1 David Yakobson
From: Angel D. Morales <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 2:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 6/25 Public Comment
Attachments: City Council Public Comment.pdf
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I am submitting the attached letter for public comment regarding the Human Services Department and the Human Services Grant Program.
Thanks,
Angel
--
Angel Morales | Financial Coach
Haven Neighborhood Services
Pronouns: he | him | his
Direct: 213-543-9738
Address: 2200 Virginia Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90404
Donations: Haven Neighborhood Services
Website: www.havenservices.org | Find us on: Facebook | LinkedIn | Instagram To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Organization
Let us be your #SafeFinancialHaven for your financial crisis.
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply and destroy all copies of the original message.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
On behalf of Haven Neighborhood Services, I would like to express my gratitude to the City of Santa Monica and the Human Services Department for selecting our non-profit organization as a recipient of the Human Services Grant Program (HSGP). As we approach the end of our first fiscal year of our grant, I would like to take a moment to highlight the impact we have had. As the new organization in town, our collaboration with the Virginia Avenue Park (VAP), the Santa Monica Public Library (SMPL), and the Community Corporation of Santa Monica, among other community partners, has allowed us to establish a network of Santa Monica residents that are in need of our services. We are truly grateful for the support of these organizations in helping us provide our financial literacy workshops and direct financial coaching to Santa Monica Residents.
Throughout the course of this year, we have provided Financial Literacy workshops for 250+ Santa Monica residents. Additionally, we identified the need in our community for free tax preparation services to help low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents mitigate the cost of filing taxes. To address this issue, we integrated Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) services into our program, and we serviced 90+ Santa Monica residents. Santa Monica was previously a VITA desert, but now thanks to the HSGP and City of Santa Monica City Council, we will be providing this service for the foreseeable future.
One highlight of our programming was the Financial Freedom Fair which took place on April 13th at Virginia Avenue Park, in collaboration with VAP and the SMPL. The fair consisted of financial literacy workshops in English and Spanish, a resource fair with 10+ local organizations, and free tax filing through VITA. We are especially thankful to Carla Fantozzi from VAP, Barbara Fleeman from SMPL, Nicole Liner-Jigamian from the Human Services Department, and Mayor Phil Brock for helping us make this event a success.
To close, I wanted to include testimonials provided by two clients who are enrolled in our free financial coaching program.
Barry Adler:
“Haven Neighborhood Services has been a wonderful resource for me. Haven's Financial Coaches (Ms. Diana Arciniega and Mr. Angel Morales) have offered me help and support in so many ways. They have repaired my credit & protected me from illicit internet scams. Also, the Haven staff was instrumental in recovering nearly $1000 dollars in lost wages from a former unethical employer of mine. I never would have recovered the wages without Haven's advocacy.
I wish I had learned about Haven's services sooner!”
Evangelina Kashekya:
“My friend referred me to Haven’s Financial Services. Unfortunately, I co-signed as a 'Guarantor' for my daughter in-law on a car loan. She eventually defaulted on the payments. The vehicle Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
was repossessed, thus my credit rating was lowered. Ms. Diana helped me repair and rebuild my credit. I owe a lot to Haven Neighborhood Services!” Our impact on these clients would not have been possible without the support of the City of Santa Monica. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to all of the positive future impact our program will have on Santa Monica Residents thanks to your support.
Best,
Angel Morales
Financial Coach
Haven Neighborhood Services
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Item 12A(4) and Attachment E
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council Members,
Apologies that this is late, but--having just read it--I wanted to wholeheartedly endorse Ben Wang's superb and convincing public comment (available here: https://bit.ly/13MillionGiveaway).
Having also read the Consent Decree, Grant Assurances, the FAA order re: improperly documented loans, outside Scott Lewis's excellent letter, the FAA's own policy on rates and changes, etc., I remain confused as to why the City is rushing to push a 53% rate reduction without an FAA order, let alone a federal judge, directing it to do so. I understand attempting to ward off litigation, but litigation is not the only risk the City has to deal with--it also has to deal with the extreme likelihood that City will be left with inadequate funds to remediate environmental damage and to fund litigation to go after polluting entities and their successors.
For that reason, the City needs to be appropriately aggressive in making sure we hold on to and pursue whatever funding sources we can to pay for clean up. Otherwise, there is a very good chance that land will sit unused for a long time after the airport closes.
To that end--and this is not legal advice but my personal recommendations--I think City Council should ask:
(1) That the City Attorney or, ideally, the City's outside counsel Scott Lewis prepare an opinion letter about how the possibility of recalculating aeronautical rates to factor in environmental investigation, remediation and litigation costs, among other potential decommission costs.
This letter should be made available to the public.
(2) That the City Attorney or, ideally, outside counsel prepare an opinion letter about using other unspent airport revenue on environmental investigation, remediation, and potential litigation--and how we can continue to dedicate "surpluses" to those costs.
This letter should also be made available to the public. (3) Most importantly, that the City Attorney hire outside attorneys--i.e. not just subcontractors via Sasaki--to begin environmental investigation and calculate the City's, as well as other parties', projected share of the clean up costs. These attorneys should subject matter experts in CERCLA and other clean up statutes so we can ensure the City gets contribution from all possible sources; otherwise, there is a very good chance the City won't be able to afford the eventual bill.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
2 More simply: no one in the history of environmental remediation has ever said, "I'm so glad we waited to bring in the CERCLA experts." As hard as it is with the City's current financial state, let's do what we can not to be penny wise and pound foolish.
Thank you for considering Mr. Wang and mine's comments.
Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Recreation and Arts Department's Budget! From: Jan Williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Cc: Jenny Rogers <[email protected]>; Sofia Klatzker <[email protected]> Subject: Support Recreation and Arts Department's Budget!
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I'm writing to encourage the Council to preserve all funding for the Recreation and Arts Department in this budget. The Department's ability to activate parks with cultural programming is as important as hiring more police officers. AND it can be implemented much faster and with direct wellbeing for residents.
The city already has multiple police officer vacancies that it has funded yet is unable to fill.
Please fund 100% of the Recreation and Arts Department's proposed budget without any additional cuts.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Jan Williamson
18th Street Arts Center, Executive Director
SMTT Board member
Experience Management Committee member
--
To schedule an appointment with me Click here
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
4 Jan Williamson
Executive Director
she/her
@18thstreetarts
18thstreet.org
SUPPORT
18TH STREET ARTS CENTER
Join Borderless on Patreon
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
5 David Yakobson
From: Steven Naftali <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: MCC June 25 Item 12a airport fee
EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council Members:
and Dear Mr. White, City Manager:
I am a resident of Santa Monica. My family and I live down the flight path from the SMO. I have observed that the City Staff who works on the SMO has repeatedly showed bias toward the aviation interests at the SMO. Below is the latest example.
The staff failed to ask their expert aviation attorney to help reasonably spend the airport surplus $13,000,000 to:
(a) Remediate any aviation caused contamination. (b) Make needed capital improvements as allowed by the FAA. (c) Take the 45-year-old fuel farm out of commission. (d) Budget for legal fees. (e) To decommission the airport.
Instead, the Staff recommended to return the excess to the aviation users. They justified their inappropriate recommendation on the Consent Decree and potential lawsuits. They know well that nothing can prevent lawsuits. It is false to say that the Consent Decree gives no choice other than giving surplus funds away.
In the last few months staff has used the Consent Decree and possible lawsuits as the reasons to lease the 45- year-old fuel farm, sign a lease to another flight school, sign Atlantic's lease, and now reduce fees. All have been actions to stop the community to rebuild the park that the City bought in 1926.
Thus, I recommend that the City council please stop the 13 Million Dollar give away. Please direct the staff to use the funds for the purposes that I outlined above. Further, if the staff is not willing to work for the community and the Citizens of Santa Monica, as they voted on Measure LC, please find new staff who will.
Regards,
Steve Naftali
[email protected]
The information transmitted is intended only for the person which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Wilder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; David White; Rick Valte; Amber Richane; Susan Cline
Subject: Aeronautical funds are needed to pay for cleanup
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I am the Vice-Chair of the Airport Commission, but I am writing this personally, not on behalf of the Commission.
Please fix the proposed aeronautical rate reduction in tonight's budget.
Staff calculated this number without setting aside any funds for environmental remediation, because the exact cost is not yet known. But we know there will be costs.
Please don't give away money that we know will need to be spent, merely because we don't yet know exactly how much.
We can use aeronautical funds to clean up environmental damage (or even remove the runway) -- but only if we have those funds in the first place!
Please ask staff to make a reasonable estimate of what remediation will cost, and then recalculate any fee changes to factor in that expenditure. Once the remediation assessment is completed (in ~18 months), the fees can be recalculated if we still need to "spend down" any aeronautical surplus.
There are also other ways to reduce the surplus -- lowering fees is just one avenue. This money could be spent to improve facilities at the airport.
There may also be remediation steps we can take before the airport closes. All the more reason to keep money in the bank to be able to do so.
Thank you,
Andrew Wilder
Airport Commission Vice-Chair
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis
Cc: Jenny Rogers; Christopher Dishlip; Amelia Feichtner; Noe Mendoza; Lori Brown; John Smith; Andrew Gomez; Ann Bowman; Maryanne LaGuardia; David White; Arati Desai Wagabaza; Colby Bakke; Rick Valte
Subject: Item 12.A.1 - Recreation & Parks Commission Support of Memorial Park PLD Relocation in the CIP Budget
Item 12.A.1 - Recreation & Parks Commission Support of Memorial Park PLD Relocation in the CIP Budget Esteemed Council Members,
The Recreation & Parks Commission would like to strongly recommend that the "Memorial Park PLD Relocation" project funding remain intact for FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget.
The relocation of Public Landscape Division facilities from the former Fisher Lumber Yard is a critical first step in the long-deferred Memorial Park Expansion.
Though aspirations for Memorial Park Expansion go back much farther, the former 2.9 acre lumber yard was finally purchased by the City in 2005, though it quickly became a base of PLD operations rather than part of the promised park addition.
Memorial Park has long been central to filling residents' recreational needs both young and old. Activities around baseball, softball, skateboarding, tennis and (more recently) pickleball fill the park day in and day out. The dog run and children's playground are also popular destinations, while the indoor gym sees constant use.
After extensive community engagement, oƯicial plans for the expansion and redevelopment of Memorial Park were approved in October 2019, nearly five years ago.
The pandemic intervened, and expansion was put on hold until in September 2022, a revised project plan was accepted by City Council.
As we are just one year away from the 20th anniversary of the purchase of the Fisher Lumber property, this Public Landscape Division Relocation is the #1 requirement for the start of Council-approved Phase 1 of the Memorial Park Expansion project.
In your consideration tonight, please keep secure funding for the Memorial Park PLD Relocation project, as we look forward to fulfilling a now two decades-old promise to expand one of our City’s most-cherished and mostused parks.
Thank you.
Recreation & Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Andrew Gomez, Vice Chair
John Smith
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
2 Maryanne LaGuardia
Lori Brown
Arati Desai Wagabaza
Ann Bowman
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 6/25/24 item 12.A.4 & Exhibit E -- OPPOSE $13 million giveaway at Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
June 24, 2024
To: Mayor Brock and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 6/25/24 agenda item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (page 55) – the $13 million giveaway at Santa Monica Airport
The FOSP Board opposes agenda item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (page 55) -- the $13 million giveaway at Santa Monica Airport
Below is a public comment submitted by Ben Wang in opposition to Item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E of the June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting Agenda. In the interest of not wasting space and your valuable time, we won’t repeat the many valid, well researched, and legally and evidentiarily supported points raised by Mr. Wang in opposition to this matter. We are attaching a copy of his letter, in case you have not yet had a chance to read it.
Please consider these points, and do not approve the agenda item 12.A.4 at this meeting. At the very least, the points raised in this letter should be researched, considered, and addressed in public at a future meeting before a decision is reached.
We know that some of you may not have the legal background to independently assess these matters yourselves.
The rules, regulations and litigation history surrounding the airport is complicated and long.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
4 But, the City will not garner any favor by making unwarranted concessions to any adverse party (a brief review of the litigation history will bear that out).
The City’s outside counsel (whose opinions Mr. Wang seems to have relied upon heavily) and, perhaps the City Attorney, who probably has less expertise in this area, but who should be preparing himself for the inevitable coming legal onslaught, should review and comment on these materials, brief all of you, and explain to the public why this matter should be approved at great cost to the City, before a decision is made.
Santa Monica prides itself on being a sustainable city. The most precious resource of all is money. We cannot meet our goals by giving it away unjustifiably.
Thank you for your consideration, and for the time and effort you expend on behalf of all residents in the city. ********************************************************************** From Ben Wang:
From: Ben <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 at 02:34:53 PM PDT
Subject: SMO: SMCC Meeting - June 25, 2024 - Item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (Page 55) – Oppose the $13 million giveaway at SMO
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
My Public Comment for the SMCC Meeting on June 25, 2024, Item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (Page 55). -- Oppose the $13 million giveaway at SMO is posted at
https://bit.ly/13MillionGiveaway
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
5 --Ben Wang
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
6 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMO: Item 12.A.4
EXTERNAL
Mayor Brock, Councilmembers,
We live in a city facing budgetary challenges, yet you are being asked to give away $13mm, for no apparent, convincing reason.
We are likely to need every penny for remediation of airport land and preparation for the Great Park.
Please proceed with caution.
Thank you.
Andrew Gledhill
Ocean Park
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
7 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12a - airport fees
EXTERNAL
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
8 Dear Council, Please make a motion to
pull the airport fees from
the budget and budget the
surplus for environmental
remediation and
decommissioning the
airport including removal
of cement and tarmac.
Thank
you.
Alan
Levenson
View this
email in
your
browser
Staff uses
plausible, but
incorrect reasons
to give away a
$13,000,000
surplus.
A new solution is
needed!
The staff was asked directly by the
Mayor and Council Member Zwick
whether the City has any
alternatives to reducing aviation
surplus other than reducing fees
53%. Their collective answer was
no; the Consent Decree and
potential lawsuits were used as
justification. Their response
sounded plausible, especially to
anyone who has not studied the
contract. Yet it is false to say the
Consent Decree gives no choice
other than giving surplus funds
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
9 away. As for lawsuits, anyone can
sue for any reason; this is true.
What wasn't mentioned was many
pilots are not happy about the 53%
giveaway and might sue anyway;
nothing can prevent lawsuits.
In the last few months staff has
used the Consent Decree and
possible lawsuits as the reasons to
lease the 45 year old fuel farm,
sign a lease to another flight
school, sign Atlantic's lease, and
reduce fees. Why has staff not
asked their expert aviation
attorney to help reasonably
spend the surplus $13,000,000 to
decommission the airport,
remediate any aviation caused
contamination, take the fuel tanks
out of commission, budget for
legal fees, or make needed capital
improvements as allowed by the
FAA?
Please urge the council to stop
the $13,000,000 give away, take
the necessary steps to close the
airport, and rebuild the park that
was bought in 1926.
Thank you.
Onward,
Alan
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
10 Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
11 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12a Airport Fees
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Councilmembers,
First I urge you to table this complex, vital issue! It requires your careful study. The Staff proposal will lead you astray.
I hope that you carefully consider Ben Wang’s letter to you. His arguments are compelling, accurate, and wise. We must avoid squandering $13 million that we need to correct gross Airport environmental and facility deficiencies and prepare our land for conversion to a park in 2029. His (and my added recommendations) would decimate the Airport Fund surplus – spending it on worthy projects that benefit both aviation and resident stakeholders.
As a two-term Airport Commission Member, Air Force pilot with 7,000 hours, and aviation safety consultant, I offer the following fact-based recommendations. Should you wish, I’ll gladly meet with you at your convenience – perhaps to further explain or document each of the claims which follow. I do not make these claims without the proper receipts.
1. Due to improper noise monitor placement, the noise code is not enforceable as written. Presently aircraft that have actually not violated the Noise Code have been fined, while several local pilots are not fined for identical noise monitor readings. Such a deliberate, capricious, and unfair system must be stopped.
By shortening the runway, the City moved the runway takeoff point 752 feet closer to the noise monitors than the 1979 District Court decision had decreed. Physics dictates that this change increases the apparent decibel level for each takeoff. A study by Airport Commissioners Waller and Schmitz found that the changed monitor placement had increased takeoff readings for commonly used aircraft about 0.6 to 0.9 dB (decibels).
The only fair, legal remedy: Use airport funds to relocate the two noise monitors 752’ closer to each runway threshold as soon as possible. In the interim, temporarily raise the Noise Code decibel limit from 95dB to 96db to halt undue fines.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12 2. The first paragraph of Grant Assurance 25 specifies that airport revenues can be spent “… or to mitigate noise on or off the airport.” Airport funds should now be spent:
a. To mitigate aircraft noise for households located within a 60dB average day-night sound level contour line. Presently the FAA uses an outmoded higher 65dB level, but recently acknowledged their present 65dB level was too high.
Multiple EU studies demonstrate that the airport noise threshold for increased mortality and morbidity (mostly from strokes and heart attacks) range from about 50dB to more than 55dB. Several EU countries have spent billions of euros to reduce airport noise to 50dB. $10,000 grants should be given to house owners (and renters) inside the 60dB contour line to reduce airport noise for residents.
b. The City should equip all flight school aircraft with high performance mufflers which use “tuned exhaust” technology that reduces aircraft sound 6dB or more while increasing aircraft engine performance. John Fairweather demonstrated proof of concept at SMO using a Cessna aircraft with a German Gomolzig muffler more than a decade ago. Plan to spend about $10,000 per airplane. The technology has improved and there are at least three EU suppliers.
3. Institute (and adopt) high-quality Safety Management Systems (SMS) safety training. We’ve had way too many “close calls" at our Airport. The recent two major accidents with three fatalities (both accidents involve pilot error – instructor pilot error as primary cause for one. For the other, pilot error as a contributing cause, as the final NTSB accident reports should corroborate).
a. Before the runway was shortened, six aircraft had emergency thrust-reverser stops. Each of these emergency stops generated noise that exceeded the 95dB maximum. One was almost twice as loud (104.7dB) than the 95dB cutoff. That aircraft almost ran off the runway and crashed onto 23rd Street. Night landings and the 1.2-degree Runway 21 down-slope (coupled with an airfield layout plate that incorrectly gave the impression of a Runway 21 upslope) – and poor pilot technique - were the root causes of these hugely dangerous events.
b. After the runway was shortened, an H25B aircraft which needed a much longer runway landed at night and took-off the next morning. The excessive takeoff noise monitor reading (over 102dB) indicated the aircraft was way too close to the ground. After discussion with Airport Manager Makrides, I found out that he knew that the heavy-weight H25B aircraft could not legally takeoff from SMO but didn’t advise the tower to cancel the pilot’s takeoff clearance.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
13 That H25B could have easily crashed into the housing West of 23rd street at ~ 150 knots. The City would have been liable for billions as the deep-pocketed payee while the Mexican charter aircraft company would have likely evaded payments.
c. Since my second month of Airport Commission service, I discovered that occasionally (but regularly) pilots flouted FAA Minimum Safe Altitudes regulations by making “hard” right climbing turns over densely populated, rising terrain.
I complained about these blatant violations formally to the Airport Manager, saying if an aircraft crashed into nearby houses: 1) the City would and should be liable, and 2) the City Council and City Attorney should be told - so the City Council could complain and identify pilots to the FAA (and thus evade liability). To my knowledge, neither the Airport Manager nor the Deputy City Attorney ever did so. The only complaint the City Council made to the FAA during my tenure was about inbound LAX aircraft descending below 7,000 feet over the Airport.
d. Commissioner Bruce Malarky (Army pilot, Army/Civil field manager, and Boeing engineer) and I tried to get the Airport Manager to institute a SMS safety program after learning of gross aviation safety practices during the Covid shutdown. But there were always reasons why the agreed-upon SMS training couldn’t really begin – too much work, too short-handed, new hires to train. Bruce resigned from the Airport Commission and I gave up on a SMS program for the Airport.
Spend airport revenues for high-quality, ongoing SMS safety training; institute optional, safety training for tenants, especially for pilots and flight instructors. Perhaps hire another airport worker to ensure adequate time for safety training.
4. The City should spend airport revenues on projects that improve the Airport and improve the quality of life for residents. About two years ago, the Airport Director reported to the Airport Commission that he had obtained a ~ $2.3 million bid for biking and walking paths next to the Airport on 23rd Street and Bundy. He unilaterally decided that it was too expensive. Compared to what?? Cutting the market-rate rents and fees by 50 percent as Staff now recommends?? Actions like this cause me to question who our City Staff actually work for. The City should draw-up and fund a list of worthy projects that improve the Airport and help prepare it for transformation into a park.
5. Airport revenues should be used for environmental assessments and remediation. a. As the Airport Commission has recommended, the City should quickly assess the costs for environmental remediation of the City fuel tanks at Atlantic Aviation. Atlantic is now owned by the KKR private equity fund. Reuters reported the KKR private equity fund has $559 billion. It’s long past time to close and remediate the City tanks that Atlantic now Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
14 uses. Atlantic Aviation can use Atlantic fuel trucks like they do at many other airports. Why is the City subsidizing a half trillion-dollar entity?
b. The City should assess the costs (and set aside airport revenues) for remediating environmental damage by City fuel tanks south of the runway.
c. The Tufts University study of pollution generated by the newly shortened runway found that lead particle pollution was greatly reduced after shortening the runway (mostly because the lead particles were widely dispersed, given the measuring device had become 752 feet more distant from the takeoff point).
One finding was that lead particles significantly increased when they were measured again, one year after the runway was closed although the measuring equipment and distance from the end of the new runway were identical. In my view, this finding indicates that piston aircraft lay-down substantial quantities of lead particles during initial runup and takeoff areas in just one year. The City should assess costs for lead particle environmental remediation now.
6. The City should use airport revenues to fully restore and modernize shabby hangars; refurbish all areas of Airport property during the next several years.
Last year, I met with several highly experienced pilots in their hangars. I was struck by how shabby these hangars were. The floors were worse than any hangars that I’ve ever seen. The inside walls were unpainted and the bathroom was primitive.
That comports with comments that Eve Lopez made during the May Airport Commission She said that the hangar bathrooms weren’t readily available for females and no bathrooms met ADA requirements.
City property should be refurbished and upgraded to meet all present building standards as soon as practicable, well before 2028.
7. Consider using the (appropriate) use of airport funds to: 1) reduce energy usage and, 2) increase the solar reflectivity of our Airport urban heat island.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Schmitz, PhD
In times like the present men [and women] should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
15 through time and in eternity.
Abraham Lincoln
Second State of the Union address 1862
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Stephen Unger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 11:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC Meeting - June 25, 2024 - Item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (Page 55) – Oppose the $13 million giveaway at SMO
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council:
My family and I join the huge chorus who urges you to reject Staff’s proposal to reduce rates at SMO by 53%, which equates to an unnecessary $13 million giveaway of public funds to private aviation interests over the next four years. Instead, the City Council should direct Staff to evaluate alternatives and use the aeronautical surplus on bona fide aeronautical expenses that have been curiously omitted from any present or future plans and budget over the next four years. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Stephen Unger - Santa Monica Homeowner, Tax Payer and Voter Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12-A-4 Exhibit E Airport Fees
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge the City to review the 53% reducƟon in AviaƟon fees at SMO.
As the City moves towards closure at the end of 2028, there will be addiƟonal expenses beyond the normal operaƟng costs--in parƟcular environmental assessments and remediaƟon.
Prior to ANY agreement with the FAA, the City should revaluate the anƟcipated aviaƟon related expenses for the next four years.
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Judith Meister
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Erica Cuyugan
Subject: June 25, 2024 Council Meeting: Item 12A - Adoption of Second Year of the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget
Dear Mayor Brock and City Councilmembers,
I am unable to attend the meeting in person so I am writing on behalf of the Library Board as well as the many residents who continually ask the library staff and the Board these questions Why can’t I visit the library in Ocean Park or Sunset Park to which I can walk? Why are there no librarians to help my child afterschool when our branch is open for a couple of hours?
Why do I have to wait months for a new book?
We know the answers to these questions and I know that you do as well. The libraries may be the last of our community services to recover from the impacts of COVID since our libraries took the largest reduction of all City departments and remain the last department to which pre-Covid funding levels have been restored.
We don’t have the staff to fully open Ocean Park and Fairview branches.
When they are open, we don’t have funds to assign a librarian to serve the residents.
We don’t have sufficient staff to timely process new books so we hear from our long-time patrons that they are now going to the LA city libraries.
We fully understand the challenges the City is facing and know this is the second year of a two-year budget and we not expecting to see increases now. However, we do expect a commitment on the part of the City Council to its residents and to our library staff to make library funding a priority in the next twoyear budget. We are fortunate that we have dedicated and tireless library staff, under the leadership of Erica Cuyugan, who manage to spread the limited resources in meaningful ways to engage the community through programs, hands on materials to borrow, and through partnerships with other groups in the community to expand access to services.
The library CIP requests have again been delayed. Most critical are the replacement and expansion of security cameras, which have made a difference to increased safety, and the upgrade to the AV equipment in the MLK auditorium, which has not been done for 18 years. These are not large expenditures but would make an immediate difference.
All is not bleak – in collaboration with Cultural Affairs, and the Arts Commission, we have named our first Poet Laureate, Anne Carmack, who has already been welcomed by the community and opened up opportunities for expression among all ages. We will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Pico Library on Saturday, June 29. We have a strong Friends of the Library partner, who have been working on an exciting plan for the main library café and courtyard. Our libraries are cores of cultural diversity and Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
2 inclusivity and offer safe spaces for the community to gather and grow. They have long been valued in Santa Monica. Now is the time for the Council to assure that this support still holds.
Sincerely,
Judith Meister
Chair, Santa Monica Library Board
[email protected]
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Landing Fees at SMO
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 11:29 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Landing Fees at SMO
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
We currently have a significant amount of unfunded environmental work to do at the airport.
There are years of environmental remediation that needs to be addressed even while current aviation users continue to negatively impact the environment on the ground.
Landing fees should be used NOW, as is allowed by the FAA, in order to remediate the past and present pollution created by aviation users - instead of having the general public burden those costs in the future when the airport closes.
The FAA has a procedure that we should follow for setting landing fees.
Staff should be directed by Council to follow those procedures, so that landing fee funds can continue to be used to address the harmful byproducts of present aviation use.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Sandbank <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: SMCC June 25 Item 12a airport fees
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please, remove from the budget (Item 12 A.4 airport fees) the $13M fee reduction based on a biased staff assertion which is considered a “mischaracterization”, according to your lawyer, Scott Lewis, of a legitimate obligation. It is not! Lewis asserts “the FAA does not have the authority to set the level of the fee.”
The fee reduction is a ploy initiated by the aviation organizations who, after losing their ballot measure to take over the land back in 2014, have concocted another attempt to place a stranglehold on the land by siphoning the funds—largely coming from non-aeronautical sources—which are needed for EIR and cleanup of property in advance of creating the great park.
Before giving away our parkland to aviation interests, please take careful consideration of Mr. Lewis’ assertions and do not rely solely on information fed to you by pro-aviation staff recommendations.
Do not give away our land.
Ref: Scott Lewis’ letter to aviation interests
Thank you,
Lisa Sandbank
Sunset Park
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Poonam Bhatla <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12a, Airport Fees
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Please do not give away $13,000,000 surplus funds and find better use such as to decommission the airport, remediate any aviation caused contamination, take the fuel tanks out of commission, budget for legal fees, or make needed capital improvements as allowed by the FAA.
Please take the necessary steps to close the airport, and rebuild the park that was bought in 1926.
As flights go over our homes we find our backyard and furniture filled with jet/planes deposits and the noise pollution on weekends, do not allow us to sit outside and enjoy Santa Monica living.
We request you to please do the right thing.
Kind regards,
Poonam Bhatla
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: Andrea Hricko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stop the $13M giveaway
EXTERNAL
And make the airport into a park!
Andrea Hricko 2506 21st St SM
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
4 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item 12.A.4 - STOP THE GIVEAWAY!!!
From: Robb Curtis Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:02 AM
To: Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 12.A.4 - STOP THE GIVEAWAY!!!
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers13 million would go a long way toward mitigation efforts at SMO or a thousand other pressing issues. DO NOT HAND THIS MONEY BACK TO THE PILOTS!
Robert Brown
Sunset Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: NoJets SMO <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 2:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council asked to give away $13 Million.
EXTERNAL
View this email in your browser
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Staff uses plausible, but incorrect reasons to
give away a $13,000,000 surplus.
A new solution is needed!
The staff was asked directly by the Mayor and Council Member Zwick whether the City has any alternatives to reducing aviation surplus other than reducing fees 53%. Their collective answer was no; the Consent Decree and potential lawsuits were used as justification. Their response sounded plausible, especially to anyone who has not studied the contract. Yet it is false to say the Consent Decree gives no choice other than giving surplus funds away. As for lawsuits, anyone can sue for any reason; this is true. What wasn't mentioned was many pilots are not happy about the 53% giveaway and might sue anyway; nothing can prevent lawsuits.
In the last few months staff has used the Consent Decree and possible lawsuits as the reasons to lease the 45 year old fuel farm, sign a lease to another flight school, sign Atlantic's lease, and reduce fees. Why has staff not asked their expert aviation attorney to help reasonably spend the surplus $13,000,000 to decommission the airport, remediate any aviation caused contamination, take the fuel tanks out of commission, budget for legal fees, or make needed capital Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
2 improvements as allowed by the FAA?
Please urge the council to stop the $13,000,000 give away, take the necessary steps to close the airport, and rebuild the park that was bought in 1926.
Thank you.
Onward,
Alan
Write to Council. Tell them to reject the giveaway of $13,000,000 and find better uses for the surplus funds.Tell them what you think! Just do it! Subject line: Item 12a, Airport Fees
[email protected]
A drop of effort can create a sea of change.
Copyright © 2024 No Jets SMO, All rights reserved.
Thank you for your continued support to reduce airport impacts and improve our quality of life.
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Lutz, Joseph <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lutz, Joseph
Subject: Item 12a, Airport Fees
EXTERNAL
Dear Council:
As a nearby resident of the airport subjected to the vile jet fuel smell as jets await take-off coordination with LAX (at length process), please take the necessary to help reasonably spend the surplus $13,000,000. These remediation steps should include decommissioning the airport, removing any aviation caused contamination, take the fuel tanks out of commission, budget for legal fees, and/or make needed capital improvements as allowed by the FAA.
Best regards,
Joe Lutz
Joseph Lutz | Senior Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP
2029 Century Park East | Suite 3500 | Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Direct: +1-310-201-1545 | Mobile: +1-310-717-3692 | Fax: +1-310-551-8345 [email protected] | www.seyfarth.com
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Seyfarth_Log
o_Signature.
png
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Kenny Fields <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 6:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport funds
EXTERNAL
Seriously, in a City that can’t afford to hire adequate numbers of building inspectors, building department staff, and other much needed staff, we’re going to give away $13 million? Find a way to use that money for useful purposes, not to subsidize the soon to be closed airport operations.
Kenny Fields
310-985-0412 (cell)
[email protected]
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: Cathie Gentile <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 3:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: line 12A Airport fees
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please stop the $13,000,000 giveaway, take the necessary steps to close the airport, and rebuild the park that was bought in 1926.
Sincerely,
Catherine M. Gentile
Sunset Park resident since 1985
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
4 David Yakobson
From: Jan Simonovic <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 11:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Surplus Funds From Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
Please use the surplus funds from the airport to advance the conversion of the airport to a vibrant public park.
Sincerely,
Jan Simonovic
Thomas Krumpak
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
5 David Yakobson
From: Lorri Antosz Benson <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 9:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12a, Airport fees
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council- Please protect Santa Monica! We are a few short years away from reaching the goal the majority of Santa Monica voters and taxpayers have been waiting for- the closing of the airport and the creation of a wonderful recreation and park resource for our town. Please reject the $13 Million giveaway and vote to use the surplus for things that will BENEFIT those who you represent.
Perhaps towards decommissioning the airport, remediating any aviation-caused contamination, taking the fuel tanks out of commission, budgeting for legal fees, or making needed capital improvements as allowed by the FAA? There are infinitely better uses for the surplus, that will bring the city closer to the goal desired by your constituents. Please act in OUR best interests, instead of in the interest of those who wish to circumvent the passed vote and find a loophole to keep the airport open.
It’s time to show your supporters, who voted you into office under the impression that you were going to work towards closing the airport and creating a wonderful “Central Park” recreation and park space, that you are people of your word. We are counting on you!
best,
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
6 David Yakobson
From: D F <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 8:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 12a. Airport Fees
EXTERNAL
The council suggestions are preposterous. This is no way to run a city. It is not your money to give away, it belongs to the city and its residence.
We urge you to take a realistic assessment of the multiple options to clean up the airport and its surroundings and implement a safer environment.
Thank you,
Dee Forrest
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
7 David Yakobson
From: Jode Lebeda <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 8:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12a - airport fees
EXTERNAL
Hi There - please consider better use of the $13M in excess funds - let’s start building a proper fund for all of the incredible things we can do with SMO to once we shut it down.
This could be the biggest opportunity to improve our city in the history of LA! Thank you for your leadership.
Jode Lebeda / 90405
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
8 David Yakobson
From: Karen Pinto <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 4:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 12a
EXTERNAL
Are you freaking crazy? In my experience yes, or incompetent! DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES GIVE AWAY $13000. This is a no brainer. Put your legal team to work.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
9 David Yakobson
From: William Fordes <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 12a, Airport Fees
EXTERNAL
City Council Members: I urge you to reject the giveaway of $13,000,000 and find better uses for the surplus funds than increasing flights and taking us back to the noise and pollution we have fought so hard — and won so BIGLY — to get rid of. As I sit in my house on 27th St and Pearl, a flight school plane is doing patterns around the neighborhood, spewing lead and benzine onto our homes, making ungodly racket. PLEASE understand that there will repercussion to all city council members at the ballot box when the 60% of the electorate that voted to close the airport finds out about your continued permission for this rip off.
Bill Fordes
2308 27th St 90405
“The minds of younger men are always flighty. When an old man is present at a meeting, he can assess the interests of both sides, because he looks to both the past and future.” — Homer, THE ILIAD
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
11 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 12a - Airport Fees
EXTERNAL
From Alan Levenson
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
12 View this email in your browser
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Staff uses plausible, but incorrect reasons to
give away a $13,000,000 surplus.
A new solution is needed!
The staff was asked directly by the Mayor and Council Member Zwick whether the City has any alternatives to reducing aviation surplus other than reducing fees 53%. Their collective answer was no; the Consent Decree and potential lawsuits were used as justification. Their response sounded plausible, especially to anyone who has not studied the contract. Yet it is false to say the Consent Decree gives no choice other than giving surplus funds away. As for lawsuits, anyone can sue for any reason; this is true. What wasn't mentioned was many pilots are not happy about the 53% giveaway and might sue anyway; nothing can prevent lawsuits.
In the last few months staff has used the Consent Decree and possible lawsuits as the reasons to lease the 45 year old fuel farm, sign a lease to another flight school, sign Atlantic's lease, and reduce fees. Why has staff not asked their expert aviation attorney to help reasonably spend the surplus $13,000,000 to decommission the airport, remediate any aviation caused contamination, take the fuel tanks out of commission, budget for legal fees, or make needed capital improvements as allowed by the FAA?
Please urge the council to stop the $13,000,000 give away, take the necessary steps to close the airport, and rebuild the park that was bought in 1926.
Thank you.
Onward,
Alan
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
13 Write to Council. Tell them to reject the giveaway of $13,000,000 and find better uses for the surplus funds.Tell them what you think! Just do it! Subject line: Item 12a, Airport Fees
[email protected]
A drop of effort can create a sea of change.
Copyright © 2024 No Jets SMO, All rights reserved.
Thank you for your continued support to reduce airport impacts and improve our quality of life.
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
14 Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
15 David Yakobson
From: Planning Commission Comments
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 4:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Fw: no new aviation infrastructure at S.M. Airport – please! From: Hal Bogotch <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 11:08 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Planning Commission Comments <[email protected]>
Subject: no new aviation infrastructure at S.M. Airport – please!
EXTERNAL
Manager White & City Council Members –
Santa Monica residents (such as myself) want the city to be absolutely singleminded in its focus on eliminating all aviation activities from the Santa Monica Airport site, in conformity with the will of the citizens (as expressed in multiple votes, over the years), and permanently close SMO on 12/31/2028.
No more aviation infrastructure!
No housing developments!
No battery charging or maintenance of eVTOL aircraft!
No stalling!
No manipulation or relaxation of rules or regulations!
No misdirection!
No secret deals!
No b.s.!
The city needs to swiftly begin remediating the lead, oil, and other pollution at the airport – instead of reducing aviation fees!
Forget about electrifying the runway!
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
16 The city must use any/all available funds to clean up the mess aviation has created over many decades with leaking fuel tanks and (sadly) so much more.
The money is in the S.M. airport fund now.
Please do:
Get to work on closing the airport and cleaning up!
Keep in mind Santa Monica residents' vision for a Great Park! Sincerely,
-- Hal
꼩꼪꼫꼭꼬
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hal Bogotch
2520 Cloverfield Blvd
S.M. 90405
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 2:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Subject: SMO: SMCC Meeting - June 25, 2024 - Item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (Page 55) – Oppose the $13 million giveaway at SMO
Attachments: SMCC 06-25-24 Public Comment Regarding $13M Giveaway.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Attached is my Public Comment for the SMCC Meeting on June 25, 2024, Item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (Page 55). Oppose the $13 million giveaway at SMO.
It is also posted at https://bit.ly/13MillionGiveaway
--Ben Wang
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
June 20, 2024
Santa Monica Mayor and City Council
1685 Main St.
Santa Monica, CA 90401
E-mail: [email protected]
Posted at: https://bit.ly/13MillionGiveaway
RE: SMCC Meeting - June 25, 2024 - Item 12.A.4 and Exhibit E (Page 55) – Oppose the $13 million giveaway at SMO
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Give it away or spend it? This is the core question regarding the $13 million aeronautical surplus at Santa Monica Airport (SMO).
I urge you to reject Staff’s proposal to reduce rates at SMO by 53%, which equates to an unnecessary $13 million giveaway of public funds to private aviation interests over the next four years. Instead, the City Council should direct Staff to evaluate alternatives and use the aeronautical surplus on bona fide aeronautical expenses that have been curiously omitted from any present or future plans and budget over the next four years.
A. The Presupposed Violation or Threat to the Consent Decree is False 49 U.S. Code § 47129 specific purpose is to address the resolution of disputes concerning airport fees.
It outlines a detailed process for fee disputes. It states that the FAA has authority to make a determination whether the City’s aeronautical fees are reasonable or unreasonable, upon (a) written request by the City to the Secretary of Transportation, or (b) written complaint by the aeronautical user to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 USC § 47129(a)(1) Furthermore, it explicitly declares that the FAA “shall not set the level of the fee.” 49 USC § 47129(a)(3) Staff has made no written request to the Secretary of Transportation for a determination and no such determination about the reasonableness or unreasonableness of airport fees has been made. So, there is no dispute or violation of the Consent Decree. The City should follow the process to request a determination, before giving away $13 million.
B. No Order by FAA
Moreover, it’s also important to note that the FAA:
1. Has NOT determined SMO’s current rates are out of compliance.
2. Has NOT mandated that the City must reduce its rates.
3. Has NOT directed the City to give away aeronautical surplus to aviation interests.
4. Has NOT issued any order regarding the aeronautical surplus.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Therefore, the proposed $13 million giveaway is a discretionary decision by the City Council, not an FAA order. Scott Lewis, the City’s outside counsel, explains this in detail in his letter to aviation1.
C. Staff’s Giveaway Proposal is Premature and the Urgency to Approve It is Fake The $13 million giveaway proposal “jumps the gun” and ignores two more key points.
1. The FAA has only directed the City to recalculate its 11-year-old rates to reflect (a) the current aeronautical costs and (b) the current aeronautical operation activity levels at SMO.
2. The FAA has only stated that accumulating aeronautical surplus may warrant an inquiry, which is a long way from challenging and invalidating the Consent Decree. The City can simply reduce its aeronautical surplus by spending the funds.
D. Staff’s Proposal is Inconsistent and Conflicts with Staff’s Prior 2018 Legal Declarations Aeronautical landing fees can be calculated by dividing the airfield total costs by the airfield users’ operations and activity levels. Staff and its consultants (WJA Advisors) all consistently stated in their 2018 legal declarations under penalty of perjury that (a) airfield costs (the numerator) have increased over time, and (b) aircraft operations and activity (the denominator) have declined over time, especially due to the runway shortening in 2017. The City won this court case preserving the landing fee methodology2. They clearly stated that any updated calculation of the airport landing fee (numerator divided by the denominator) would necessarily calculate to a landing fee that is greater than before, not less3. SMO operations have continued to decline through the present day.
Stelios Makrides is the SMO Airport Director.
3 2018 Declaration of WJA, Stelios Makrides, Martin Pastucha, and Stephanie Manglaras. 2 Santa Monica Daily Press News Article on the 2018 Landing Fee Litigation and Decision (link). 1 Scott Lewis, May 30, 2024 [Santa Monica Outside Counsel Letter to Private Aviation Counsel, page 3, paragraph 1 and 2] (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Martin Pastucha is the former Director of Public Works.
Warren Adams has been an aviation management consultant with 35 years experience.
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
SMO operations have consistently declined.
E. Foreseeable Aeronautical Expenses and Alternative Uses Not Presented Staff’s proposal railroads their planned $13 million giveaway, overlooks foreseeable aeronautical expenses over the next four years, and fails to present alternative uses of the surplus aeronautical funds. Staff simply concludes it has no aeronautical use for the funds.
The assumption that the aeronautical surplus must be zero by a certain deadline of December 31, 2028, is unverified, especially given the significant anticipated aeronautical expenses for airport decommissioning (after aircraft operations cease but before airport closure). Regardless of timing, it makes no sense that the only solution to bring the aeronautical surplus to zero is a $13 million giveaway, and that the decision must be made urgently.
A common-sense approach would be to identify, plan, and budget for spending the aeronautical surplus over the next four years on bona fide capital expenses, operations and maintenance, decommissioning, environmental remediation, and legal expenses. Potential alternative uses include, but are not limited to:
Environmental Work and Remediation: Staff currently budgets for environmental assessments, but assumes zero environmental remediation expenses. This makes no sense given that remediation costs have already identified by the 12-Acre Airport Park Expansion EIR4. The City can anticipate more significant environmental remediation costs for both the Airport Park Expansion and the remaining airport land. Allocating aeronautical surplus funds for environmental remediation is allowed per the FAA Policy on Rates and Charges, and will help fund present and future expenses and ensure compliance with environmental regulations5.
5 FAA Policy on Rates and Charges (link)
4 12-acre Airport Park Expansion Final EIR and Appendices (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
The Airport Park Expansion EIR reports existing environmental issues requiring remediation.
The FAA Policy on Rates and Charges say that environmental work and remediation are aeronautical expenses.
Underground Fuel Tank Removal: Atlantic Aviation has both a tank “recapture clause” allowing the City to remove the tanks and an “environmental remediation clause” in their lease agreement. So the surplus aeronautical funds could be used to pay for and commence tank removal with only 30 days notice per the lease agreement starting today. This would address potential environmental hazards and
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
costs that must be paid mostly by the City, while also ensuring the City and the tenant to fulfill lease obligations6.
Atlantic Aviation’s lease contains a fuel farm recapture clause allowing for the tanks to be removed.
Atlantic Aviation’s lease contains clauses on environmental remediation.
Infrastructure Improvements: Pilots have requested both new bathrooms and a community center at the airport. These facilities and perhaps others could be designed for later adaptive reuse, serving park users in the future once the airport is fully closed.
Decommissioning Costs: Airport decommissioning costs may be a proper use of aeronautical funds.
These costs are neither planned nor funded yet. These cost include:
1. Infrastructure Removal: The costs associated with decommissioning runways, airfield equipment, lighting, and other structures and equipment.
2. Site Restoration: Restoring the land to a natural state or preparing it for future use, which may involve civil engineering work, or other site repairs and restoration.
3. Disposal Costs: Proper disposal of materials, including hazardous waste and equipment will be necessary.
4. Labor and Equipment: The cost of hiring skilled labor and renting or purchasing equipment for the decommissioning process.
5. Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, which may involve additional permitting and fees.
6 Atlantic Aviation Lease Agreement (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
6. Planning and Project Management: Costs associated with planning, managing, and overseeing the decommissioning project.
Litigation and Settlement Costs: There are anticipated litigation and settlement costs, particularly as aviation users are expected to leave in 2028. Past experiences, such as the $450,000 paid to Justice Aviation, illustrate the future financial burdens of expected legal challenges7.
Proper Due Diligence and Spending
The City should NOT simply claim it has no use for the $13 million aeronautical surplus and simply give these public funds to private aviation users and tenants. This would set a bad precedent and appear as an admission of guilt. Instead, the City should responsibly evaluate and allocate these public dollars to address legitimate pending needs and future obligations, ensuring financial preparedness for upcoming expenses.
Please consider the broader implications and opportunities for utilizing the $13 million aeronautical surplus more effectively. By rejecting the proposed giveaway and exploring these alternative expenditures, the City can ensure the best use of public funds and address current and future needs.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
B e n W a n g
Sunset Park
7 Santa Monica Lookout News Article on $450,000 Paid to Justice Aviation (link)
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024
Item 12-A
June 25, 2024