009, the EPA studied SMO lead emissions (totaling 800 pounds in 2002) and estimated the lead particulates had been roughly halved due to the decrease in piston aircraft traffic by 2009. At the Airport, two FBO vendors combine to sell approximately 260,000 gallons of leaded fuel each year. Each gallon of avgas fuel contains about two grams of lead. Thus, SMO generates 260,000 x 2 = 520,000 grams, or about 1,160 pounds of lead particles. If SMO were to close, more than half a ton of lead particles that impact this region would cease to be generated. The Office of Environmental Health Assessment, (OEHA) which is a department within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), produces a pollution burden map. According to OEHA, the census tract in which the airport lies, ranks in the 79 th percentile of most pollution burden census tracts in all of California. The OEHA9 of 20

pollution burden index consists of various pollutants, including diesel, PM2.5 and toxic releases. In the case of diesel, PM2.5 and toxic releases, the census tract that houses the Airport has the highest reading for diesel, PM2.5 and toxic releases in all Santa
Monica. In summary, all the aforementioned trends and impacts of noise, pollution, and dangers have a wide-reaching adverse impact on a large area around SMO today. Over 1,800 residents as far as three miles away from the runway (Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, Mar Vista and Ma rina del Rey) articulated these negative impacts in personal letters to Congressional Representatives Ted Lieu and Karen Bass. These personal testimonials were presented to the FAA on July 8, 2015 in Washington, D.C. The map below indicates where a portion of the residents are located.

A Geospatial Analysis of the Distribution of Westside Residents Negatively Impacted by the Santa Monica Airport10 of 20

There are over 130,000 residents within two miles of Santa Monica Airport. Red markers indicate a partial sample of documented complaints by residents that were presented to the FAA by Congressional Representatives. Adoption of Measure Local Control (Measure LC) In June 2014, Santa Monica voters were presented with two opposing Airport ballot measures. Measure D was sponsored and supported by the National Business Aircraft Association, (NBAA), the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association (AOPA), and the Santa Monica Airport Association (SMAA)

– entities presently suing the City to keep SMO open for business. Measure D, funded by almost $1,000,000 from the NBAA and other Washington DC special interests, can only be described as a pro-aviation measure designed to change the City Charter and thereby ensure the continuance of11 of 20

airport operations at SMO. Measure D, which had no local community support or endorsements, lost 40 percent to 60 percent. Measure LC was supported by virtually all local Santa Monica groups, neighborhood associations, and organizations. Measure LC passed 60 percent to 40 percent; it clearly presents an electoral mandate to the City. Measure LC reads as follows: Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport
, manage Airport leaseholds, condition leases, and permanently close all or part of the Airport to aviation use. If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses. While residents did not vote to close the Airport, they clearly intended that City Council limit/reduce airport operations and specified that if the Airport closes, the land currently occupied by the Airport must be used for the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses, unless there is a vote of the people to the contrary. The voter turnout in the Sunset Park and Ocean Park neighborhood precincts (those residents most impacted by SMO operations) approached 75 percent with LC approval rates of over 80 percent.

Post Measure LC Actions Taken by the City Since Measure LC passage, the City has taken various steps to regain local control over the property now occupied by the Airport. On March 22, 2016, the City adopted a new leasing policy. Only uses that are compatible with surrounding neighbors are permitted per this policy, unless the use is required by law. Second, the City has continued its legal battles, both in the federal courts and through ongoing FAA administrative proceedings. Third, the City did not extend the lease of the largest12 of 20

Airport master tenant, Gunnell Properties. The City is in the process of bringing
Gunnell’s former sub

- tenants into compliance with the Council’s adopted Leasing Policy. Fourth, City staff has begun the process of eliminating the remaining master tenants while maintaining an orderly transition. Fifth, the City and Justice Aviation reached an agreement, and Justice Aviation voluntarily vacated. Sixth, consistent with Measure LC, the City Council approved hiring a park planning consulting firm in order to expand Airport Park from 8 acres to 20 acres. In a related action, the City removed all aircraft from the southeast parcel to clear the way for the park expansion. Last, the City required the Airport Fund to repay the General Fund $1.2M in FY 15-16 in order to reduce the Airport’s debt obligation to the City.

DISCUSSION Closing the Santa Monica Airport Would Be Transformative The Santa Monica Airport, located in a highly urbanized and densely populated region, occupies 227 acres consisting of multiple separate parcels. While many transient aircraft transit SMO, only 310 aircraft are based at the Airport. Thus, the benefit of dedicating a vast track of valuable land for the tiny number of aviation users comes at the expense of precluding an increased quality of life for tens of thousands of residents (and visitors) who would otherwise enjoy greatly improved park, recreational, cultural, and community amenities. It should be noted that in Los Angeles County there are 3.3 acres of park for every 1,000 residents. Santa Monica falls fall below the County average at only 1.4 acres for every 1,000 residents. If the parcels of land currently dedicated to aviation are converted to park space, the City of Santa Monica would reach parity with Los Angeles County. Moreover, closing the Airport represents perhaps the greatest and last opportunity to create a “great park” in Santa Monica, or perhaps the entire West Los Angeles area, analogous to Central Park in New York, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, or Millennium Park in Chicago. Transforming this precious property into uses consistent with Measure LC may well become the greatest transformative event of this century for the City of Santa Monica, equal to or surpassing the pier or extending the Expo Rail line to the beach. In March of this year, the City Council adopted a leasing policy. The leasing policy authorizes the City Manager to enter into lease agreements at the Airport, provided the13 of 20

term of the agreements does not exceed June 30, 2018. The Council selected June 30, 2018 as the longest lease term because by said date, or perhaps sooner, the courts are expected to resolve the legal matters in favor of the City thus allowing the City to close the Airport. Should the City Council elect to pass this resolution and adopt the policy, it can cite the
reasons below:
1. Closing the Airport Would Eliminate Adverse Impacts of Airport Operations. Santa Monica and indeed, all of Southern California has become increasing ly urban. The Santa Monica population exceeds 11,000 persons per square mile

– greater than surrounding Los Angeles communities while our park acreage trails that of Los Angeles. Land uses that were once prominent such as drive-in theaters have closed due to economic pressures, and land-uses such as land-fills have been relocated to more appropriate locations in order to stop their adverse impacts on large highly
urbanized communities.

While an airfield may have been an allowed use, and perhaps even innovative in 1926 at the time of the bond measure, as the City has evolved the harmful environmental impacts of SMO operations have increased to the point where the Santa Monica Airport is no longer a community benefit. From December 1928 to August 1939 there was an average of only 70 flights per year, hence the airfield was not incompatible with the semi-rural nature of the city at that time.

In addition to removing the threat of a catastrophic jet aircraft accident, closing the Santa Monica Airport would halt ongoing adverse environmental impacts of airport operations, e.g.: 1) noise pollution, 2) fine particulate air pollution, and 3) lead particle pollution. Closing the Santa Monica Airport may be the single most important, immediate, and locally achievable environmental protection measur e available to the City Council.

2. Transitioning the Airport to Be Consistent with Measure LC Would Greatly Improve the Quality of Life. In 2014, Santa Monica residents approved Measure Local Control. Per Measure LC, only “parks, public open spaces, and p ublic recreational14 of 20

facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are permitted on the land currently occupied by the Airport without a vote of Santa Monica residents.” The transition of property currently us ed for aircraft operations at the Airport to uses permitted under Measure LC would dramatically improve the surrounding conditions for Santa Monica and West Los Angeles residents by replacing highly dangerous environmental threats with desirable
surroundin gs that will greatly enhance residents’ quality of life.

3. Closing SMO Is A Matter of Local Control and Property Rights. The City owns the land now occupied by the Santa Monica Airport. Property owners, including cities, have legal right to exercise their property rights within the constraints imposed by the authorized land use regulator. The Federal Government is not a local land use regulator, thus, FAA does not have jurisdiction over land use decisions in Santa Monica. Using its municipal powers, including its property rights and land use authority in 1926, the City created an airfield and park and in 1941 leased the land to the Federal Government during a time of national emergency. Now after 90 years of transformative change, if the City Council determines that the negative environmental impacts of airport operations outweigh the benefits that SMO provides, the City has the sole authority, as the property owner and as the land use regulator, to make that decision, not the FAA.
4. Legal Liability. As owner/operator of the Airport, the City is legally responsible and potentially liable for injuries resulting from Airport operations. In contrast, the federal government has no liability because it is immunized by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. Thus, according to the FAA, the City has all the responsibility and potential liability for Airport operations and impacts, but none of the authority to control them. This places the City in a position that is both untenably risky and grossly unfair. The Current Legal Environment The City is involved in two legal proceedings that have material effects on when the City can close the airport. First, the federal lawsuit regarding the effect of the Instrument of Transfer (IOT) is hugely determinative. The IOT provided the mechanism by which the Federal Government (a) surrendered the land it leased from the City and, (b) transferred15 of 20

the buildings and improvements on the leased land to the City after using it during World War II. The attached documents from the National Archives Offices in Riverside, California demonstrate that the Federal Government agreed to surrender the 168 acres of runway land and transfer the buildings and improvements to the City.16 of 2017 of 20

The FAA claims the 1948 Instrument of Transfer requires the City to operate the airport in perpetuity; the City rejects this FAA claim. The federal trial will be next August. Earlier this year, the City won a preliminary victory in this case when the 9 th District Circuit Court of Appeals determined the facts of the case are so intertwined that the Court could not separate the statute of limitations from the merits of the case and thus a trial was warranted. The Court of Appeals returned the case to District Court and
ordered the case be tried on its merits.
Th e second case is a Part 16 administrative proceeding. This case involves the date when Federal grant obligations expire, thus freeing Santa Monica from the need to comply with key federal regulations regarding the Airport. The City argues that these obligations expired in 2014 but the FAA claims the obligations remain valid until 2023. On August 15, 2016, as expected, the Associate Director for Airports, upheld the previous FAA determination. The City should appeal the FAA determination to the
federal courts.

Post Airport Closure Resolution Actions of the City Manager The subject resolution states: “A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica making findings regarding the adverse environmental, health and safety effects of the Santa Monica airport; declaring the policy of the City to close the Santa Monica airport to aviation uses as soon as legally permitted, and directing the City Manager to implement all lawful administrative measures consistent with these findings and
declarations” . Therefore, the City Manager intends to implement all measures listed below, or other measures should he determine that said measures would be consistent with the findings and declaration:
1. Commence the park planning process, including conducting an environmental analysis as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Transitioning the land currently occupied by the Airport into a “great park” may require the City to comply with certain planning and environmental laws and that will take considerable time and energy. Hence, in order to coordinate the construction of a great park with the closure of the airport, the time to commence the planning and environmental analysis is now.18 of 20

2. Investigate whether certain fractional jet operators are im permissibly operating as scheduled airlines. It should be noted that both FAA and the City of Santa Monica prohibit scheduled airline operations out of SMO.

3. Submit an application to FAA which would alter the Airport runway by removing the 1949 Quit Claim Parcel, also known as the “Western Parcel” from aviation use. As noted above, the Western Parcel is not subject to the IOT; the only tenuous hold the FAA may have on the Western Parcel for aviation use is the 1994 Grant Assurance. The City will appeal the recent grant assurance determination by the FAA to the federal courts. Thus, it makes sense to file the application to close the Western Parcel to aviation as part of the City’s appeal of the grant assurance.

4. Cease forbearance of lax enforcement of the Santa Monica Airport noise ordinance and apply enforcement as written . The City’s enforcement practice of its noise ordinance pre-dates the advent of fractional ownership and jets on demand services. Hence, enforcement should be adjusted to reflect the current state of airport operations.

5. Transition aircraft hangar uses from lease agreements to permits. There is a great uncertainty regarding whether FAA has legal rights to impose control over City land in order to accommodate aviation uses. Until those legal questions are resolved, the City seeks to avoid binding real estate commitments that would preclude the City from swiftly ending aviation uses as soon as legally permitted. A permit system is a reasonable accommodation until the City prevails in court and expeditiously closes the Airport per the subject City Council Resolution. The proposed permit system provides an important step forward toward greater local control over the property now occupied by aviation users.

6. Create a City of Santa Monica Fixed Based Operation. If the City is required to operate the airport and if FBO services are required, the City would have greater19 of 20

local control by establishing a municipal FBO. FAA regulations permit cities to operate an FBO provided the operation is done with city employees and resources. Hence, it is legally permitted and there are examples of city run FBOs, including the City of Naples, Florida. As part of our due diligence, staff will

ex amine issues related to: fuel farm operations, employee recruitment, training and retention, equipment, costs and revenue, and liability. The two private FBO providers will be eliminated when City staff are ready to assume the duties.

7. Elimination of lead fuel. Despite the known dangers of leaded fuel and a viable alternative, FAA has yet to phase it out. Therefore, because there is a viable alternative that could service an estimated 65 percent of the propeller aircraft fleet based in SMO, the sale of leaded fuel should be phased out completely as soon as legal ly possible. In place of leaded fuel, staff would recommend the sale of unleaded fuel and would request that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations for the provision of said fuel.

8. Enhanced Security. In accordance with previous direction of the City Council, staff is in the process of selecting a highly qualified airport security firm. Staff expects to recommend the contract in September or October 2016

Resolution’s Impact on the City Council’s Airport Strategic Goal On August 23, 2015, the City Council adopted five strategic goals. One goal was to regain local control of the land occupied by the Santa Monica Airport. If the City Council adopts this resolution, staff will revise the Airport strategic goal to reflect this resolution, develop performance measures that correspond to this resolution, and present those performance measures first to the Airport Commission and then to the City Council.

Al ternatives to an Airport Closure Resolution The Council may elect to not approve the proposed resolution and maintain the status quo. However, as explained in this staff report, the status quo is inconsistent with Measure LC, produces adverse environmental impacts, creates the possibility of hazards, and does not improve the overall quality of life. Hence, if the optimal public20 of 20

policy goal is to eliminate noise and air pollution from all aircraft and to maximize park, open space, cultural and education facilities, the City Council should adopt the proposed resolution.

Fiscal Impacts Adoption of the resolution does not have a direct fiscal impact. The fiscal impact of creating a city FBO service and hiring consulting services in connection to the planning process and environmental analysis will be determined when more information is available and proposals have been submitted.

Prepared By: Nelson Hernandez, Senior Advisor for Airport Affairs Approved Forwarded to Council

Attachments:

A. Resolution

B. Pol icy

C. Written comments

D. Powerpoint Presentation