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	Aviation,	 Inc.,	Bill’s	Air	

Center,	 Inc.,	 National	 Business	 Aviation	 Association,	 Inc.	 and	 Aircraft	 Owners	 and	 Pilots	

Association,	 Inc.	 (collectively	 “Complainants”)	respectfully	seek	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	factual	misstatements	in	reply	brief).	

First,	 the	 Rebuttal	 is	 accompanied	 by	 a	 previously‐unseen	 set	 of	 documents	 in	

Exhibit	R	–	annotated	versions	of	2013	City	documents	(previously	included	as	Exhibit	28,	

p.	6	and	Exhibit	35	d	to	the	Complaint),	which	purport	to	explain	the	underlying	rationale	

for	how	 the	costs	of	operating	Santa	Monica	Municipal	Airport	(“Airport”	or	“SMO”)	were	

allocated	between	airfield	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	 response	 to	 subsequent	 public	
2	

records	requests.		See	Complaint,	at	24	n.	15.		Santa	Monica	should	not	be	allowed	to	“game	

the	 system”	 by	 unveiling	 these	 documents	 at	 this	 late	 date	 –	 and	 accordingly	 Exhibit	 R	

should	be	disregarded	by	the	FAA.	

Second,	 in	 its	 Rebuttal	 Santa	 Monica	 continues	 to	 insist	 that	 the	 leasing	 policy	

adopted	by	its	City	Council	in	March	2016	–	despite	the	undisputed	fact	that	it	has	not	yet	

actually	been	implemented	 for	Complainants,	or	 for	any	other	Airport	 tenant	–	moots	 the	

fourth	count	of	the	Complaint.		But	Santa	Monica	fails	to	disclose	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	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.	

See	 Exhibit	 92,	 at	 18.	 	 Accordingly,	 the	 City’s	 purported	 reliance	 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	(previously	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	plan	–	which	apparently	will	include	new	evidence	and	new	

calculations	–	for	its	under‐collection	of	rent	from	Santa	Monica	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	right	to	respond	to	that	submission.	

Respectfully	submitted,	

1700	Decker	School	Lane	

	Malibu,	CA	90265	

	310‐503‐7286	

	rsimon3@verizon.net
3	

Certificate of Service

I	hereby	certify	that	I	have	this	day	caused	the	foregoing	complaint	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
City 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 

Establishing 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. 

Exhibit 92
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: closing the Airport would stop adverse impacts of 

Airport operations; effectuate Measure LC; and greatly improve the quality of life. It 

would be a major transformative event. 

Exhibit 92
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 

City Manager to initiate all administrative measures necessary to implement the 

resolution, including commencement of planning and environmental review processes 

Exhibit 92
4 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 from 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 had 

Exhibit 92
5 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. 

Exhibit 92
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 this 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. 

Exhibit 92
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. 

Exhibit 92
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 79th

percentile of most pollution burden census tracts in all of California. The OEHA 

Exhibit 92
9 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 Marina 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 Airport 

Exhibit 92
10 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 of 

Exhibit 92
11 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 largest 

Exhibit 92
12 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 the 

Exhibit 92
13 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 increasingly 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 measure 

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 public recreational 

Exhibit 92
14 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 used 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 

surroundings 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) transferred 

Exhibit 92
15 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. 

Exhibit 92
16 of 20

Exhibit 92
17 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 9th 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. 

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. 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. 

Exhibit 92
18 of 20

2. Investigate whether certain fractional jet operators are impermissibly 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 greater 

Exhibit 92
19 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 

examine 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 legally 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. 

Alternatives 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 public 

Exhibit 92
20 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. Policy 

C. Written comments 

D. Powerpoint Presentation 

Exhibit 92