Santa Monica Airport

City Hall: Aviation less valuable to the regional economy than imagined

2014-10-07T08:20:00.001-07:00

from smdp.com

By David Mark Simpson on October 6, 2014 in Airport

- See more at: http://smdp.com/city-hall-aviation-valuable-regional-economy-imagined/142398#sthash.zKklMvHU.dpuf

Sierra Club Throws Support Behind Santa Monica Ballot Measure LC

2014-10-05T09:46:00.003-07:00

from smmirror

POSTED OCT. 4, 2014, 7:19 AM

MIRROR STAFF

The Sierra Club has announced its recommendation for voters to support Santa Monica ballot measure LC at the Nov. 4 election that mandates voter approval for any proposed development other than park or open space at Santa Monica Airport (SMO) if the airport closes or if it is decreased in size.

Measure LC was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the Santa Monica City Council, and, if passed, would be an amendment to the City’s charter. Sierra Club is recommending a “no” vote on a competing ballot measure, “D.”

Hillary Gordon, Chair of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter’s Conservation Committee, summed it up in a declaratory statement after the Club’s decision was approved.

“Let’s bring cleaner air, less noise, and more green space to the Santa Monica Airport area,” said Gordon.

Sierra Club finds itself in good company with its support of measure LC, as LC has strong support from community groups in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles and is supported by 12 of the 14 candidates running for Santa Monica City Council, as well as Los Angeles Councilman Mike Bonin and California State Senator Ted Lieu.

Over the years the Sierra Club has supported California state legislation aimed at addressing the environmental impacts of air pollution, noise pollution and safety concerns from SMO aircraft operations upon densely populated neighboring communities in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles.

Sierra Club has gone on record in support of turning SMO into a park, being one of the initial organizations to sign on to the citizens campaign called Airport2Park.

The organization leaders believe that the replacement of SMO with a great park, including plenty of public open space and bringing back some native wildflowers and wildlife would not only solve the public health concerns that exist today, but would offer very much needed open space and nature to the west-side of Los Angeles and the Santa Monica area.

In its opposition to Santa Monica City ballot measure D, Sierra Club warns of the serious problems that could visit Santa Monica and West LA if it were to pass.

Measure D was placed on the ballot by national aviation interest groups, and would, if passed, preserve the status quo at the airport, which includes significant air pollution and continued carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.

Measure D would require a vote to make even basic changes to mitigate the critical toxic environmental impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. The measure also has no requirements about future development limitations if the airport were to close, and many fear that, if the airport closes, overdevelopment will continue to march forward in this area if D passes and LC does not.

“Our message is strong and clear. Vote ‘yes’ on ballot measure LC. Vote ‘no’ on ballot measure D,” said David Haake, Chair of Sierra Club’s West LA Group. “Measure LC clearly is favorable to closing Santa Monica Airport and replacing it with a park and open space.”

The Sierra Club is the nation’s largest and oldest grassroots community-based environmental organization.

Can This Airport Be Saved?

2014-09-27T19:49:00.003-07:00

from airspacemag.com

The fight over the nation’s busiest single-runway airport.

By Stephen Joiner

Air & Space Magazine

October 2014

On a hot afternoon in August 1945, the voice of Donald Douglas boomed over loudspeakers in the cavernous assembly buildings of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation at California’s Santa Monica Airport. All up and down the queues of C-47 Gooney Birds and A-26 Invaders, rivet guns and impact wrenches fell silent as Douglas informed the first shift that World War II was over. Japan had surrendered. “We all put down our tools and streamed out onto Ocean Park Boulevard, laughing and singing and hugging each other,” one employee recalled in a book on the manufacturer. Like many Douglas workers who lived in neighborhoods surrounding the airport, she hurried home and later celebrated through the night at the Santa Monica pier with most of the city. That was then. http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/can-airport-be-saved-180952758/

Santa Monica Sues Heirs of Pilot That Crashed at City-Run Airport

2014-09-27T19:44:00.002-07:00

from nynewsla.com

POSTED BY JOHN SCHREIBER ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 IN CRIME | 163 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

File: Santa Monica Airport. Photo by John Schreiber.

The city of Santa Monica filed a negligence suit against the heirs of the pilot of a small plane that crashed into the local airport and killed four people two years ago.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court against the estate of Mark Benjamin as well as the Cessna 525A Citation’s owner, CREX-MML LLC. The suit seeks more than $54,000 in cleanup costs stemming from the crash.

According to the lawsuit, the city’s expenses related to the accident included removing plane debris from the runway, securing the site until the Santa Monica Fire Department finished its investigation and the conducting of testing to see whether hydrocarbons from the plane and chemicals from the fire suppressant foam seeped into the soil.

The suit alleges Benjamin negligently landed the aircraft by veering to the right side of the runway and striking some objects before hitting a hangar. The complaint further alleges that the estate did not respond to a creditor’s claim filed April 17.

Robert Given, the personal representative of the Benjamin estate, could not be immediately reached.

Killed in the Sept. 29, 2013, crash were Benjamin, 63, the president of a Santa Monica-based construction company; his son Lucas, 28; Lucas Benjamin’s girlfriend, 28-year-old Lauren Winkler; and Kyla Dupont, 53.

A report released last year by the National Transportation Safety Board found that all of the tires were inflated and there was no debris on the runway when the plane slammed into the hangar and burst into flames. The hangar collapsed onto the plane, which had taken off from Hailey, Idaho.

Last Nov. 4, three sons of Dupont also sued the Benjamin estate. Charles Dupont, Elliot Dupont and Jackson Dupont allege Benjamin failed to maintain proper control over the plane, did not act “reasonably in the ownership of the plane,” did not undertake the necessary actions to accomplish a safe flight, did not act reasonably in landing the plane and failed to keep it in good repair.

— City News Service

Future of Santa Monica Airport from August 19, 2014

2014-09-06T16:55:00.006-07:00

from smdp.com

By Barry Brewer on August 19, 2014

— In the seventies I was a student pilot and I flew out of Santa Monica Airport. I enjoyed my experiences and have a fondness for the airport. But with the passage of the decades, I have come to believe that the Airport should be closed and the land should not be commercially developed, but should remain parkland.

I encourage all to go on line and read the City Council Report (3/25/14) entitled “The Future of Santa Monica Airport” because there is so much disinformation put forth by those who want to keep the Airport open and allow jets to fly in and out of the Airport.

This report confirms that the City owns the land, and that the bulk of the land was purchased with general obligation bonds that were approved by the voters and issued for “park purposes.” When bonds are used to acquire land for “park purposes” that land must remain as parkland until the voters vote otherwise or the president issues a proclamation stating that there exists an “unlimited national emergency requiring military, naval, aviation and civilian readiness to repel any and all acts or threats of aggression.”

In the days after Pearl Harbor (12/7/41) President Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamation 2487. During World War II, according to the City Council Report of 3/25/14 “airport and community interests were aligned” especially since an invasion of the West Coast was a real possibility in the early days of World War II.

The war ended and the problems/disputes began which resulted in a multiplicity of litigation being filed over the airport. To resolve this litigation, in 1984 the City and the AAA (federal government) entered into a written agreement which put an end to the litigation, required the City to operate the airport until 2015, and permitted the City to close the airport when the 1984 agreement expires in 2015.

The aviation industry, aware of the very real possibility that the City might decide to close the airport when the agreement expires in 2015, has placed a measure on the
ballot designed to keep the airport open, and the aviation industry has sent out a flier designed to scare the public by erroneously telling the public that their choice is between the noisy and polluting and arguably unsafe airport with jet flights coming in and out many times each day, or, some sort of mega-development which will generate tens of thousands of car trips each day. But there is a third choice, which is to use those acres for the purpose for which they were intended, which is parkland and recreational use.

The People of Santa Monica already own these acres of land. They belong to you and me – we the people. This land was acquired for the people to be parkland. We could put together something similar to the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy and turn the 227 acres referenced on the aviation industry’s flier into something wonderful which would benefit all of Santa Monica – not just the wealthy one per cent who fly private jets in and out of the Airport, and the privileged few who can afford flying lessons and ownership of the private planes that are parked at the Airport.

With all those acres available (which we already own) we could have: bike paths, hiking trails, multiple dog parks scattered throughout the many acres of the parkland, a “walk of art” comparable to the UCLA Sculpture Garden which would display public art, after-school and/or summer nature-oriented recreational space for children similar to the UCLA Bruin Camp which is available to children during the summer we well as programs focusing on nature, gardens of drought-resistant native California plants, groves of drought-resistant native California trees, space for kite-flying, playing fields for soccer, baseball, softball, etc., dedicated space for rollerskaters and skateboarders, public gardens where people could grow their own vegetables, a rock climbing wall, a conservatory similar to the one in Golden Gate State Park, a senior center, an observatory or planetarium.

I live north of Wilshire and I own no property in the Sunset Park or Ocean Park Avenue. However, I used to live in Sunset Park until I moved with my family out of Sunset Park in part because of the constant noise from the airport.

I have heard the accusation thrown about that the only Santa Monicans who care about the airport issue are those who own property in Sunset Park; I am here to tell you that I care deeply about this issue though I live elsewhere in the City, and I would like to see all the people in the City benefit from this land, which could become a reality if this land is used for its intended purpose, which is parkland and recreational land.

Airport Commission to hear from tenants

2014-09-06T16:53:00.000-07:00

from smdp

By David Mark Simpson on September 5, 2014 in Airport - See more at: http://smdp.com/airport-commission-hear-tenants/141749#sthash.c1FcZBf8.dpuf

CITY HALL — Airport Commission members have expressed a desire for stricter airport leasing policies have been recommended by City Hall.

Last month, City Council decided not to vote on leases at the airport and instead sent the recommendations back to the Airport Commission, which voted 4 to 1 to start its review process with input from the current tenants. Santa Monica Airport tenants will be invited to attend the next commission meeting, scheduled for Sept. 22.

Next year, a key airport agreement is set to expire, giving City Hall more control of the leasing process. Many aviation and arts tenants in buildings on SMO land are currently paying below market rate for their spaces. All leases have expired or are set to expire along with the agreement. City officials recommended that, among other things, council raise the rents to market rate and that they allow three-year extensions of all the leases.

Many residents urged council to consult the Airport Commission before moving forward, claiming that the proposed guidelines don’t go far enough to restrict aviation uses at SMO. Last week, the Airport Commission discussed some alternative leasing guidelines but did not make a final decision. Some commissioners suggested amending the recommendations so that leases are offered on month-to-month or six-month terms.

Current tenants, particularly those in the arts community, have asked for longer leases, which would allow them to more actively plan for their futures. Other commissioners, like Chair David Goddard — an outspoken opponent of the airport — suggested the council could legally rezone the land, only allowing tenants that conform to certain guidelines.

Under this proposed zoning, many of the aviation tenants would not be allowed leases, making the airport less attractive to pilots in general.

City attorneys say this would invite a lawsuit from aviation interests. Goddard maintains that there are legal precedents for the rezoning. At one point Goddard accused city officials of deliberately delaying information requests he’d made, an accusation that several officials and a fellow commissioner vehemently denied. The commission agreed that they’d need to hear from the current tenants before making a decision.

“I’m suggesting that we hold a workshop,” Goddard said, “or maybe two workshops, and invite the artist tenants and then the business and aviation tenants, arguably in separate workshops, and solicit information from them and find out their concerns so we can recommend a strategy that will address their concerns.”

Commissioner Lael Rubin said this could take an unnecessarily long amount of time and instead proposed they send tenants a questionnaire. “I think it’s really fairly predictable what the answer is going to be and I would hate for us to be wasting our time,” she said.

Ultimately, only Rubin voted against the notion of a workshop. Commission Peter Donald suggested that, given the tense divide between the aviation community and airport opponents, police coverage might be necessary at the workshop, a notion that Goddard rejected. dave@smdp.com

Flight Schools Could Face Greater Restrictions at Santa Monica Airport

2014-08-11T18:49:00.006-07:00

from surfsantamonica.com

By Jonathan Friedman
Associate Editor

August 11, 2014 --

Use of quieter aircraft and accepting limitations on when flying can take place could be requirements for flight schools and clubs to operate at Santa Monica Airport. The City Council will consider these rules Tuesday when it votes on new lease guidelines for businesses operating on the City-owned property.
If these guidelines are approved, they could be voided later this year depending on whether voters approve the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association-backed measure in November. The measure calls for voter approval to make most changes to the airport, including any decisions made by the City Council since the measure was officially proposed earlier this year.
City staff’s proposed guidelines, based on recommendations from the City Council in March, state that all flight schools will be given the opportunity to renew their leases and new ones could come to the airport. But preference will be given to those who agree to specific criteria.
“All flight schools and flying clubs will be requested to use newer [types of] aircraft that are quieter … or use Federal Aviation Administration-approved noise reduction technologies in reducing their noise footprint,” the proposed guidelines state.
They continue, “All flight schools and flying clubs will be requested to avoid performing pattern operations at Santa Monica Airport during weekends, holidays and evening hours.”
Residents living near the airport are concerned about the use of leaded fuel in the airplanes. Airport Director Martin Pastucha wrote in the staff report that the request from some community members to ban fuel sales on the property was not feasible because “such action would most likely lead to litigation.”
Pastucha wrote that the City could require fuel with reduced or no lead be offered for sale, although these options are not widely available at this time.
“Staff is currently in talks with fuel manufacturers to determine the timeline of availability of these fuels,” Pastucha wrote. “Once commercially available, fuel service providers at the airport would be required to offer [fuel with reduced lead or no lead].”
The leases for all restaurants and other businesses on the property will expire by June 30, 2015. They could renew their leases for up to three years (with longer periods being subject to council approval), according to the proposed guidelines. Annual renewals after three years would be possible.
“Rents, fees and charges on the airport shall reflect fair market value for both aviation and non-aviation properties,” the proposed guidelines state. “Fair market rents for individual buildings on non-aviation airport properties and prevailing market rents for aviation properties will be appraised in the as-is condition quantified in the spring 2014 appraisal.”
Other features proposed are that the City could add a charge to the rent based on a percentage of the business’ sales, whole building leases could be subject to a Request for Proposals process “intended to optimize leasehold occupancy and the self-sustainability of the airport” and subleases would be prohibited unless authorized by the City.
Also included in the guidelines are several environmental and other standards tenants must meet.
Pastucha wrote, “The Guidelines identify programs that mitigate, as much as possible, environmental impacts to the community and maintain the viability of the Airport Fund (consisting of revenue collected through tenants] ... while the legal constraints on the City’s authority to control the airport and airport usage is resolved.”

Rivals Trade Accusations of Deception in Airport Ballot Battle

2014-08-08T10:52:00.000-07:00

from surfsantamonica.com

By Jonathan Friedman
Associate Editor

August 8, 2014 --

Power to the people and don’t be misled by the tricks of the other side is the battlecry for both ends of the Santa Monica Airport debate appearing in arguments for and against the two ballot measures that will go before voters in November.

In its arguments, which were released this week, the group that favors a measure requiring voter approval for all changes to the airport and opposes a rival City-created proposal kept with its campaign message it started a few months ago that its measure would prevent high-density development from coming to the property.

“Remember, airport land protects the entire city of Santa Monica from high-rise canyons like Century City because it limits development on surrounding land from the beach to the Westside,” the group wrote. “The politicians say Santa Monica voters shouldn’t decide an issue as complex as closing the airport for redevelopment.”

Opponents have called this message misleading and a cover for what they say is the real purpose of the measure – to keep the airport open indefinitely. They note that the measure, which was approved for the ballot after 9,800 registered voters signed a petition, does not address development.

“This ‘decoy’ ballot initiative is yet another in a long line of outsider attempts to control our airport parkland,” the opposition wrote. “The federal government, aircraft corporations, shopping center developers, and now, national lobbyists, all have manipulated the system to divert Santa Monica from realizing our grandparents’ dream for this land – a public park for recreational use.”

Meanwhile, the rival measure approved for the ballot last month through a unanimous vote of the City Council, addresses development. It says nothing could be built on the property (except parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities) “until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.”

The rival measure also says the council could not be prevented from making changes to the airport, including possibly closure. There are varying legal opinions on what would happen if both measures pass, including that whichever one receives the most votes would go into effect.

Supporters of the pro-airport measure say they do not believe the rival proposal gives enough power to the voters.

“They try to deceive by saying we can vote on some things but not others,” the pro-airport group wrote. “They say you will have a voice on their high-density plans. Then they make false promises about parks. But on the real issue – redeveloping 227 acres of land – the politicians, not the voters, are left in control.”
Signatures attached to the arguments in favor of the pro-airport measure and opposing the City-created proposal are all from Santa Monica residents. None has a political or any other type of title and are listed simply as “resident.”

A list of resident supporters is a sharp contrast to how opponents have portrayed the campaign as one being funded by outside interests. As of last month, the pro-airport campaign has been supported by more than $260,000, mostly coming from the Washington D.C.-based National Business Aviation Association and the Baltimore-Baltimore-based Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (“Airport Supporters Raise Over $260,000 for Ballot Battle,” July 29, 2014).

Opponents noted the outside money in their arguments.
“Hardly your neighbors, this outside special interest group has everything to gain, including perpetual preservation of their sweet-deal facilities and landing rights,” opponents wrote. “What do we get? A 30 percent yearly increase in luxury jet traffic that spews air and noise pollution across our neighborhoods.”

Among those signing the opposition’s arguments were City Councilmembers Ted Winterer, Gleam Davis and Tony Vazquez as well as neighborhood activist leaders Zina Josephs and Mary Marlow.

The proponents also look to 2015, when they believe the airport can close based on the agreement signed in 1984 between the City and the Federal Aviation Administration. Others say the airport could not close any sooner than 2023 (“Santa Monica Airport Proponents Gain Star Power in Complaint,” July 4, 2014).

Many people, including City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, say airport closure will be determined in a courtroom.

Rebuttals to the ballot measure arguments are due later this month.

Both Sides of Airport Debate Say They Support Residents

2014-06-27T19:01:00.003-07:00

from surfsantamonica.com

		The Pico Branch Library, 2201 Pico Boulevard, is now open Harding, Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP When one lives in a city as breathtakinglybeautiful and unique as Santa Monica, inevitably that city will be shared with visitors.
By Jonathan Friedman Associate Editor June 27, 2014 -- Aviation interests who want nearly all Santa Monica Airport decisions to go before voters are repeating their earlier claim that opposition from City officials is due to a plan for major redevelopment on the property. Anti-airport activists and a City Council member say the allegation is not true. A press release was issued this week from a group called Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions in opposition to the City Council’s instruction on Tuesday to the City attorney that she and her staff draft a ballot measure to compete with one sponsored by the group and financially backed by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). “This new tactic is a charade, just the latest attempt by City politicians to achieve their development plans while keeping voters out of it,” said John Jerabek, board member of Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions, according to the press release. While the group’s proposal calls for a requirement that nearly all changes to the airport receive voter approval, the City’s measure would only have residents decide on full closure of the facility and future development on the property, which is owned by the Santa Monica government. Although the City’s measure would give voters an opportunity to decide on development of the property, Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions maintains it is an attempt to keep residents out of the discussion. “Our message for City politicians is clear,” said Jerabek, according to the press release. “If the City has a plan for 227 acres of the most valuable land on the Westside, let them get it approved by Santa Monica voters. It’s that simple.“ Airport2Park, a group that wants a park built on the airport property, issued a press release saying Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions is actually being dishonest. “The council asked the City attorney to prepare a proposal that that would address concerns about development, while allowing the City to continue to manage the airport,” Airport2Park wrote. “The AOPA, obviously concerned that voters will realize the aviation lobby is the real ‘special interest,’ not city residents, is already crying foul.” City Councilmember Kevin McKeown had challenging words for Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions in an email response to a question from The Lookout. “The special interests who profit from squatting on land owned by Santa Monicans clearly hope voters won’t notice that the only place ‘development’ is addressed in their efforts is in the deliberately deceptive name of their committee, which more properly should be ‘People Who Want To Keep The Airport Absolutely Unchanged Because It Benefits Us Personally.’” He continued, “Our community initiative will not only specify real limits on development at the airport, which the AOPA measure does not, but allow us to continue on whatever path our community supports to deal with airport safety and air quality concerns.” The people behind the AOPA-supported measure say they collected thousands more signatures than the amount required to qualify for the ballot. County officials are determining if there are enough. The council must approve the City’s measure at its July 22 meeting for it to qualify for the November ballot. The City attorney is expected to present proposed language to the council at the July 8 meeting.

Airport petitioners claim to have more than 12k signatures

2014-05-24T13:39:00.000-07:00

from smdp.com

By David Mark Simpson on May 23, 2014 in News

SMO – The group that wants to put future decisions about the Santa Monica Airport to a vote claims they have the signatures they need.

David Shaby, who is not a Santa Monica resident, sits on the board of Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development and says they have more than 12,000 signatures. They may turn them in to county officials by June 9, he said. To make the ballot, roughly 9,100 signatures from registered Santa Monica voters will have to be verified.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a national aviation advocacy group, gave $20,000 to the group, at least $10,000 of which went to paying signature gatherers.

Shaby takes issue with those who call it the “AOPA petition,” claiming that his group is a grassroots organization. Repeated calls to the filers of the petition have gone unreturned and Shaby acknowledges that the signature gatherers are paid.

The initiative asks that any major changes to the airport, and any major development decisions in the area, be put to a public vote.

Earlier this year City Council voted to study options for downsizing the airport.

Many residents, neighborhood groups, and the city’s largest political party, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, have vocally opposed the group’s ballot initiative.

The petition is also under legal fire; 11 residents filed a lawsuit against the filers and City Hall, claiming that the initiative is “deceptive.”

Some residents have claimed that the signature gatherers are uninformed, framing the petition as purely a measure to stop massive development in the area.

Mid-City Neighbors sent an e-mail to its members asking them to contact City Hall if they signed the petition in error.

Santa Monica City Clerk Sarah Gorman confirmed that more than 33 residents have asked that their names be removed from the list of signatures.

Earlier this year, residents gathered more than 13,000 signatures in opposition to the now-repealed Hines development agreement. In that case, Gorman said, there were no requests from residents to have their names removed from the list.

“We’ve got 12,000 signatures so we’re not all that worried about 33,” Shaby said.

Shaby said he couldn’t comment on the claim that some signature-gatherers are misinformed but did say that he met an “extremely bright” out-of-state attorney who was soliciting for signatures.

This woman told Shaby some people created human blocks to stop her from gathering signatures and that she’d had the pen ripped from her hand.

When asked why they plan to wait until June to turn the signatures in, Shaby said they want to make a statement.

“There’s this vocal group of antis,” he said, “but we want to show council and the antis that there’s a lot of support for this initiative.”

Council is considering adding its own measure to the ballot that would require a public vote for any significant development in the area of the airport. This measure, unlike the AOPA-backed measure, would keep the future airport changes in the hands of elected officials rather than requiring a public vote.

The airport has long been a center of controversy in the city by the sea, with local residents complaining about the noise and pollution created by the planes. Some fear for their safety with homes located about 300 feet from the runway.

Proponents of the airport point to a City Hall-financed study that shows that the airport generates $275 million annually for the local economy. In the event of a large emergency, they say, the airport would be key.

The Federal Aviation Administration and City Hall disagree on the expiration date of some agreements that dictate the future of the airport. That one key agreement expires in July of next year is not disputed.

Closing SMO - FAQ

2014-05-13T09:46:00.001-07:00

from smvotersdecide.com

Frequently Asked Questions

The future of the 227 acre Santa Monica Airport is an important community issue. City politicians have proven they cannot be trusted on the matter. We think voters should decide!

Q. What does the Charter Amendment do?

This charter amendment requires a vote of the people before Santa Monica Airport land can be redeveloped for other purposes.
Q. Why is this important?

Santa Monica Airport and Business Park are low-density land uses that generate business, jobs and tax revenue for the City.

The 227 acre airport property is one of the most desirable undeveloped, large parcels in Southern California. Major international financial and developer consortiums have their eyes on the property.

The City’s recent approval of a large high-density development (Bergamot Transit Village) completely disregarded the concerns of nearby residents and the people of Santa Monica. The people and Santa Monicans for Voter Choice are fighting back by seeking a vote of the people before any decisions are made on redeveloping the airport.
Q. Why can’t we trust the City to do the right thing?

Over the years, city politicians and special interests have sought to convert the airport to many different uses, including affordable housing, a campus, a transit center and other schemes that would increase density and create new problems.

Each time they failed. And, each time they have exposed city taxpayers to costly and lengthy lawsuits.
Q. Who is backing the Charter Amendment?

The amendment is backed by Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions, a citizens committee of pilots, airport businesses, and Santa Monicans who want to ensure that this low density land use is not redeveloped by special interests and developers. We believe the voters should have their say first.
Q. But doesn’t the City support turning the airport into a park?

No. The City has stated that it does not have the resources to develop and maintain such valuable property for low-density use, like a park. Instead, a recent City report says that once closed, Airport land would likely be redeveloped for higher density uses, bringing more traffic, noise and air pollution.
Q. Isn’t the airport is a nuisance?

The airport hosts 175 businesses, employing 1,500 people. And the Airport has already instituted strict rules to reduce noise, hours of operation, and to restrict the type of aircraft allowed. Closing the airport would mean a loss of significant tax revenue, shutting down businesses, and terminating hundreds of good family-wage jobs. The airport is working to be a good neighbor and closing it would impose huge costs on the City, which means taxpayers would pay again.
Q. Does the Charter Amendment “tie the City’s hands” on the airport question?

No. The Charter Amendment simply says that voter approval of any City decision to close or partially close the airport to change the land use is required before the City’s decision can go into effect. Unless voters approve a change, the City must continue to leave the land in airport use.

New website gathers support for Santa Monica

2014-05-09T12:41:00.001-07:00

from aopa.org

May 8, 2014 By Elizabeth A Tennyson

A new website launched May 8 is making it easier for those who want to preserve Santa Monica Municipal Airport to show their support for a proposed charter amendment that would put any decisions to redevelop airport land in the hands of the voters.

The Santa Monica Voters Decide website answers common questions about the amendment, provides the text of the proposal, and allows visitors to register their support and make financial contributions to the amendment campaign.

“SMO is a valuable community asset and Santa Monica residents deserve to have a voice in its future. We fully support this proposed charter amendment because it would let voters, not developers or politicians, make the decisions about any plans to redevelop airport property,” said Bill Dunn, AOPA vice president of airports.

Dunn and Greg Pecoraro, AOPA vice president of airport and state advocacy, recently spent four days in Santa Monica, meeting with community leaders, local aviation advocates, and airport business owners and tenants to discuss the proposed amendment.

“The effort to get this issue on the ballot is really gaining momentum and we’re pleased to see so many aviation supporters getting engaged with this fight,” said Dunn. “Several thousand individuals have already signed the petition to put the amendment on the ballot, but many more signatures are needed to ensure the measure gets to voters in the next local elections.”

Santa Monica residents are encouraged to sign the petition now being circulated at public locations citywide.

AOPA has been heavily engaged in efforts to preserve the airport, which delivers some $250 million in annual economic impact, hosts 175 businesses, and is responsible for 1,500 jobs in the city. The field also serves as a vital general aviation reliever airport in the congested L.A. Basin. The fate of the airport has broader significance as well. More than 200 airports nationwide operate under similar agreements with the federal government. If Santa Monica is allowed to disregard its obligations and close the airport, other fields could suffer a similar fate.

Share on facebook Share on google_plusone_share Share on twitter Share on pinterest_share Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 0

Topics Advocacy, Airport Advocacy, Airport

Click here to view the AOPA commenting policy

Letters: What to do with Santa Monica's airport

2014-03-31T21:07:00.000-07:00

from latimes

March 30, 2014

Santa Monica Airport, pictured above, is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Citing safety concerns, pollution and noise, many nearby residents have called on officials to close or significantly scale back the facility. ( Los Angeles Times)

Re "City moves to close airport," March 27

One wonders how long residents of Santa Monica will put up with a City Council that continues to waste time and money on fruitless attempts to close or cripple the city's small airport. These costly efforts to mollify a tiny band of airport opponents who rue their decisions to purchase homes in the vicinity of the airport have gone on for decades and have resulted only in a reduction in revenues from operating the facility.

As a neighbor who has lived 1,000 feet from the runway for 29 years, I do hear intermittent airport traffic. But I also hear jets approaching LAX, lawn mowers, leaf blowers and vehicle noise.

The airport is a community asset, not a liability, and its closure would result in nuisances far outweighing those we endure now simply as city dwellers and airport neighbors.

Bart Everett

Los Angeles

The Federal Aviation Administration is obstructing the efforts of Santa Monica residents to close their airport.

Have we forgotten that the FAA is not a private entity that can do what-ever it feels like? It is part of the federal government, which is there to do what the people want. If the people's representatives go to the president and say, "We want to close the airport," the president ought to tell the FAA, "Do it, and stop arguing."

Rory Johnston

Los Angeles

The Santa Monica City Council wants to improve safety by making the airport runway shorter. I see. Santa Monica residents should know they have a higher chance of getting murdered in their city than of being killed by a plane.

The problem exists because of improper zoning that allowed homes to be built far too close to the airport — which, by the way, was there first.

Jack Keady

Pilots: Don’t starve us, work with us

2014-03-06T09:29:00.003-08:00

from smdp.com

By David Mark Simpson on March 5, 2014 in Transportation

CLOSER LOOK: (L-R) Kim and Brian Davidson inspect a plane at their repair shop at SMO. (Daniel Archuleta daniela@smdp.com)

SMO — Pilots and aviation workers are skeptical of the Airport Commission’s recent recommendation to effectively starve out pilots at the Santa Monica Airport.

Last month, the commission voted 4 to 1 to send a recommendation to City Council that City Hall stop selling aviation fuel and stop offering leases at the airport to anyone other than artists and those involved in light manufacturing after July of 2015 when a 1984 agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to expire.

The commission’s chair noted at the meeting that this would deter most pilots from choosing SMO.

The commission’s decision is not the final world but an advisory to the council members, who will likely consider the issue later this month.

A judge recently rejected a lawsuit filed by City Hall against the FAA to determine who controls the airport.

Residents have long complained about the airport’s impact on their quality of life and safety, saying it wasn’t built to handle the influx of jet traffic and has no runway safety areas to protect against bad landings or takeoffs. Residents living in the Los Angeles side of the airport say exhaust from propeller planes and jets is creating a health hazard.

Those in favor of keeping the airport, which they say can be an economic engine for Santa Monica and be a valuable asset following a natural or manmade disaster, want the anti-airport folks to give it a rest.

“If they lost the lawsuit, they sued and lost, then it’s going to be here,” said Kim Davidson, 63, who owns a large repair station at the airport. “The next step is working together to do this. The next step is making this the greenest airport we can. These people want to make the next step to snub everyone at the airport. There are plenty of people over here who are willing to sit down and talk. We can keep fighting but fighting isn’t going to do anything.”

In anticipation of the 1984 contract expiration, city officials have set most airport property leases to expire within the next year. For Davidson, who’s been repairing planes at the airport for 34 years, the lease situation is hard to think about. He acknowledged that he is concerned.

“So are my nine employees and their wives and kids,” he said. “I don’t know what to say. It’s not a good spot to be in. People say they can move down to San Diego. Well their wives have jobs here. That’s what greed does. It’s all about the big dollars and it makes you forget about the working people.”

Ken Mead, an attorney for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), said that the recent court decision doesn’t deal directly with the issue of starvation but that City Hall is still required to operate an airport.

“Now what does that mean?” he asked. “It means safe.”

While contracts might not officially require City Hall to provide aviation fuel or lease to aviation tenants, all the restrictions could be interpreted as an airport closure.

“There comes a point when that is a de facto shutdown that imperils the airport’s safe and efficient operations,” Mead said. “I think they should be very cautious about stepping into this area. I think they have already stepped into it to a degree and they ought to be revisiting their decisions.”

Mead said City Hall’s recently increased landing fees could be interpreted as an early attempt to starve out pilots.

City Hall doesn’t accept airport funds or passenger fees, the revocation of which are the normal penalty for contract violations with the FAA.

“At most airports in this country, when there’s an issue like this, the federal government says ‘all right, you’re just not going to get your money.’” he said. “In the case of the Santa Monica Airport, they don’t seem to want the money.”

Mead was careful to be clear that he wasn’t speaking on behalf of the FAA — which declined to comment for this story given the possibility for ongoing litigation — but he did say there are several ways to go about challenging any restrictive measures.

“I think there’s different legal avenues,” he said. “You could get a declaratory judgment, which is where a court just decides and there isn’t an injunction.”

Airport Commission Chair David Goddard suggested last month that with the expiration of the ‘84 agreement, City Hall would no longer be required to maintain a 5,000-foot runway. They opted not to recommend cutting down the runway, Goddard said, because it was the better political move. Reducing the length of the runway would prevent larger jets from using it.

Katie Pribyl, a spokesperson for AOPA, agreed.

“It’s a major safety concern,” she said. “I don’t think they want that on their hands. A longer runway is a safer runway and if one of their arguments is safety, whittling back the size of the runway is totally contrary to that.”

Robert Rowbotham, president of Friends of Santa Monica Airport or FOSMO, largely declined to comment noting that his mother taught him that if he didn’t have anything nice to say, he shouldn’t say anything at all.

He did offer one thought on behalf of FOSMO: “It just sounds like another desperate attempt by a desperate commission looking to do whatever it can to hurt aviation in Santa Monica.”

dave@smdp.com

Airport Commission recommends starving SMO

2014-03-04T17:07:00.000-08:00

from smdp.com

By David Mark Simpson on March 3, 2014 in News

SMO — Last month a judge tossed City Hall’s lawsuit against the federal government over the future of Santa Monica Airport but advocates say that was just a lost battle in a larger war.

One tact, they say, could involve essentially starving the airport of all but the runway.

Last week, the Airport Commission voted 4 to 1 to send a recommendation to City Council that would halt the sale of aviation fuel and restrict the rental of airport property to any tenants others than art studios and those doing light manufacturing. They also suggested raising all rents to market rate.

Advocates believe the approach, with its lack of services, could make it nearly impossible for pilots to actively use the airport. It could also lead to a decisive lawsuit between City Hall and the FAA, forcing a final determination of who truly controls the land.

Neighbors of the airport have long complained of the noise and pollution created by jets and propellor planes. Others fear for their safety, with homes located about 300 feet from the edge of the runway. Last year, a jet skidded off the runway and into a hangar, killing all four people on board.

Last month a judge threw out a lawsuit filed by City Hall against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). City officials could still appeal or take other actions but they say they are still considering their options.

The FAA and City Hall differ on when the airport lease expires, with the former claiming it’s in 2023, 20 years after City Hall accepted $250,000 in grants from the FAA. City officials claim the contract ends in July of 2015 with the expiration of a 1984 agreement.

Either way, Airport Commissioner David Goddard said, the 1984 agreement contains key provisions that will no longer be in effect.

One expiring provision, that City Hall must maintain the 5,000-foot runway, is not being tested by the commission, Goddard said. Advocates of closing the airport claim that City Hall could start whittling down the size of the runway, making it less attractive to pilots.

“We looked at all our options and then selected the one that was most politically viable,” Goddard said.

Another option would allow City Hall to zone-out all but uses by art studios and light manufacturing companies. Several years ago City Hall tried and failed to stop heavier jets from landing at SMO. They were found to be inappropriately discriminating against the heavier jets. Council likely could not simply discriminate against aviation tenants, Goddard said, but stricter requirements across the board to occupy the properties could be acceptable.

Commissioner Stephen Mark questioned whether or not they would be able to maintain safety at the airport if all aviation services were zoned out. Goddard responded that licensed off-site mechanics would be allowed to come to the airport if a pilot needed emergency repair.

“You’re going to get a lot less air traffic here and a lot more people diverting to other airports where those services are readily available,” he said. “You may get someone who flies in to get lunch at Typhoon and then they’re going to fly out but otherwise they aren’t going to be there because there are no services to attract them.”

If the FAA does conduct an administrative hearing and interprets one of the many active agreements to mean that City Hall still has to provide aviation services, Goddard said, the only penalties listed are the revocation of airport funds and passenger fees. These conditions are moot, he said, because City Hall doesn’t take FAA funds or charge passenger fees.

Commissioner Suzanne Paulson asked why, if the penalties are moot, did City Hall agree to comply with the agreement with the FAA regarding the jet weights. Deputy City Attorney Ivan Campbell explained that the two parties reached a settlement in that case but that penalties are not the only consideration.

“Even though you correctly point out that if we’re found in violation, you list the penalties, but there’s a bigger frame of reference that we’re working under,” he said. “I don’t think it’s any policy or practice of (City Hall) to intentionally violate its obligations under its contractual arrangements or agreements.”

Goddard is not sure when the issue might go before council but City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said that she could not comment on suggestions from the community until city officials release the staff report for an upcoming public hearing.

dave@smdp.com

Letter: Airport poses no significant threat

2013-11-15T17:01:00.001-08:00

from smdp.com

Airport poses no significant threat

By Admin on November 13, 2013 in Opinion

Editor:

It’s high time to clear the air with regard to the so-called “Santa Monica-connected” aviation accidents people have been bandying about recently (“The saga of Santa Monica Airport,” Our Town, Nov. 12). These are a compendium of accidents and incidents occurring between 1982 and 2011, a period of 29 years, which are alleged to demonstrate that Santa Monica Airport is unsafe. Indeed, they show just the opposite.

First of all, this list includes Santa Monica-based aircraft involved in accidents occurring outside of the city and local area. What possible significance does that have? There is no Santa Monica connection with accidents occurring elsewhere, just as there is no pertinent Santa Monica connection with automobile accidents occurring in other cites and states involving cars operated by Santa Monica residents. Remember that pilot training and regulation is a federal prerogative, not a local one, and is uniform throughout the nation.

Of the 83 incidents listed, 15 occurred in the local airport area; on average, one every other year. It is a fact that no one on the ground here in Santa Monica has died in the last 95 years as a result of aviation operations at SMO. These represent a minuscule fraction of operations here and are clearly not justification to declare the airport unsafe. With regard to accidents occurring within the confines of the airport proper, that is not unusual, nor is it unexpected and it does not translate into a threat to the surrounding communities.

If anything, these numbers serve only to emphasize how safe operations at SMO really are. By comparison, for the year 2008, there were 701 traffic-related deaths and injuries on the streets of Santa Monica and there were 681 in 2010, making Santa Monica the most dangerous in California for its size. Traffic fatalities average about three per year. In 29 years that works out to about 87 deaths and about 20,000 injuries for the same interval. If the airport did, in fact, represent a threat to local residents, one could reasonably expect life insurance to cost more for nearby residents, or property values near the airport to be depressed, but this is not the case.

It would be time better spent for those people who are truly interested in risk management around Santa Monica to watch where they are going and not waste time looking up at the sky and fretting about aircraft that pose no significant threat to them.

Bill Worden

Venice, Calif.

Lawsuit filed against pilot in Santa Monica Airport crash

2013-11-07T22:29:00.003-08:00

from scpr.org

AP | November 6th, 2013, 9:00am

Nick Ut/AP

Two cranes are set in position to lift the wrecked hangar buildings off the remains of a crashed jet plane, before investigators try to retrieve remains and the jet's cockpit voice recorder at the airport in Santa Monica, Calif., on Monday, Sept. 30, 2013. A lawsuit against the estate of the pilot, who died in the crash, has been filed on behalf of the family of one of the passengers who were killed.

0 Comments

Add your comments

The family of a woman killed when a private jet crashed into a hangar at Santa Monica Airport in September has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the pilot who also died in the accident.

KCBS-TV reports the suit was filed Tuesday on behalf of Kyla Dupont's three sons. The suit claims pilot Mark Benjamin negligently maintained, controlled and landed the twin-engine Cessna which crashed Sept. 29, killing all four people aboard.

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

A preliminary investigative report by the National Transportation Safety Board provides no indication of why the aircraft crashed.

Santa Monica officials sued the Federal Aviation Administration last month to gain control of the city's embattled airport, which local groups want to turn into a park.

City Hall Sues FAA Over Future of Santa Monica Airport

2013-11-02T21:44:00.000-07:00

from surfsantamonica.com

		Harding, Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP
By Jason Islas Staff Writer November 1, 2013 -- City Hall announced Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish local control over the future of Santa Monica’s controversial airport. Santa Monica has petitioned federal courts to declared that the City has full title to the 227-acre parcel on which the airport sits and, therefore, the FAA’s claim that the City is required to operate the land as an airport for “in perpetuity” is unconstitutional. “The bottom line is we need to be in control of the airport’s future,” Mayor Pam O’Connor told The Lookout Thursday. “We think we have a good case.” Much of that case hinges on the fact that, in 1984 the City agreed to operate the land as an airport until at least 2015 in order to settle a dispute with the FAA over whether the City could cap airplane operations at the airport. With the end of that agreement approaching, City Hall feels that it is in a strong position to assert its right to take control -- and possibly close -- the airport. In preparation of the upcoming end of the 1984 agreement, the City held a three-year visioning process which officials said was the largest in the city’s history. The decision to sue the FAA came after the Council reviewed the report last spring and directed staff to try to reach a voluntary agreement with the federal agency. ("Council Raises Landing Fees, Explores Partial Closure of Santa Monica Airport," May 2) But the FAA has reasserted its claim that the City can’t ever close the airport because of legal obligations imbedded in property transfers that occurred just after World War Two. "We met in Washington many times, and conveyed community concerns and proposed possibilities for changes, including operational changes, that could significantly reduce many of the Airport’s adverse impacts,” City Manager Rod Gould said in an official statement released Thursday. “The FAA representatives were polite and respectful. But, they were simply unwilling or unable to agree to any changes that could bring significant relief to Airport neighbors,” he said. The airport has its share of detractors, including several neighborhood groups that have sprouted up over the years to oppose to what they see as a dangerous -- and unhealthy -- use of land in their backyard. “We are excited that the City is taking the step to confirm its rights to determine the future of the airport land, which it has owned for almost a century, during most of which time it has benefited only a few Santa Monicans,” former Lookout columnist Frank Gruber said on behalf of Airport2Park.org. As a co-founder of Airport2Park.org, Gruber and his allies have advocated for the airport’s closure and for the land to be converted into a massive park. Airport2Park.org is not alone. Marty Rubin, founder of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution (CRAAP), lives in the Los Angeles neighborhood just south of the airport. He applauded the City’s decision to sue the FAA. “If this lawsuit will get us the results we need quickly then we applaud the City for taking this action,” he told The Lookout Thursday. That’s a big “if,” however, since the FAA has proven a formidable opponent in the past. Most recently, in 2008, the FAA successfully blocked City Hall’s attempt to ban jets at the airport. ("City Prepares to Respond to FAA," June, 2008) If the City loses this lawsuit, it will be back to the drawing board, said City Manager Rod Gould. O’Connor said that it is possible that the City could lose but that she’s confident. “Can the federal government say ‘for all eternity’” Santa Monica has to operate that airport? she asked rhetorically. She doubted that was likely. This time, the City might also expect to have some powerful allies in its corner for the upcoming fight. Recently, senior Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman has added his voice to the chorus calling for the FAA to at least sit down with residents to discuss the airport’s post-2015 future. ("Congressman Wants FAA Forum on Santa Monica Airport's Future," July 18) But the FAA has refused Waxman’s invitation. To help shore up its case, the City will be working with the international law firm, Morrison & Foerster (MoFo), which boasts more than 1,000 attorneys, according to City Hall. “This is the first step,” said O’Connor. “We’ll see what its outcome is.”

Santa Monica jet crash investigation starts again post-government shutdown

2013-10-19T21:41:00.003-07:00

from scpr.org

Hayley Fox | October 18th, 2013, 6:32pm

Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP

The investigation of a fatal crash that happened at the Santa Monica airport last month was put on hold during the government shutdown. Now transportation safety officials are back to work, and hope they haven't lost any "perishable" evidence in the meantime.

0 Comments

Add your comments

The investigation of a fatal crash at the Santa Monica Airport last month was put on hold because of the federal government shutdown.

Van McKenny is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator who's looking into the crash. He said most of the critical information in the case is "perishable" and needs to be gathered quickly.

"Witness statements of people who happen to be there, any debris or ground scars or skid marks on the runway that can fade over time ... things like that are the type of things we try to collect on scene that can get disrupted over time," said McKenny.

When McKenny arrived at the incident in September, he said he spent much of the time photographing the damage and collecting witness statements. But the approximately two-week government shutdown halted all work and delayed the preliminary report.

“There’s a loss of some investigative information," he said. "I hope to have minimized that with my work on scene there the day before the shutdown.”

NTSB workers were back to work on Thursday and are picking up investigations where they left off. For McKenny, this means collecting more maintenance records and re-examining the wreckage.

The private jet crashed into a hangar and burst into flames at the end of last month. The incident gave newmomentum to a community campaign to shut down the Santa Monica Airport amid safety concerns. Some residents say the noise and plane exhaust is also a nuisance.

The City of Santa Monica has tried to reduce air traffic at the airport for many years, mostly without success.

A preliminary report on the crash is expected sometime next week.

THE Q-LINE: TOO SOON?

2013-10-12T20:48:00.000-07:00

from smdp.com

Last month’s crash of a small jet at Santa Monica Airport has reignited the debate over whether or not the airport should be closed.

So, this week’s Q-Line question asked:

Do you think the crash highlights what’s wrong with the airport or was it just a tragic accident?

Here are your responses:

“I think that the crash was just a tragic accident. I’m just sick of all the people who live around the airport who want to close it down. The airport was there long before they even moved in, and they knew it was there. Now they’re trying to close it. It just doesn’t make sense. We need the Santa Monica Airport.

“I think the airport is an utmost necessity. I think that the crash was just a tragic accident. We desperately need our airport. It does a lot of good. What if there’s a major tragedy? We need that airport as an adjunct to LAX. If there’s a major tragedy, people need to get out. It is an utmost, dire necessity.”

“I think the crash was just a terrible accident. It seems that perhaps pilot error, something about mechanical failure — those kinds of things just happen throughout the city of Los Angeles and Santa Monica. You cannot prevent them. The airport is a very positive aspect of our community. It’s a wonderful space around the airport and all the things that have been added to it make it a delightful place. The landing and taking off of planes is very interesting. I do think that perhaps at night the corporation jets should be somehow made more quiet, but other than that I think it really runs well. The whole notion of trying to close the airport is just nonsense.”

“What’s wrong at the Santa Monica Airport is the jets that should never have been allowed to use it. A piston-engine aircraft would have never caused as much damage or as intense of a fire. Get rid of jets, and for emergency needs use helicopters so the length of the runway is not an issue.”

“I think the crash at the airport was just a tragic accident. The people of Santa Monica are all a bunch of whiners. They bought their houses long after the airport was already put in place. They knew the airport was there when they bought their house. Now they want to cry about it and close it down. Too bad for them. Keep the airport.”

“Yes, it was a tragic accident, but it certainly highlights what’s wrong with the airport and why we no longer need this noisy, polluting, highly dangerous neighbor. I read some disturbing statistics on what would have happened had it been a larger jet which crashed on take off. And the suggestion is that we lose several blocks of our beloved city here in Santa Monica and it’s been past time to replace it with something we can all use. Hey, how about a park? Anything would be better than those jets flying over our heads.”

“Yes, I think that the airport should be closed and the crash highlights what’s wrong with the airport; just too many airplanes coming in now. It seems it was nice and small when we first moved in 20 years ago, and now the onset of LAX not taking people that wanted to go to LAX. All that Santa Monica is doing is giving money to the planes that are disturbing to the neighbors. My other question would be, didn’t they have a law about all the people in the planes? That distresses me, as far as safety and issues regarding who is on the planes and what kind of security and safety checks the passengers are actually going through in these small airports. Because, I know at LAX, we have to go through a lot of trouble to get on a plane and everybody knows our name and has a law for everyone on that plane. So, I’d be curious to know how the security works at these airports, seeing as they didn’t know who the passengers were on the plane and I’d think that every small plane would have a log of all passengers.”

“The intensity of the jet fuel-fed fire that destroyed the plane and hangar at Santa Monica Airport underlines the danger of Santa Monica Airport being a jet landing field. This small jet killed its four passengers. Imagine what might happen if one of the many larger, faster jets that use the airport had careened off the runway or overshot the landing area. … Santa Monica Airport is not designed to safely handle the larger jets that have to land at about 150 miles an hour to keep from stalling before they touch down. They are too big and too fast. L.A.’s Van Nuys is suitable for such aircraft, but apparently it is not convenient for wealthy Westside residents and their companies.”

4th Plane Crash Victim Officially Identified as Lucas Benjamin

2013-10-08T17:03:00.005-07:00

from patch

Lucas was the 28-year-old son of Mark Benjamin. His father was flying the plane when it crashed at Santa Monica Airport on Sept. 29.

Posted by Kelly Hartog (Editor) , October 06, 2013 at 11:02 AM

A photo of the crash taken from a Mar Vista backyard. Credit: Valerie Vanderwest

By City News Service
The Los Angeles County coroner's office today publicly identified the fourth person killed in a small jet's crash last Sunday at the Santa Monica Airport.

The coroner's office today confirmed that Lucas Benjamin, 28, of Malibu, was killed in the crash, said coroner's investigator Dana Bee. Earlier, the coroner's office had released of three others killed in the crash: Lauren Winkler, 28, of and Kyla Dupont, 53, both of San Diego, and Mark Benjamin, the younger man's 63-year-old father and a Malibu resident.

The twin-engine Cessna Citation 525A, which took off in Hailey, Idaho, slammed into a hangar after veering off the runway about 6:20 p.m. Sunday as it landed, causing the structure to collapse and sparking an explosive fire that spread to two other hangars.

The elder Benjamin, president of Santa Monica-based Morley Builders, was believed to have been at the controls. Winkler worked for an organization called Save A Child's Heart, which provides free open-heart surgery in Israel to children from Africa and the Middle East, according to an article written by a friend of the woman's father. In the article, which appears on the website of Irvine-based BusinessGhost Inc., company President and CEO Michael Levin writes that Winkler was as a fundraiser and executive at Save A Child's Heart.

The cause of the crash was under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, but the probe has been delayed because of the federal government shutdown.

SoCal CEO, Son ID'd in "Unsurvivable" Santa Monica Airport Crash

2013-09-30T20:12:00.002-07:00

from nbc

Crews plan to lift a collapsed hangar from a plane that crashed and burned Sunday at Santa Monica Airport

By Jonathan Lloyd and Toni Guinyard

| Monday, Sep 30, 2013 | Updated 5:20 PM PDT

View Comments (

)

Valerie Vanderwest (via Twitter @valerierv)

A dark plume of smoke rises from Santa Monica Airport after a small jet crashed into a hangar during an attempted landing, according to FAA officials.

PHOTOS AND VIDEOS

Private Jet
Crashes, Burns at Santa...

PHOTOS
Top News
Photos: Los Angeles

Officials: Fire not contained after crash at Santa Monica Airport

2013-09-29T21:47:00.001-07:00

from latimes

By Laura J. Nelson

September 29, 2013, 9:31 p.m.

A fire at the Santa Monica Airport that started when a small jet crashed into a hangar Sunday night has spread to two hangars nearby and is burning uncontained, authorities told The Times.

A two-engine Cessna that took off from Hailey, Idaho, landed at the airport around 6:20 p.m., veered off the right side of the runway and struck a storage hangar, authorities said. The jet and the hangar burst into flames during the crash, officials said, and the hangar partially collapsed on top of the jet.

Authorities have not been able to access the wreckage or see the plane’s tail number, sources told The Times; that has made it more difficult to access the plane’s records or know who was onboard.

The Fire Department dispatched six fire engines and four ambulances, but none took victims to the hospital, spokeswoman Bridgett Lewis said. She could not say whether the jet was inside the first hangar at the time it collapsed.

It is unknown how many people were aboard the plane at the time it crashed. Lewis declined to comment on injuries or deaths.

The flames burned at a higher temperature than most fires because jet fuel was involved, Lewis said. The flames then spread to two hangars nearby and caused minor damage.

Advocates for pollution controls near the airport said they were concerned that the fire could spread to homes nearby.

"This is a warning of the potential that this airport has to do harm to the closely surrounding, highly populated neighborhoods," said Martin Rubin, who directs Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution.

The Cessna business jet is registered to Creative Real Estate Exchange LLC, a real-estate company based in Alabama and Georgia, according to the firm's website. The owner of the plane lives in Malibu, according to FAA records.

The plane had made eight flights since Sept. 15, according to flight tracking websites, including four between Hailey and Santa Monica.

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash at the scene, officials said.

ALSO:

Small plane crashes into hangar at Santa Monica Airport

Local pilot reported missing after his plane crashes in China

Pilot injured when plane crashes onto Rancho Palos Verdes beach

laura.nelson@latimes.com

He clearly loves his vintage collection! Harrison Ford flies a rare military training aircraft from 1930s - the same day he drives his classic 1955 Jaguar

2013-09-19T20:21:00.000-07:00

from dailymail.uk.co

They say some things improve with age - which is a maxim Hollywood actor Harrison Ford clearly agrees with.

The 71-year-old star proudly displayed two items from his vintage collection of vehicles as he enjoyed a day off in California, earlier this week.

He was seen co-piloting an 80 year-old military training aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport in Los Angeles on Wednesday - the same day he drove a rare 1955 Jaguar.

Taking off: Harrison Ford was spotted co-piloting a military training aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport in Los Angeles, on Wednesday

Style: Harrison Ford cruises around Santa Monica behind the wheel of his 1954 Jaguar XK140 while running errands

Green with envy: The bottle-green car is a favourite with motor enthusiasts around the world

Looking fit: The 71-year-old actor showed off his trim physique in a tight T-shirt for the day of flying

The monoplane was a Ryan PT-22 Recruit, once favoured by the United States Army Air Corps as a training tool.

More...

It was designed in the 1930's and entered service in 1940. By the end of its production more than 1270 models had been made and most remained in service until the end of World War Two.

According to plane enthusiasts, the Ryan PT-22 Recruit was also used by China and Ecuador as a military trainer.

Meanwhile, the actor arrived at his day of flight practise in his $150,000 1955 Jaguar XK 140.

Catching air: The septuagenarian took the California skies in a Ryan PT-22 Recruit

Preparing for take-off: The Fugitive star co-piloting the military training craft

The pristinely kept classic car seems to be a favourite of the American icon's stable of vehicles as he has been seen numerous time behind the wheel of the gorgeous machine.

But even more telling was his choice in aircraft.

The Ryan PT-22 Recruit is a model of simple and elegant design, featuring spruce spars in the wings and rudder pedals outfitted in each cockpit.

He loves the classics: Ford arrived for his day of flying in his prized $150,000 1955 Jaguar XK 140

Taking a backseat: The actor had a comrade piloting the plane with him

For the flight, Mr Ford donned a brown leather pilot's cap that looked to be taken straight out of a WWI aviator's wardrobe.

Adorning the fit septuagenarian's toned torso was a yellow T-shirt as he wore, appropriately enough, aviator sunglasses.

Completing his getup was a pair of dark blue jeans and sporty looking trainers.

Head gear: The Hollywood legend wore a leather piloting cap for his venture into the air

The star was clearly utilising the piloting and street racing skills he garnered over his long film career as he navigated the clear skies overlooking Los Angeles.

One of the actor's first screen roles was in the George Lucas 1973 nostalgia film American Graffiti, where he played a hayseed underground street racer.

His turn as Bob Falfa earned him a special place in Lucas' heart, leading to bigger and greater roles.

He's got experience: Harrison shot to fame as sci fi pilot Han Solo in the 1977 epic Star Wars, pictured in the Millenium Falcon with Carrie Fisher

Following American Graffiti, Harrison went on to play Han, whose junk yard space vehicle shot him to fame as a macho loner and futuristic gearhead.

Meanwhile, Harrison has been hard at work recently, shooting scenes for the Anchorman sequel in New Orleans and promoting new film 42.

He's also starring in sci-fi young adult epic Ender's Game set to hit theatres on November 1, but is staying tight-lipped about his return to the Star Wars franchise.

Quite the change: The flying wreck of the Millenium Falcon is a far cry from his perfectly maintained Army plane

The father-of-five recently admitted that he still loves acting and isn't planning to retire any time soon.

'I love being with the people who make movies,' he said at a recent press conference. 'I like the problem solving aspect of filmmaking.

'I like the emotional and intellectual exercise I get from it. It’s my utility in life. So my ambition is to continue to be useful.'

Speaking about his marriage to Calista Flockhart, who is 22 years his junior, he said: 'Keeping up with me is fairly easy. Putting up with me is a little bit more difficult.

He's made a career of it: Ford's classic Jaguar is in keeping with his first role as a hayseed hot rod enthusiast Bob Falfa in the 1973 film American Graffiti

But Ford has recently suffered the worst film flop of his career.

The veteran star's latest film Paranoia took just $3.5m at the box office on its opening weekend.

The thriller finished 13th out of all the films on release in US cinemas.

Out of the 60 films he has made since his breakout role in Star Wars in 1977 his latest effort is the worst performing.

Santa Monica Airport Foes Want To Turn It Into a Park

2013-09-07T17:13:00.001-07:00

from curbed.com

Thursday, September 5, 2013, by Eve Bachrach

Neighbors have been gunning for the Santa Monica Airport--favored landing spot for rich people with small airplanes--for a while now, and several groups have now joined forces to try to turn the place into a park. Rather straightforwardly, they've called their coalition Airport2Park, and it includes groups like the awesomely abbreviated CRAAP, (or, more boringly, Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution). The impetus is the looming 2015 expiration of an agreement between the city and the FAA and rising calls to close the place when it the deal ends (weirdly, people don't like living near airports). CRAAP founder Marty Rubin told the Santa Monica Lookout that his group has been campaigning for the airport to close, but was concerned about what might replace it and worried it might be "another Century City or Playa Vista." But don't worry, not everyone is picking on the poor little airport; Friends of Santa Monica Airport and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association both want to see it stay open.
· New Resident Coalition Want to Remake Santa Monica Airport into a Park[Santa Monica Lookout]
· Bigwigs, Locals, City Council to Discuss Shuttering SaMo Airport [Curbed LA]

SANTA MONICA & VENICE

Santa Monica Airport

City Hall: Aviation less valuable to the regional economy than imagined

Sierra Club Throws Support Behind Santa Monica Ballot Measure LC

POSTED OCT. 4, 2014, 7:19 AM

MIRROR STAFF

Can This Airport Be Saved?

Santa Monica Sues Heirs of Pilot That Crashed at City-Run Airport

Future of Santa Monica Airport from August 19, 2014

Airport Commission to hear from tenants

Flight Schools Could Face Greater Restrictions at Santa Monica Airport

Rivals Trade Accusations of Deception in Airport Ballot Battle

Both Sides of Airport Debate Say They Support Residents

Airport petitioners claim to have more than 12k signatures

Closing SMO - FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What does the Charter Amendment do?

Q. Why is this important?

Q. Why can’t we trust the City to do the right thing?

Q. Who is backing the Charter Amendment?

Q. But doesn’t the City support turning the airport into a park?

Q. Isn’t the airport is a nuisance?

Q. Does the Charter Amendment “tie the City’s hands” on the airport question?

New website gathers support for Santa Monica

Letters: What to do with Santa Monica's airport

Pilots: Don’t starve us, work with us

Airport Commission recommends starving SMO

Letter: Airport poses no significant threat

Lawsuit filed against pilot in Santa Monica Airport crash

Nick Ut/AP

0 Comments

City Hall Sues FAA Over Future of Santa Monica Airport

Santa Monica jet crash investigation starts again post-government shutdown

Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP

0 Comments

THE Q-LINE: TOO SOON?

4th Plane Crash Victim Officially Identified as Lucas Benjamin

SoCal CEO, Son ID'd in "Unsurvivable" Santa Monica Airport Crash

Crews plan to lift a collapsed hangar from a plane that crashed and burned Sunday at Santa Monica Airport

By Jonathan Lloyd and Toni Guinyard

| Monday, Sep 30, 2013 | Updated 5:20 PM PDT

Officials: Fire not contained after crash at Santa Monica Airport

He clearly loves his vintage collection! Harrison Ford flies a rare military training aircraft from 1930s - the same day he drives his classic 1955 Jaguar

More...

Share or comment on this article

Santa Monica Airport Foes Want To Turn It Into a Park