Ted Lieu 33rd CA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 8, 2015        
CONTACT: Jack d’Annibale | | 202-225-3976


Los Angeles – Today, Congressman Lieu, joined by Congresswoman Bass (CA-37) hosted a meeting in Washington, DC between their constituents and senior Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials.  This meeting followed an invitation to meet, which was made at the March 24 Santa Monica City Council meeting.  Attendees at the meeting included Santa Monica Mayor Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Vazquez, Santa Monica Councilmember Sue Himmelrich and sixteen other CA-33 constituents who flew to Washington, DC from Los Angeles.

After the meeting, Congressman Lieu made the following statement:

“The serious safety, environmental, and health concerns of the Santa Monica Airport date back for several decades.  After a meeting with the FAA was announced, my office received over one thousand comment forms from constituents citing the everyday risks they face as they go about their lives.  Whether it is a mother concerned about her child suffering from lead exposure, a husband worried about his wife’s asthma, or families simply trying to sleep at night, the problems my constituents face on a daily basis are real  and hazardous.  I am grateful to my constituents for flying all the way to Washington, DC to take part in this meeting, and I thank the FAA for agreeing to listen to them.  Today was a productive meeting where each attendee personally shared their story with the FAA face to face.  I hope that the FAA will heed the concerns brought forth today and work to address the issues.”

Additional Statements:

“As Mayor, my primary responsibility is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Santa Monica.  Santa Monica Airport endangers our residents and our resources.  What was once a grass landing strip in the midst of bean fields is now often described as “an aircraft carrier in a sea of homes.”  The exceptionally close proximity of the runway and residents’ homes presents unacceptable safety risks.”

–Kevin McKeown, Mayor of Santa Monica, California

“I have been involved with addressing SMO’s negative impacts for more than 15 years.  Air quality studies have monitored very high levels of SMO aircraft pollutants within the downwind Los Angeles community of North Westdale where homes are located less than 300 feet from the jet blast. Please understand that this is a critical public health concern that deserves immediate attention.  I thank Congressman Lieu for his leadership on this issue. “

–Marty Rubin, Director, Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution

“We are extremely grateful to Congressman Lieu for leading the charge on this pivotal meeting with the FAA.  He has walked the neighborhoods and smelled the fumes.  Our neighbor to neighbor grassroots effort brought in considerably more than our goal of 1000 highly personal comments from concerned residents of Santa Monica and Los Angeles. A three mile radius of affected adults and children are exposed to known heath risks from ultra fines, lead and extreme noise from an airport that does not meet the FAAs own safety standards. Large jets and turboprops should not be taking off and landing over a  densely populated neighborhood with a runway less than  300’ from homes.  There is no way to make the surrounding community safe under current operation.  Since the FAA is not willing to scale this airport way back, then they need to let it go.”

–Alan Levenson, NO JETS Santa Monica Airport

“The Santa Monica Airport poses an acute danger to the residents around it, proven by the multiple plane crashes that have occurred over the years.  I thank Congressman Lieu for setting up this meeting so that we could personally inform the FAA of the seriously problems posed by the airport.”

–Joseph Schmitz, PhD, Member of Santa Monica Airport Commission

Congressman Lieu hosts a meeting in Washington, D.C. with Congressmember Karen Bass, representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), members of the Santa Monica city government, and constituents from the 33rd District.

Congressman Lieu hosts a meeting in Washington, D.C. with Congressmember Karen Bass, representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), members of the Santa Monica city government, and constituents from the 33rd District.

More photos from the meeting can be found HERE.


Congressman Ted W. Lieu serves on the House Committees on the Budget and Oversight & Government Reform. He is also the Democratic Freshman Class President and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force Reserves.


The FAA has released it’s NextGen assault plan for Southern California.


Wikipedia Commons

Phoenix is already suing since the FAA implemented that plan last winter (with zero city or community involvement) devastated 100s of thousands with noise and pollution, just so the airlines can save a very few dollars. That’s a city that took action, within months of the abuse, whereas in the city of LA, it can take decades.

New York Congressman Steve Israel calls the FAA the “Federal Arrogance Administration.” 

The San Francisco area had Jim Lyons, Mary Jane McCarthy and Frank Rothschild of Woodside and Tina Nguyen of Portola Valley filed a petition on Sept. 26, 2014 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The petition objects to findings by the FAA of no significant noise impact in an assessment of plans to optimize the future use of airspace above the Bay Area.

Here’s the website fighting NextGen –

Mayor of Phoenix and his reps. explain FAA’s policy of disregard for U.S. citizens.

See where you can send, or speak, your comments to deaf ears below:


Public Input

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the FAA has released and made available for public review a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) that has been prepared to consider the potential environmental impacts of the implementation of the Southern California Metroplex (SoCal Metroplex) project. The Draft EA was released and made available for public review and comment on Wednesday, June 10, 2015. The FAA encourages interested parties to review the SoCal Metroplex Project Draft EA, and provide written comments during the public comment period. The Draft EA is available online here and at the following locations:

Los Angeles County
Angeles Mesa Branch Library
2700 W. 52nd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90043
(323) 292-4328
Avalon Library
215 Sumner Avenue
Avalon, CA 90704
(310) 510-1050
Burbank Central Library
110 N. Glenoaks Boulevard
Burbank, CA 91502
(818) 238-5551
Calabasas Library
200 Civic Center Way
Calabasas, CA 91302
(818) 225-7616
Cerritos Public Library
18025 Bloomfield Avenue
Cerritos, CA 90703
(562) 916-1350
Compton Library
240 West Compton Boulevard
Compton, CA 90220
(310) 637-0202
Covina Public Library
234 N. Second Avenue
Covina, CA 91723
(626) 384-5300
East Los Angeles Library
4837 E 3rd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90022
(323) 264-0155
El Monte Library
3224 Tyler Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
(626) 444-9506
El Segundo Public Library
111 W. Mariposa Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 524-2722
Katy Geissert Civic Center Library
3301 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90503
(310) 618-5959
Lake Los Angeles Library
16921 E. Avenue O, #A
Palmdale, CA 93591
(661) 264-0593
Long Beach Public Library
101 Pacific Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90822
(562) 570-6016
Los Angeles Central Library*
630 W. 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 228-7000
Miraleste Library
29089 Palos Verdes Drive E.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 377-9584
Old Town Newhall Library
24500 Main Street
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
(661) 259-0750
Palmdale City Library
700 E. Palmdale Boulevard
Palmdale, CA 93550
(661) 267-5600
Santa Monica Public Library
601 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8600
Orange County
Anaheim Public Library*
500 W. Broadway
Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 765-1810
Balboa Branch Library
100 E. Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92661
(949) 644-3076
La Habra Branch Library
221 E. La Habra Boulevard
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 694-0078
Laguna Beach Branch Library
363 Glenneyre Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Main Street Library
525 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 375-5071
Santa Ana Public Library
26 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 647-5250
Riverside County
Beaumont Library District
125 E. Eighth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 845-1357
Coachella Branch Library
1538 7th Street
Coachella, CA 92236
(760) 398-5148
Palm Desert Library
73300 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-6552
Palm Springs Public Library
300 S. Sunrise Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 322-7323
Paloma Valley Library
31375 Bradley Road
Menifee, CA 92584
(951) 301-3682
Riverside Public Library*
3581 Mission Inn Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 826-5201
San Bernardino County
Big Bear Lake Branch Library
41930 Garstin Drive
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
(909) 866-5571
Ovitt Family Community Library
215 East C Street
Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 395-2004
Yucca Valley Branch Library
57098 Twentynine Palms Hwy.
Yucca Valley, CA 92284
(760) 228-5455
San Diego County
Crest Library
105 Juanita Lane El
Cajon, CA 92021
(619) 442-7083
Del Mar Branch Library
1309 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
(858) 755-1666
Escondido Public Library
239 S. Kalmia Street
Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 839-4601
Logan Heights Branch Library
567 S 28th Street
San Diego, CA 92113
(619) 533-3968
Oceanside Public Library
330 N. Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
(760) 435-5560
San Diego Central Library*
330 Park Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-5800
Santa Barbara County
Buellton Branch Library
140 W. Hwy 246
Buellton, CA 93427
(805) 688-3115
Santa Barbara Public Library
40 E. Anapamu St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 962-7653
Ventura County
Camarillo Public Library
4101 Las Posas Road
Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 388-5222
E.P. Foster Library*
651 E. Main Street
Ventura, CA 93001
(805) 648-2716
Oxnard Public Library
251 South ‘A’ Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
(805) 385-7507
Simi Valley Public Library
2969 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
(805) 526-1735

*Libraries with asterisks have hard copies of the report for public viewing. Other libraries have electronic copies for public viewing.

Written comments will be accepted by the FAA until Friday, July 10, 2015.

How to Comment
The FAA encourages interested parties to review the EA, and provide written comments during the public comment period. Written comments will be accepted by the FAA until Friday, July 10, 2015. The public is invited to comment by mail or email.

Comments can be emailed to:

Comments can be submitted by regular mail to:

SoCal Metroplex EA
Federal Aviation Administration
Western Service Center – Operations Support Group
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98057

Written comments can also be submitted at one of eleven public workshops being held throughout the SoCal Metroplex General Study Area. During the workshops, representatives from the FAA and its Consultant Team will be available to answer questions about the project. The workshops will be open-house format and participants can attend anytime at the times and locations listed below:

June 16, 2015
McFadden Intermediate School
2701 S. Raitt St.
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 17, 2015
Santa Monica Public Library
Multipurpose Room
601 Santa Monica Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 18, 2015
Proud Bird Restaurant
Grand Ballroom West
11022 Aviation Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 22, 2015
Logan Heights Library
Community Room
567 South 28th St
San Diego, CA 92113
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 23, 2015
Palm Desert Library
Community Room
73-300 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 24, 2015
Ken Miller Auditorium
3341 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90503
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 25, 2015
Beach High School
3701 E. Willow Street
Long Beach, CA 90815
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 26, 2015
Ontario International Airport
Administrative Building
1923 East Avion Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Attend anytime between:
9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
June 29, 2015
E.P. Foster Library
The Elizabeth R. Topping Room
651 East Main Street
Ventura, CA 93001
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
June 30, 2015
The Westside Neighborhood Center
423 W. Victoria Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
July 1, 2015
Burbank Community Services Building
Room 104
150 N 3rd St
Burbank, CA 91502
Attend anytime between:
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Please be aware that your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment may be made publicly available at any time. You may include in your comment a request to withhold your personal identifying information, however we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.


All of the following documents are available for download in PDF format. The Adobe Acrobat Reader may be downloaded here.

To open the document, please click on the links below. We recommend you save or download the document before you review the documents.

Draft EA Main Document – Volume I

SoCal Metroplex DEA Full Document (70 MB)

Chapter 1 – Background (1.5 KB)

Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need (1 KB)

Chapter 3 – Alternatives (17 MB)

Chapter 4 – Affected Environment (44 MB)

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences (226 KB)

Appendices – Volume II

Appendix A – Agency Coordination, Agency Consultation, and Public Involvement (26 MB)

Appendix B – List of Preparers and Receiving Parties (42 KB)

Appendix C – References (34 KB)

Appendix D – List of Acronyms and Glossary (107 KB)

Appendix E – Basics of Noise (1 MB)

Technical Reports

SoCal Study Team Final Report (7 MB)

SoCal Design and Implementation Team Tech Report (83 MB)

Average Annual Day Flight Schedules (6 MB)

Aircraft Noise Technical Report (84 MB)

The FAA encourages interested parties to review the EA, and provide written comments during the public comment period. Written comments will be accepted by the FAA until Friday, July 10, 2015. The public is invited to comment by mail or email. Please be aware that your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment may be made publicly available at any time. You may include in your comment a request to withhold your personal identifying information, however we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments can be emailed to:

Comments can be submitted by regular mail to:

SoCal Metroplex EA
Federal Aviation Administration
Western Service Center – Operations Support Group
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98057



City of Phoenix Fighting FAA’s “Screw People” Flight Path Policy

The FAA’s long-standing policy of putting the airline industry over any health and safety concerns of citizens is being challenged by the City of Phoenix. How long is it going to take for the Feds to reign in this anti-American, air industry lap-dog ‘administration’ that refuses to be accountable to US citizens, yet happily slurps up tax dollars?

Phoenix nearing lawsuit against FAA flight paths

Phoenix leaders blasted the Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday, saying negotiations that so far have failed to adjust controversial new flight paths could lead to a lawsuit filed by the city as soon as May 1.

The criticism at a press conference came in response to a letter and report sent by the administration to the city on Tuesday afternoon. It summarized recommended changes to departure paths intended to address city and resident concerns over noise increases.

The contested routes were implemented by the FAA in September as part of the NextGen program and have since been the focus of neighborhood outrage. The FAA formed a working group earlier this year after rejecting the city’s demand to revert the paths.

Today Is THE Day For SMO At Santa Monica City Council



Santa Monica Airport’s Time Has Gone

Dear All,

The Day of Reckoning is Here At This Critical Meeting of Santa Monica City Council Re SMO

It’s going to be crowded, and there will be opposition like pilots and those that are on the gravy train of Santa Monica’s “gift of public funds,” but the Venice Environmental Alliance (and hopefully many Venetians) will be there also – to remind the city council that decades of unfairness and toxic dumping on Venice must stop.

A lot of groups are joining us in this battle (see their included notices below), and there is a rally at 5:30pm in front.

Santa Monica City Hall
March 24th, 2015 (Tuesday) 6:30pm
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401

If you are not able to come and speak, please email the Council Members your opinions about the airport. Or use the easy ‘click and send’ link at bottom to send a pre-printed note.


Venice Environmental Alliance


Don’t forget to come to the City Council meeting tomorrow, Tuesday 24, 2015 and make sure your voice is heard.  This critical meeting will decide much about the future of the airport.  The public portion of the meeting begins at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Santa Monica City Hall: 1685 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90401.  You may park in the nearby city parking area and validate your parking immediately outside chambers.

Airport2Park is recommending a 3-phase strategy towards repurposing airport land, with the first phase beginning on July 1, 2015 when the 1984 agreement expires.  In this first phase we propose converting the non-aviation land that is currently being used for aircraft tie-downs for use as parkland and playing fields.  This action, which can begin immediately, would enlarge the current Airport park from 7 acres to over 21 acres, making it the second largest park in Santa Monica.  If enough people let the Council know that this is what they want, we really can expect that this process will begin July 1.

If you wish to speak, you must submit a chit at the desk before the airport item comes up for discussion.  You will have just two minutes to speak, so make sure you have timed what you want to say so that you will be done within 2 minutes.  It is also possible for one person to donate their time to another so giving that person 4 minutes to speak.  Both people must be present at the time the speaker is called.  There will be lots of people there, so plan on a long night.

If you can’t make the Council meeting, please consider sending an e-mail , this will be received by all council members.

For more details on Airport2Park’s recommendations, see:

See you there!

No Jets

Please meet us at City Hall on Tuesday night for the Council meeting to discuss the airport future plans. There will be a rally at 5:30 pm outside city hall before the meeting.

There will be media there, for sure.
There will be pilots.

If you can’t stay for the meeting, then just come for the short rally. Make a sign if you are inspired, or use one we will have on hand, or just be there for support.

We all got involved for a reason.

Hope to see you there.


c0a1ebbd-e4cd-430a-8480-cbeb6bb1f1caFor Speaking Tuesday nightYou have three choices as a speaker, so here are some helpful points:

1.      You can show up at or after 530 pm and attend the No Jets rally.  There will be instructions for putting in your “speaking chit” at City Hall, 1645 Main Street.

2.      You can show up and put in your own “chit”.

3.      You can hit “Reply” and send me an email and I will put in a chit for you with the SPAA speakers.  Then show up at 645 pm.

4.      If you don’t want to speak but want to “volunteer your time” to another speaker, we always need those!

Speakers get 2 minutes to speak, which is enough to make some well-prepared comments effectively.  If you want 4 minutes, bring a volunteer who has to be at your side when you start speaking.  You then get the volunteer’s 2 minutes and you can then speak for 4 minutes.  As mentioned above, we might have a volunteer for you.

Please come Tuesday night.  The decision will directly affect the number of flight operations that impact your home  (and your kid’s school) every day for the next 3 years.


CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 1685 MAIN STREETBelow is information on how to submit written as well as public comment to Santa Monica City Council regarding Agenda Item 8-A  .Any member of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the meeting by mailing them to: City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA  90401.
Comments may also be e-mailed to:


8-A:     The Santa Monica Airport And Future Options Regarding Its Operations And The City’s Use Of The Land Now Occupied By The Airport  – recommendation that the City Council review and comment on future options regarding operation of the Santa Monica Airport (“Airport” or “SMO”) and the City’s future use of its land currently occupied by the Airport and direct staff to: 1.continue with a full range of planning, environmental and legal work that would enable the City to determine the future use of the City’s land, including possible closure of all or part of the Airport; such work to include, but not be limited to, pursuing legal resolution of issues relating to control of the land, undertaking preliminary environmental and design work as to both the western parcel and the entire Airport, and assessing the possibility of a City-sponsored 2016 ballot measure; 2. continue to implement measures to reduce adverse impacts of Airport operations, through imposing appropriate conditions in leases and any other lawful means; 3. continue to promote Airport self-sufficiency to ensure that the Airport is not a drain on the general fund during this period of possible transition, including by: increasing any rents that may not be at market rate; renegotiating for Council approval expired master leases to address subleasing and thereby provide for the City’s receipt of full revenues from the use of City property; and obtaining private assistance with leasing and property management; 4. work to reduce and eliminate aviation uses of the land released from aviation use; 5. negotiate and execute new leases with two current non-aviation subtenants (VW-Audi and Milstein), The Museum of Flying, Atlantic Aviation, and Krueger Aviation with lease terms expiring either three years from execution or by June 30, 2018, whichever date is earlier; and 6. continue to receive, assess and provide recommendations based on community input on all aspects of Airport operations and use of the land now occupied by the Airport.


SM Airport Commission Notes on Item 8-A (David Goddard)

Good Evening Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, Madame City Attorney, and Madame City Manager –We have recently witnessed the Harrison Ford airplane crash, who fortunately survived, and the Mark Benjamin jet crash, who unfortunately, along with his three passengers and their pets, did not. The community is fortunate that it was not impacted by either of these events. The latter could have been catastrophic if the jet had gone off the end of the runway. These are warning signs. We must pay attention to them. We must also remember that every day, the users of our airport are blowing poison on our neighbors to the east. This is unconscionable to inflict this injury. Up to now, we can say that we did not have the ability to make a change because of our contractual obligations. On July 1, 2015, we no longer have that defense. We now have the right and the obligation to mitigate those dangers.Three-Year Leases

In the March 2014 City Council meeting on the airport, the City Staff recommended 1-year leases for aviation tenants and 5-year leases for non-aviation tenants. I objected because this proposed policy was discriminatory to the aviation tenants.[i]  Staff agreed and modified the recommended leasing policy to 3-year leases for each class of user to avoid potential discrimination claims.

The Staff’s March 2015 recommendation for 3-year leases for only 5 tenants, 2 of which are aviation tenants, appears to violate the “non-discrimination” and “no exclusive rights” provisions of the 1948 Instrument of Transfer and 1994 Grant Assurances related to users not granted 3-year leases.[ii]  Further, it ignores the unanimous March 2014 City Council direction to implement the 3-year terms in conjunction with the LMSD leasing policy.[iii] This leasing policy is critical because it legally discriminates against a use as allowed by the courts, not illegally discriminating against a user as recommended by staff, which is disallowed by the courts and our remaining agreement(s).

Under our agreements, if you give one 3-year lease to an aviation business, you must give all aviation businesses 3-year leases. Under our agreements, if you allow one aviation business at the airport, you must allow all aviation businesses at the airport. On July 1, 2015, we are no longer obligated to have any aviation businesses, but if you allow one, you must allow them all. The residents have made themselves quite clear in public comments at both previous City Council airport meetings that they no longer wish to have incompatible businesses as neighbors at the airport. They are concerned about having Atlantic Aviation as a neighboring incompatible use for three more years. This is why the Airport Commission recommended month-to-month leases for all tenants and an LMSD leasing policy.

Legal Strategies vs. Airport Commission Recommendations

The last three City legal strategies have failed so we prefer to avoid them. Instead, we would prefer is to comply with our agreements, with what they really say, not how they can potentially be interpreted by the FAA. We would prefer to exert our rights as a proprietor in the “land use” arena as the courts clearly provide to the proprietor.[iv]  And if that draws a challenge, then at least we are on solid legal ground, unlike the C and D aircraft ban, which clearly violated what our agreements said by “unjustly discriminating against a class of aircraft” ii and in the “safety arena of aviation rules” that the FAA has been given clear jurisdiction.[v]

In 2012, the Airport Commission recommended raising landing fees and charging them to all users. We were told by Staff that the City could not because the current fee schedule was part of a settlement agreement with the FAA. Well, that Staff Member is now gone, the landing fees have been raised by over $1 million per year, the fees are now charged to all users, pattern flying has significantly declined, and there was no Part 16 hearing or challenge by the aviation folks. This occurred because the Airport Commission’s recommendations comply with our agreements and are supported by case law.

We now have a simple contract expiration of the 1984 Agreement. The City is no longer required to lease space to aviation businesses at the airport or sell aviation fuel. The Airport Commission is 2 for 2. The last three legal strategies are 0 for 3. Please help us implement the next Airport Commission recommendation.

Request For Support for March 2015 Actions

I would like to personally request, on behalf of the residents, your support for the community strategy which is comprised of Airport Commission recommendations.

July 1, 2015:
a) maintain all tenants on month-to-month leases.
b) raise all rental rates to the market rates paid by non-aviation tenants subject to the City’s arts leasing policy. 
c) provide a good faith notice to all tenants and airport users of aDecember 1, 2015 implementation of a LMSD leasing policy and the discontinuance of fuel sales.
d) negotiate direct leases with subtenants giving priority to the largest, i.e., Volkswagen and Milstien. 

After December 1, 2015: 
a) implement a LMSD leasing policy to eliminate uses that are incompatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
b) discontinue fuel sales.
c) subject to compliance with federal law, implement the environmental ordinance limiting aircraft pollution quantities.

I am happy to discuss any aspect of this strategy with you.

Thank you. Regards, David


[i] No Exclusive Rights. Court of Appeals. City of Pompano Beach v. FAA (1985). The FAA listed ten differences between lease offered to Brettman and leases held by the incumbent fixed base operators and ruled that the City was in violation of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C.App. 1349(a), and in noncompliance with the terms and conditions of its deed of conveyance. The Court affirmed the FAA’s order, requiring the City to offer Brettman a lease with “terms, conditions, and requirements substantially identical” to those in the leases held by the Beckers.
[ii] No Exclusive Rights and Unjust Discrimination AgreementsNo Exclusive Rights. Grant Assurance 23. The sponsor of a Federally obligated airport: “will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public …. It further agrees that it will not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm, or corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any aeronautical activities ….”Unjust Discrimination and No Exclusive Rights. 1948 Instrument of Transfer. The conditions contained in instruments of conveyance under the Surplus Property Act are as follows: “the land, buildings, structures, improvements and equipment in which this instrument transfers any interest shall be used for public airport purposes for the use and benefit of the public, on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination and without grant or exercise of any exclusive right for use of the airport”.

Unjust Discrimination. Grant Assurance 22. “The owner of any airport developed with Federal grant assistance is required to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination.” See also 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(1) through (6).

[iii] Staff March 2014 proposal slide Item 4 (See SMCC TV at 3/25/14 4:16:20) stated: “Revise leasing policies, maintaining revenues so as not to burden the general fund. Non-aviation uses: 3 years w/annual options at City’s discretion. Aviation uses: 3 years w/annual options at City’s discretion.”  The City Council amended this proposal with “Come up with leasing guidelines that are sensitive to the environment…, …stop activities and can require environmental remediation…, and the leasing guidelines at least be modeled on the Light Manufacturing and Studio District Guidelines.”
[iv] Proprietor Land Use Rights. Control.Court of Appeals. City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1999). “We conclude from the foregoing authorities that local governments retain their power to regulate land use, even with regard to safety and noise control, so long as it does not touch upon the control of aircraft or airspace, or any aspect of aviation navigation.”District Court. Air Transport Ass’n v. Crotti, (1975). The Supreme Court, in its decision in City of Burbank, noted: “[i]t is now firmly established that the airport proprietor is responsible for the consequences which attend his operation of a public airport. That correlating right of proprietorship control is recognized and exempted from judicially declared federal pre-emption by [City of Burbank]…. Manifestly, such proprietary control necessarily includes the basic right to determine the type of air service a given airport proprietor wants its facilities to provide, as well as the type of aircraft to utilize those facilities. The intent of Congress not to interfere with such basic airport control is made clear in the legislative history….”

Supreme Court. City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. (1973) “…the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been given broad authority to regulate the use of the navigable airspace… …and ‘for the protection of persons and property on the ground…” however, “…Airport owners acting as proprietors can presently deny the use of their airports to aircraft on the basis of noise considerations so long as such exclusion is nondiscriminatory.’”

Georgia Supreme Court. Gifford-Hill v. Harrison, (1972)  “…a county governing authority can create geographical areas within the boundaries of a county which are called zones; the governing authority can declare that the land in a zone can be used only for
specified purposes or uses and that all other specified purposes or uses of the land in that zone are prohibited.”

Georgia Supreme Court Matthews v. Fayette County (1974) “Zoning ordinances must be enforced in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner in order to satisfy equal protection requirements, and whether they are so uniformly enforced is a question of fact.”

FAA Director’s Determination. Right to Refuse Long Term Leases. Thermco Aviation, Inc. v. L.A., Final Agency Decision (2007). “The proprietor may refuse to agree to a tenant’s preferred terms, and may refuse to enter long-term arrangements when contemplating redevelopment.”

Proprietor Land Use Rights. Compatibility

Court of Appeals. Santa Monica Airport Ass’n v. City of Santa Monica, (1981).  It found that the “rationale for the [proprietor’s] exemption extends beyond purely financial concerns. The [proprietor] should be allowed to define the threshold of its liability, and to enact noise ordinances under the municipal-proprietor exemption if it has a rational belief that the ordinance will reduce the possibility of liability or enhance the quality of the City’s human environment.”

Supreme Court. British Airways Bd. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., (1977)  “It noted the proprietor’s powers and responsibilities, including the proprietor’s ability to determine the airport’s location, acquire property and air easements, assure compatible land use, and assume liability for local aviation impacts, and the fact that the airport proprietor was simply in a better position to take these actions. [T]he inherently local aspect of noise control can be most effectively left to the operator, the unitary local authority who controls airport access. It has always seemed air to assume that the operator will act in a rational manner in weighing the commercial benefits of proposed service against its costs, both economic and political.

The Supreme Court. Euclid v. Ambler Realty. (1926). “As an exercise of police power, zoning—and presumably enforceable comprehensive plans—must be reasonable, not be arbitrary, and bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, and welfare. The Court cited the nuisance maxim, “sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” [Use your property so as not to injure another’s] as useful in resolving doubts as to the legitimacy of the application of a zoning ordinance. In its review, the Court noted that a zoning ordinance must be justified as an exercise of police power “asserted for the public welfare,” the legitimacy of which is assessed in a fact-specific manner, depending on the circumstances and locality.

District Court. Harris v. City of Wichita, (1994) (holding that airport overlay district restrictions on development were reasonably related to goal of minimizing impact of plane crashes) (citing Allright Colo., Inc. v. City and County of Denver). This requirement does not mean that a regulation must be certain to achieve its stated purpose, merely that the enacting governmental body could rationally conclude that the regulation would do so.

Aircraft Accidents and Safety Considerations, See generally WARD ET AL., vol. 1, at ch. 7. Airport safety is affected by hazardous uses that can cause aircraft accidents and uses that may increase (or decrease) the severity of accidents should they occur. Factors that can affect accident severity include high concentrations of people; frequency of use; high-risk sensitive uses; and the presence of open spaces.

[v] FAA Aircraft Control and Safety Mandate

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40103, the United States has sovereignty over navigable airspace, which includes that needed for takeoff and landing aircraft. The principal aviation responsibilities assigned to the FAA under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq., concern promoting the safety of air commerce. The basic national policies intended to guide FAA actions under the Federal Aviation Act are set forth at 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d), which provides public interest standards including assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety as the highest priorities in air commerce.

See Court of Appeals. City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1999) above.

See Supreme Court. City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. (1973) above.

Dear Santa Monica City Council,

I support the following:

Ending the “Fly Neighborly” Program, and create a more equitable flight pattern over Venice, Mar Vista AND Santa Monica.

Creating Month-to-month leases for businesses on airport property. This allows for flexibility in planning.

Shortening of the runway, which would allow for buffer zones, and provide use for smaller aircraft only.

Stopping of all fuel sales. This would stop planes from coming into SMO for the purpose of refueling and would provide a healthier atmosphere.

Removing the parcel that Santa Monica owns at the western end of the airport from aviation use for non-aviation uses, preferably a recreation and wildlife area.

I agree with city officials, Ted Lieu, Bill Rosendahl, and Mike Bonin and many other policy makers and residents, that the airport needs to close. I cannot emphasize enough how strongly I feel that Santa Monica needs to take responsibility for improving the conditions under which we all must live.


(just add your name at bottom in email)

2015 City of Santa Monica Airport Policies

Going forward, a framework for our ”diversity of voices”.

It includes the 2015 Airport Layout Plan and a timeline.

The need is now apparent. There is a strong City Hall movement toward voluntary 3-year leases for aviation companies, led by our City Attorney, Public Words Director and Mayor.

Voluntary leases to aviation tenants are anathema to the 2014 citywide referendum to close the Airport. And especially in the face of overwhelming market demand for Airport space on any basis, including month-to-month.


2015 Airport Policies SPAA PDF