City Government at its best

Last night (April 30th) at the City Council meeting on the future of SMO we witnessed City government at its best as the Council unanimously passed a series of measures designed to staunch the financial losses at the airport.  Council Chambers and every other public space in City Hall were overflowing with members of the public, but also with pilots and aviation advocates.

Most of the first two hours, of what was to be over four hours of public comment,  consisted of aviation advocates who alternated between making threats of legal action against the city, fear mongering various dire consequences, and of course (like everyone who is faced with a fee increase) claiming the increases would put them out of business.  The remaining time was overwhelmingly comprised of members of the surrounding communities who rebuffed these claims and urged the Council to support the staff report, pass the landing fees, and direct staff to seriously look into other mitigation approaches suggested by the Airport Commission and others.

For nearly 30 years the airport has been a giant petri dish filled with a rich nutrient of city subsidies and fee waivers.  In that time we've grown more FBO flight schools than any other general aviation airport in the area, and jet traffic has increased by over 300% in the last two decades.  Little wonder the weaning process was long and noisy, but last night the free ride finally came to an end.

The Council was having none of the aviation bluster and threats, and stated in no uncertain terms that they, like all others that use City services, must pay their own way in this time of budget crisis.

Accordingly, the Council passed the landing fee measure along with authorizing the necessary funding to administer it, as well as adding the additional cameras required to ensure that flight schools cannot circumvent the measure by executing touch&goes in the middle of the runway.  Most importantly, landing fees now apply to all aircraft, even those based at SMO (which previously paid nothing).  The Council also approved and funded the pilot program to incentivize noise mitigation technology such as mufflers.

In a related matter, while approving the staff's visioning report, Council directed staff that their intent was not to renew the 1984 agreement after 2015, and to allow all aviation leases to expire at that time.  Going forward, staff was directed to to look into any and all additional mitigation strategies, particularly those suggested by the Airport Commission, and to come back to the Council early next year with a full set of options and evaluations with which Council can choose between the possible SMO futures based on how effectively each meets safety, pollution, health, and noise mitigation goals.  Staff was also rebuked for making the suggestion in their report that should the decision ultimately be made to close the airport, massive development in its place would likely follow.  The public land that is the airport is a regional and irreplaceable asset, and such land would not be developed in the same way that privately owned land might be.  See the graphics here for one possible future for SMO land should closure eventuate.  All Council members present contributed amendments to the motion in order to clarify Council intent to staff in these matters.

Each and every vote was unanimous.

For years now the public has been asking the Council and staff to act on their behalf.  Last night it happened, and it happened decisively, despite a highly organized effort by aviation advocates to stop it.

On behalf of the thousands of people that have taken CASMAT surveys and petitions in the past, we commend each and every Council member present last night.  Thank you for listening to the people.  You have reaffirmed our trust in the democratic process, and we hope this will be the start of a new era of openness and true 'visioning' at the airport.

You can watch a video of the entire meeting here.

SMO in the News - May 2013

The following articles relating to SMO have appeared in the press during May 2013:

Obituary: Santa Monica’s Donald Harry Brandsen Passes Away (Santa Monica Mirror, May 18, 2013)
City Council raises airport landing fees, hears visioning options (The Argonaut, May 9, 2013)
Authorities Identify The Two People Killed In Mid-Air Cessna Crash (SM Mirror, May 8, 2013)
LA City Attorney Candidates Answer Questions Regarding SMO (SM Mirror, May 7, 2013)
Flying in the face of controversy (Santa Monica Daily Press, May 5, 2013)
Santa Monica: Air Traffic Control (LA.StreetsBlog.org, May 3, 2013)
SMO Airport Commissioner Explains Agreements At Council Meeting (SM Mirror, May 3, 2013)
Paving Improvements Approved For Santa Monica Airport (Santa Monica Mirror, May 3, 2013)
Santa Monica Airport Landing Fees To Increase (Santa Monica Mirror, May 3, 2013)
Santa Monica’s Next Iteration ...  to close/cripple its Airport “Insane” (JDA Journal, May 3, 2013)
Fear, and Fear Itself — More on the Santa Monica Airport (Santa Monica Patch, May 2, 2013)
Council Raises Landing Fees, Explores Partial Closure of SMO (SM Lookout, May 2, 2013)
Council Mulls Future of Santa Monica Airport (Santa Monica Patch, May 2, 2013)
NBAA Working to Stop Landing Fee Increase at Santa Monica (NBAA, May 1, 2013)
AIN Blog: Goodbye SMO (Aviation International News, May 1, 2013)
Massive Landing Fees for Santa Monica Airport (Flying Magazine, May 1, 2013)
City Council increases landing fees, promises change at SMO (SM Daily Press, May 1, 2013)
Residents Spar Over Santa Monica Airport (NBC 4, May 1, 2013) - Video
Changes in the Wind for Santa Monica Airport (FoxLA.com, May 1, 2013)
AOPA opposes proposed doubling of Santa Monica Airport fees (AOPA, May 1, 2013)

Santa Monica Airport Landing Fees to Soar (Santa Monica Patch, May 1, 2013)
Feds Investigate of Plane Crash, SMO Opponents Air Concerns (SM Lookout, May 1, 2013)

SMO related crash frenzy precedes City Council meeting

After averaging one crash/incident every 6 months over the last 4 years, SMO aviation has taken things to a whole new level in preparation for tomorrow night's City Council meeting on the future of the airport.  Three planes associated with SMO have crashed in the last three days.   Two of them apparently crashed into each other today.

On Saturday (April 27th), a small plane N35884 made a belly landing at Van Nuys airport after its landing gear failed to lock.  Fortunately the pilot was not hurt.  See photos here.  N35884 is a 1976 Cessna 177RG registered to Bernard N Harris of Santa Monica.

Then today (April 29th), there was a mid air collision where one plane crashed into the mountains causing a fire and killing the pilot (and one other - see update below), the second plane was forced to belly land on a golf course in Westlake Village injuring three others.  According to Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Allen Kenitzer a preliminary review of radar records showed the two flight-paths crossed just after 2 p.m. A single-engine Cessna 172 (N4677V out of Santa Monica) carrying three people was flying west at an altitude of 3,500 feet when the second plane, also a Cessna 172, was heading East after leaving Santa Monica Airport for an engine test flight.

FAA records show the plane on the golf course (N4677V) is a four-seat Cessna 172 Skyhawk manufactured in 1980 registered to American Flyers flight school out of Santa Monica.  The two aircraft apparently collided in mid air.

This can only add fuel to an already raging inferno of public opposition to the airport.  We are lucky that all three Santa Monica aircraft crashed elsewhere, but arguments by aviation advocates that Santa Monica aviation is safe will seem pretty flimsy now.  It is this alarming rise in flight school related accidents over the past few years that has fueled public resentment.  The public perception is that flight school operations at SMO need to be shut down right now.  Period.  They are a safety hazard and a public nuisance and should not be happening in such a densely populated area.  The neighborhood dodged two or three bullets this weekend.  Enough already.

This raises the total to 85 accidents/incidents associated with SMO since 1982 (when records began).  For the flight schools, the score is now 26 all time.  Five of the last eight incidents (since October 2008) have been flight school related.  Something is very wrong at SMO, particularly with the flight schools,  and it needs to be stopped.

Links:

Survivors of mid-air collision interviewed by NTSB (LA Times, Apr 30, 2013) - Video
Second body found in wreckage of plane crash in Santa Monica Mountains (ABC 7, Apr 30, 2013)
Second body found in wreckage of plane after mid-air collision (LA Times, Apr 30, 2013)

One Pilot Dies in Mid-Air Collision of 2 Cessnas (KTLA 5, Apr 30, 2013) - video

Investigators scour Santa Monica Mountains plane crash site (LA Times, Apr 30, 2013)

Fatal Flight Departed From Santa Monica (Santa Monica Patch, Apr 29, 2013)
Crews search for victims in plane crash in Santa Monica Mountains ( LA Times, Apr 29, 2013)
Midair collision causes one-acre brush fire (The Malibu Times, Apr 29, 2013)
Two Plane Crashes in Westlake and Calabasas May be Connected (KTLA 5, Apr 29, 2013) - video
1 Dead, 3 Hurt After Planes Collide Mid-Air Over Ventura County (KCAL 9, Apr 29, 2013) - video

Below is a WebTrack image showing what appears to be the collision about to happen:

Although not yet announced by the FAA or NTSB, CASMAT believes the second plane that crashed into the hillside was N64030, a 1975 Cessna 172 registered to Edward Berlin of Santa Monica.  This aircraft conducted extensive engine tests over the SMO neighborhood shortly before the collision as shown in the screen shot below:

We must also ask ourselves if all those engine test box-pattern loops shown in the image above should really be happening over a densely populated area.

UPDATE 4/30/2013: A second body has now been found in the wreckage of the plane that crashed into the Santa Monica mountains

UPDATE 5/1/2013: The second plane has now been confirmed as N64030.

UPDATE 5/8/2013: Authorities have now identified the occupants of the second plane.

SPAA-CASMAT-CRAAP Graphics on the future of the airport

Yesterday's (April 28) post by Frank Gruber says it all!

Click image to enlarge - View hi-rez version (here)

Click image to enlarge - View hi-rez version (here)

Roundup of news prior to the April 30th City Council SMO meeting

The final staff report to be presented at the April 30th City council meeting has been released and can be found here.  Staff is recommending the adoption of a landing fee increase and the continued investigation of various means to further mitigate negative SMO impacts.  Staff also recommends funding of a noise mitigation incentive program (initially mufflers) as originally proposed by CASMAT.  CASMAT strongly supports these measures, and urges the City Council to adopt the staff plan.  Although we may not agree with all statements made in this report, it is nonetheless an excellent first step, and a great start to addressing community concerns.  Much still remains to be done - this is not the end, simply the beginning.

Once again, we encourage anyone interested in SMO's future to come to the City Council meeting on the 30th starting at 6:30 PM at City Hall,  City Council Chambers, 2nd floor City Hall, 1685 Main Street. Free street parking or validated in Civic Center Parking Structure opposite the Public Safety Building. Enter the parking structure from 4th St. & Civic Center Dr. (across from the Doubletree Hotel). The validation machine is in the little wall box in the hallway just outside the Council Chambers.

If you are unable to attend, you can listen or view the meeting on City TV http://www.smgov.net/Departments/ CityTV/content.aspx?id=4292 or on 89.9 KCRW (starts broadcasting the meeting in progress at 8 PM).  If you haven’t watched it already, watch the video summary.

CASMAT congratulates Suzanne Paulson on her appointment at the April 23 City Council meeting to fill the vacant slot on the Airport Commission.  Suzanne is the author of past studies on SMO environmental impacts and her expertise will be invaluable in the debate going forward.  Suzanne holds a PhD in Environmental Engineering Science and is with the Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Science at UCLA.

At the April 22 Airport Commission meeting we witnessed a string of pilots and aviation advocates who were unwilling to start paying their way at the airport, believing they are entitled to extend their 29-year subsidized ride at SMO (since the 1984 agreement) at Santa Monica taxpayer's expense.  Having no real basis for their position, the main tactic was simply unjustified requests for delay, as if there had not in reality been ample notice.   Shockingly however, the rhetoric extended on multiple occasions to making overt legal threats against airport commission members themselves should they support the staff plan to raise landing fees, a plan which the commission itself first recommended.  Regrettably for the community, the result was a deadlocked vote on the fees by the commission.  These kind of tactics should not be allowed to succeed, and we hope the Council itself will see them for what they are.  We can anticipate a similar turnout at the April 30th City Council meeting.

CASMAT has been asked to publish the following announcements:

----------------------------------------------------------------

@SMOSTINKS IS NOW ON TWITTER !

Twitter users can now get "daily tweets" about Santa Monica Airport issues.

All Twitter users should just FOLLOW:  @smostinks

Non Twitter users can also read daily updates by logging on to:  http://twitter.com/smostinks

@SMOSTINKS is an independent source of original and aggregated news dealing with Santa Monica Airport Traffic, Noise, Health, Safety, Pollution, and Sustainability issues. 

Since just August of Last year, @SMOSTINKS has posted nearly 800 tweets alerting the community to important news regarding the Santa Monica Airport.  

Keep informed - get involved - get active and TWEET !

----------------------------------------------------------------

Santa Monica Airport Health Impacts Forum - Presented by Venice Neighborhood Council

Saturday April 27, 2013 from 1-4PM at the Pennmar Park Recreation Center, Community Room, 1341 Lake St, Venice.

Experts and politicians will be attending including:

Bill Rosendahl - LA City Councilmember

Ted Lieu - California Sentator for the 28th District

Henry Waxman - Congressman representing California's 33rd Congressional District

UPDATE:Link to ABC news report

----------------------------------------------------------------

Never mind carbon, lets talk decibel offsets

At the April 1st Airport Commission meeting, there were two main subjects up for discussion.  The first (Item 2-A) was a presentation by City staff on the proposal to increase landing fees at SMO and to apply them to all aircraft, including those based at SMO.  The second subject (Item 2-B) was a presentation of the results of the final Phase 3 in the much maligned City visioning process.  Here are some links to the backup documents presented:

Santa Monica Airport Visioning  Phase III Workshop Presentation
SMO Non-Aviation Land Enhancement Planning Project
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation

I have little to offer on the Item 2-B presentation, other than to say that the complete lack of substance to the presentation was par for the course with the entire visioning process (see here and here).  Nothing concrete that substantively mitigates negative airport impacts on surrounding neighborhoods will be put before Council on the 30th as a result of the visioning process; a slap in the face for the 80% of people participating in it and two other community surveys that asked for real change (half directly asked for closure).  Even the trivial placebo changes suggested by pilots (which much to the annoyance of the community, were the only things that made it through Phase 1 and 2 of the visioning), were ultimately dismissed as unworkable or unjustified.  The City Council must direct staff at the April 30th meeting to stop playing 'placebo-visioning' and get serious about fixing the problems at SMO, the community will be watching in anticipation.

Turning to Item 2-A, as CASMAT detailed in an earlier post, because the current landing fees are too low, combined with the outrageous fact that fully two thirds of all takeoffs at SMO pay no landing fees whatsoever, city losses are in excess of $0.5 million each year, and is a major contributor to the fiscal woes at SMO.  CASMAT applauds City Staff for addressing this problem and, after all these years of losses, for proposing a fiscally responsible solution.  This landing fee change was first put forward in the Airport Commission recommendations (along with many other equally practical suggestions - thus far ignored).  A CASMAT petition in support of those recommendations garnered nearly 1,700 signatures.  We hope the Council will go ahead and authorize the landing fee changes. The fees don't do much to help the community, but at least they will staunch the financial bleeding somewhat.  Ultimately, every taxpayer in Santa Monica has been paying for SMO losses for nearly 25 years now.  Enough is enough.

Not surprisingly, during Item 2-A public discussion, we were treated to a string of pilots and aviation business owners at the podium claiming the proposed fee increase was unjustified and unreasonable.  Some claimed it would put them out of business.  To put these claims into perspective, we should note that for a Cessna 172 (the most common type of aircraft used at SMO), the fee amount is approximately $12.  A Cessna 172 costs over a quarter million dollars to buy.  It is hard to see how anyone that can afford a quarter of a million dollars for an aircraft can claim poverty when asked to pay $12 in landing fees.  Lets face it, we Santa Monica residents must pay almost as much to park our cars at the beach; more in some places.  So it is hard to be sympathetic with an argument that says the City should loose money hand-over-fist in order to subsidize aviation businesses so they can avoid the equivalent of parking fees.  If you can't run a business at a profit, it is not the job of Santa Monica taxpayers to bail you out.  Santa Monica residents certainly don't get to park for free just because we live here, and we are fed up of paying for a free ride for aviation businesses that mainly serve those outside the City.

By the way, the other anti-fee-increase argument made at the podium was that "aviation businesses pay rents, and so shouldn't pay landing fees".  Firstly this argument clearly doesn't hold for parking in this City, and secondly as we have shown elsewhere, the ridiculously sub-market-rate rents payed by aviation businesses are themselves responsible for additional revenue loss by the City.  Those subsidized aviation rents are costing Santa Monica taxpayers around $5 million/year that could be much better spent elsewhere.  Don't use the rents argument as a justification, it just makes things worse.

It was telling that as soon as Item 2-A finished, the aviation advocates and pilots that filled the Council Chambers for Item 2-A, almost to a man, got up and left, thereby making abundantly clear their disinterest in 'visioning' a future for SMO that involved any kind of change whatsoever.  How do you compromise when when one side walks out of the debate?  Jay Elder, owner of the American Flyers flight school, perhaps unwittingly summed up the cognitive disconnect taking place when he twice told the commission that "adding mufflers to aircraft has nothing to do with reducing losses" and so should not be considered.  The very concept that the City might chose to do something to mitigate negative SMO impacts on the community, whether or not it reduces costs, apparently did not occur to him, even after all this time.

And that of course brings me to the thing I actually wanted to discuss is this post, which is staff's comments during 2-A discussions regarding CASMAT's proposal (in May 2012) to provide some form of financial incentives tied to landing fees in order to encourage the installation of mitigation technologies such as mufflers, quieter propellors, or the use of non-leaded fuel.  This proposal was made in response to the abandoned staff plan to pay flight schools to fly elsewhere.  Without such incentives, as illustrated by the Item 2-B walkout, the aviation community will clearly do nothing by themselves.

Staff stated that they had talked with the FAA about the idea and had been told that because mufflers cannot be installed on all aircraft, this idea could be seen as 'discriminating' against other kinds of aircraft (e.g., jets) and so was not tenable.  First of all, lets be clear, the new City landing fee schedules apply exactly the same to everyone now, thereby eliminating the discrimination that actually existed before.  End of story, the fees are increasing for all and apply to everyone, and there is nothing the FAA can say about it.  Now as a separate matter, the City, as the proprietor has the perfect right to operate some kind of incentive program to encourage desirable behavior or mitigate impacts within its borders.  One example of such a program was staff's own idea to pay the flight schools to fly elsewhere.  Apparently that was an ok thing to do.  But wasn't that just discriminating against everyone except the flight schools?  You can't make the discrimination argument when it suits you and not when it doesn't.  So in summary, CASMAT does not believe the FAA has any rights whatsoever over a voluntary City incentive program and we should simply go ahead with the incentives.  Practically speaking, at the current rate of progress this may be the only thing that will make any appreciable difference to the community prior to 2015 and we must move forward with it.

However, lets take the 'discrimination' argument at face value and see if we can't come up with an incentive program that avoids any FAA (or aviation advocate) perception of discrimination.  Never one to give up easily, CASMAT has just such a scheme to propose.

What we propose is for the City of Santa Monica to enact a 'decibel offset program', much like the carbon offsets that are becoming commonplace in this country and worldwide.  In a carbon offset program, anyone that can demonstrate appreciable reductions in carbon emissions can sell those reductions to others who are are over their emission quota and would otherwise be subject to penalties.  In this way, carbon offsets create a viable economy wherein all involved are financially motivated to participate and to reduce emissions.  The great thing about such programs is that those that are unwilling to reduce emissions are nonetheless incentivized to pay those that are, thereby reducing their own costs even more due to the offsets they acquire.  In the end, even the worst polluters start to look at their own behavior in such a system.

The Santa Monica decibel offset program would operate much the same way.  It might even be applied outside of an airport context for other forms of 'green encouragement', but we'll focus on just the airport here.  The way it works is that the city offers a percentage reduction in landing fees for any aircraft operator that can demonstrate a reduction in the total number of decibels recorded by the City's noise monitors (i.e., the SENEL recorded for each aircraft).

To illustrate, lets say aircraft N1234 (a Cessna 172) takes off a total 300 times during the year (as we can tell from the Vector System tail number data).  We know from the earlier muffler test results that this will confer a reduction in noise pollution of around 6dBA per takeoff if the plane were fitted with the Gomolzig muffler.  That means that over the year, installing the muffler on this plane has reduced community noise impact by 1,800 dBA.  For the sake of argument lets say that for any plane that demonstrates an annual reduction of over 1,000 dBA for the same plane and number of takeoffs as the prior year, the City awards one 'Decibel Offset' token, good for a 25% reduction in landing fees for ONE plane (and two years if applied to the same plane, one if a purchased 'offset' - see below).  This 'token' is awarded regardless of how the noise reduction was achieved - muffler, prop, or otherwise.

Now for a flight school aircraft, 300 takeoffs a year is nothing, and a 25% reduction in that plane's fees would be 300 x $4 = $1,200.  Since mufflers must be replaced regularly (standard exhaust is approximately $1,500 and a muffler is say $4,500), this means the flight school would recover their investment in the muffler for that plane in just two years, likely far quicker, since most flight school planes take off many times per day.  Maybe this is enough motivation, maybe it is not.

But lets think about a business jet that takes off from SMO 300 times a year (also common).  Fees for a business jet may be anything from $100 to $300 per takeoff (depending on size) which means that over the year the fees would be at least $30,000.  25% off that would be $7,500 - way more than the cost of installing a muffler on a Cessna 172.  But of course, you can't install a muffler on a business jet.

This is where the 'decibel offset' idea comes in because it is now worth it for the jet operator to pay to install a muffler on a flight school plane in exchange for getting the resulting decibel offset.  The jet operator saves money, and the flight school operator gets a quieter more valuable plane and doesn't have to pay to install a muffler.  He also gets the second year's 25% reduction for free (given enough takeoffs that year) since a purchased offset can only be applied by the purchaser for the first year.  Maybe the jet operator might even kick in a cash incentive to purchase the offset.

Most importantly of all, the City doesn't need to put in any money!  All it has to do is keep track of how many decibels can be attributed to each plane out of SMO and publish those results in it's 'decibel offset table' for all to see.  Market economics will take care of the rest, as those with big landing fee bills will pay to acquire offsets first from the flight schools, and then from other active planes.   Maybe when those wells dry up, jet operators might seriously look at quieter planes, or other noise mitigation strategies of their own.  In short order, the noise problem caused by pattern flying at SMO could be effectively solved, the City of Santa Monica could set a precedent for aviation mitigation in this country, and best of all, it would require no investment by the City, and is completely non-discriminatory and thus immune to FAA criticism.

Staff stated at the meeting that they would consider other ways of incentivizing mitigation technology, however, without tying the incentives to real financial benefits (e.g., saved landing fees) that outweigh the costs, it is hard to see why the people that walked out of agenda item 2-B would be motivated by such an incentive.  Incentive schemes like paying half the cost of installation and other simple equivalents would likely fail to make any real difference for exactly this reason.

Therefore CASMAT is asking that staff give serious consideration to a decibel offset incentive program as a means to bring about real change in the short term (i.e., before 2015) while skirting any potential for argument by the FAA.  Clearly there are many details that need to be resolved in such a program, but the basic idea has already been demonstrated sound by the emergent global carbon offset economy.  Remember also that with a bit of creativity, offset style programs could be applied to other negative SMO impacts such as leaded fuel use and pollution in general.

Just an idea.  Please think about it for the community's sake.

SMO Health Impacts Forum - Apr 27, 2013