2022 Santa Monica City Council
Candidate Statements Regarding the Closure of Santa Monica Airport
(Last updated October 22, 2022)
Please note: On October 9, 2022, all Santa Monica City Council Candidates were emailed an open-ended request for their Position Statement on this issue. Their written responses are posted below in alphabetical order. If a candidate statement is not below, no statement was received to date.
Please forward and share this webpage -- www.smofuture.com/vote-2022. For corrections please email [email protected].
Please forward and share this webpage -- www.smofuture.com/vote-2022. For corrections please email [email protected].
Albin Gielicz
www.VoteForAlbin.com
Position Statement:
Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts. The Santa Monica Airport is a huge topic with many moving parts, so I will restrict my comments to my vision for the future. The year 2029 will be here before we know it and we need to have a plan in place.
I support Charter Amendment LC and the idea of turning the airport into a park which should come as no surprise from a Recreation and Parks Commissioner. :) That said, as a community we need to decide what type of park it will be, what amenities should be prioritized, how it's paid for and how ongoing maintenance will be funded. My dream scenario is a recreational sports complex which provides more playing fields, more community garden plots, pickleball and tennis courts, an olympic sized swimming pool and possibly an ice rink. Over the 9 years I've been on the Recreation and Parks Commission, I have heard countless requests for more of all the above amenities and I don't foresee that demand subsiding.
In addition to programmed amenities, I'd like to see significant open space for picnicking, running, rollerblading and relaxation. This space can also be programmed for larger events that we are currently unable to host in Santa Monica due to space limitations. For all of the reservable, programmable amenities, there will be user-based fees which will help fund maintenance of the park. The fee structure can match that of other parks or revised to be specific to this new state-of-the-art facility. This can help offset the rent currently paid to the city by the various aviation businesses. I would like to see a large universally accessible playground there so that Santa Monica children of all abilities have significant safe space to be outside and run around.
So how do we do this, and more importantly how do we pay for it and manage it? One idea could be a public-private partnership which could help develop the larger facilities like the pool, for example. In terms of maintenance that could be a shared responsibility between Public Works and the private partner. If this dream becomes a reality, we must realize and accept the fact that such a recreational complex will quickly become a regional resource and not be solely for the use of Santa Monica residents. We see this now at Memorial Park as well as the Swim Center, etc.
For the sake of considering the community as a whole and being prepared for whatever comes our way, it's prudent to contemplate if any (limited) aviation services should remain for emergency purposes. With the advent of electric (quiet and pollution free) aviation on the horizon, does it behoove us to consider allowing access when needed. While this might not be a popular idea, it is something we have to think about. Another consequence from the closure of SMO will be a change in flight patterns for planes arriving at LAX. They will fly more directly over Santa Monica at altitudes from 7,000 to 9,000 feet. This will definitely alter the quality of life for people in Santa Monica.
I don't raise these other points to create confusion about where I stand about the airport. However as a council member it will be my responsibility to make sound decisions about Santa Monica's future and must do so with as much information and foresight as possible. I am the type of leader to weigh the pros and cons and consider the unintended consequences of any situation before arriving at my decision.
Position Statement:
Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts. The Santa Monica Airport is a huge topic with many moving parts, so I will restrict my comments to my vision for the future. The year 2029 will be here before we know it and we need to have a plan in place.
I support Charter Amendment LC and the idea of turning the airport into a park which should come as no surprise from a Recreation and Parks Commissioner. :) That said, as a community we need to decide what type of park it will be, what amenities should be prioritized, how it's paid for and how ongoing maintenance will be funded. My dream scenario is a recreational sports complex which provides more playing fields, more community garden plots, pickleball and tennis courts, an olympic sized swimming pool and possibly an ice rink. Over the 9 years I've been on the Recreation and Parks Commission, I have heard countless requests for more of all the above amenities and I don't foresee that demand subsiding.
In addition to programmed amenities, I'd like to see significant open space for picnicking, running, rollerblading and relaxation. This space can also be programmed for larger events that we are currently unable to host in Santa Monica due to space limitations. For all of the reservable, programmable amenities, there will be user-based fees which will help fund maintenance of the park. The fee structure can match that of other parks or revised to be specific to this new state-of-the-art facility. This can help offset the rent currently paid to the city by the various aviation businesses. I would like to see a large universally accessible playground there so that Santa Monica children of all abilities have significant safe space to be outside and run around.
So how do we do this, and more importantly how do we pay for it and manage it? One idea could be a public-private partnership which could help develop the larger facilities like the pool, for example. In terms of maintenance that could be a shared responsibility between Public Works and the private partner. If this dream becomes a reality, we must realize and accept the fact that such a recreational complex will quickly become a regional resource and not be solely for the use of Santa Monica residents. We see this now at Memorial Park as well as the Swim Center, etc.
For the sake of considering the community as a whole and being prepared for whatever comes our way, it's prudent to contemplate if any (limited) aviation services should remain for emergency purposes. With the advent of electric (quiet and pollution free) aviation on the horizon, does it behoove us to consider allowing access when needed. While this might not be a popular idea, it is something we have to think about. Another consequence from the closure of SMO will be a change in flight patterns for planes arriving at LAX. They will fly more directly over Santa Monica at altitudes from 7,000 to 9,000 feet. This will definitely alter the quality of life for people in Santa Monica.
I don't raise these other points to create confusion about where I stand about the airport. However as a council member it will be my responsibility to make sound decisions about Santa Monica's future and must do so with as much information and foresight as possible. I am the type of leader to weigh the pros and cons and consider the unintended consequences of any situation before arriving at my decision.
Suggested Fact Check Link: https://itsourland.org/debunking-the-protective-bubble-myth
Armen Melkonians
www.VoteArmen.com
Position Statement:
For too long, Sunset Park residents have been poisoned by leaded fuel, and aggravated by a busy airport, closer to residences than any airport in the State. It's time to stop the sale of leaded fuel at SMO, and make sure the airport become a park, and only a park, when it's shut down in a few years.
Position Statement:
For too long, Sunset Park residents have been poisoned by leaded fuel, and aggravated by a busy airport, closer to residences than any airport in the State. It's time to stop the sale of leaded fuel at SMO, and make sure the airport become a park, and only a park, when it's shut down in a few years.
Caroline Torosis
www.TorosisForSantaMonica.com
Position Statement:
I support closing the airport on December 31, 2028. I also support transforming the over 200 acres of public land from private aviation uses to public park, cultural and community spaces on January 1, 2029, as outlined in the January 2017 SMO Consent Decree, and adopted by the Santa Monica City Council in February 2017 by Resolution 11026. The Consent Decree has allowed the City to reduce the length of the runway to 3500 feet, which has resulted in a more than 80% decrease in jet traffic and the release of 12 acres of land to be immediately turned into and expansion of Airport Park, which I support.
I supported the 2014 Santa Monica Charter Amendment LC to protect the land when the airport closes and will commit to no new development of the land being allowed without the express approval of the voters of Santa Monica. As outlined in LC, this requirement to return to the voters would not apply to the creation of public park and open spaces or maintenance of existing cultural, arts, and education uses.
If elected to council, I am committed to ensuring that the airport’s impacts on the surrounding community continue to decrease. We have started by transitioning to unleaded aviation gasoline at the Santa Monica airport this year. The City of Santa Monica airport is the first in the region to offer a viable fuel replacement option for leaded aviation gasoline at commercially competitive prices. Moreover, we can seek to reduce emissions by requiring electric vehicles for all onsite equipment related to the operations and maintenance of the airport.
In congress, Federal policy must push airports to move beyond simply mitigating the harms that stem from traditional construction activities to advancing a comprehensive program of climate mitigation and sustainability that governs capital projects and operations. This would include leveraging Federal funding, including that from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), to support stand-alone climate change mitigation and adaptation projects as well as environmental sustainability projects more broadly. Santa Monica should be well positioned to compete for the approximately $3 billion of BIL funding we expect to see come to the Los Angeles County Region to mitigate the harmful environmental impacts of the airport.
Finally, I support a comprehensive master planning process for the acreage of the airport upon its closure. This should involve robust community engagement, land use planning, cost estimates, and opportunity to identify funding. With the influx of Federal funding available for more sustainable infrastructure, we cannot afford to wait. Additionally, if we start to undertake this master planning process now, we can reduce future development pressure on the public land and co-create a space that serves the needs of all community members.
Position Statement:
I support closing the airport on December 31, 2028. I also support transforming the over 200 acres of public land from private aviation uses to public park, cultural and community spaces on January 1, 2029, as outlined in the January 2017 SMO Consent Decree, and adopted by the Santa Monica City Council in February 2017 by Resolution 11026. The Consent Decree has allowed the City to reduce the length of the runway to 3500 feet, which has resulted in a more than 80% decrease in jet traffic and the release of 12 acres of land to be immediately turned into and expansion of Airport Park, which I support.
I supported the 2014 Santa Monica Charter Amendment LC to protect the land when the airport closes and will commit to no new development of the land being allowed without the express approval of the voters of Santa Monica. As outlined in LC, this requirement to return to the voters would not apply to the creation of public park and open spaces or maintenance of existing cultural, arts, and education uses.
If elected to council, I am committed to ensuring that the airport’s impacts on the surrounding community continue to decrease. We have started by transitioning to unleaded aviation gasoline at the Santa Monica airport this year. The City of Santa Monica airport is the first in the region to offer a viable fuel replacement option for leaded aviation gasoline at commercially competitive prices. Moreover, we can seek to reduce emissions by requiring electric vehicles for all onsite equipment related to the operations and maintenance of the airport.
In congress, Federal policy must push airports to move beyond simply mitigating the harms that stem from traditional construction activities to advancing a comprehensive program of climate mitigation and sustainability that governs capital projects and operations. This would include leveraging Federal funding, including that from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), to support stand-alone climate change mitigation and adaptation projects as well as environmental sustainability projects more broadly. Santa Monica should be well positioned to compete for the approximately $3 billion of BIL funding we expect to see come to the Los Angeles County Region to mitigate the harmful environmental impacts of the airport.
Finally, I support a comprehensive master planning process for the acreage of the airport upon its closure. This should involve robust community engagement, land use planning, cost estimates, and opportunity to identify funding. With the influx of Federal funding available for more sustainable infrastructure, we cannot afford to wait. Additionally, if we start to undertake this master planning process now, we can reduce future development pressure on the public land and co-create a space that serves the needs of all community members.
Ellis Raskin
www.ElectEllis.org
Position Statement:
Santa Monica Airport poses a number of public health risks to our community, and we need to proceed with the shutdown of the airport as soon as possible (and certainly no later than December 31, 2028). Likewise, we need to honor the will of the electorate and scrupulously defend Measure LC. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-imagine the Airport as a transformative public space.
One significant ongoing issue that needs to be addressed immediately is the ongoing use of leaded jet fuel at the airport. There is no excuse for this, and it needs to end immediately. I (and thousands of other residents) live directly under the flight path of the airport, and we cannot continue further exposure to this harmful toxin. I have been collaborating with City Councilmembers to try to find a solution, and I am hopeful that we are making progress.
Other potential strategies for mitigating ongoing public health risks involve time-of-day flight restrictions, further shortening of the runway, increased airport fees, and strict enforcement of existing environmental regulations (including noise regulations).
Position Statement:
Santa Monica Airport poses a number of public health risks to our community, and we need to proceed with the shutdown of the airport as soon as possible (and certainly no later than December 31, 2028). Likewise, we need to honor the will of the electorate and scrupulously defend Measure LC. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-imagine the Airport as a transformative public space.
One significant ongoing issue that needs to be addressed immediately is the ongoing use of leaded jet fuel at the airport. There is no excuse for this, and it needs to end immediately. I (and thousands of other residents) live directly under the flight path of the airport, and we cannot continue further exposure to this harmful toxin. I have been collaborating with City Councilmembers to try to find a solution, and I am hopeful that we are making progress.
Other potential strategies for mitigating ongoing public health risks involve time-of-day flight restrictions, further shortening of the runway, increased airport fees, and strict enforcement of existing environmental regulations (including noise regulations).
Jesse Zwick
www.JesseZwick.com
Position Statement:
I support the successful resident-backed effort to close the Santa Monica Airport by the end of 2028 and I applaud all who fought hard to achieve this. Publicly-owned land should be put to the highest and best use that benefits the entire community, and it is clear that, today, the costs of our local airport – in terms of noise, air pollution, and other environmental and safety hazards – far outweigh its benefits.
I also support the steps taken to reduce impacts to the community in the intervening time before the airport closes – including shortening the runway, increasing landing fees, and continuing to contest Part 16 claims brought against the city by the AOPA, NBAA and others – and will fight to continue to tighten operations to reduce pollution and noise impacts to the surrounding community.
2029 will be here before we know it, and there are many competing interests – including ongoing pressure to reverse the airport closure decision – that will doubtless reassert themselves. It is therefore incumbent upon council to begin the community planning and envisioning process early, so that we have a clear and positive vision for future use that will inspire and rally Santa Monicans – one that prioritizes parks, arts, and cultural purposes, meets the needs of our community, and has a clear, actionable plan to ensure its realization.
Position Statement:
I support the successful resident-backed effort to close the Santa Monica Airport by the end of 2028 and I applaud all who fought hard to achieve this. Publicly-owned land should be put to the highest and best use that benefits the entire community, and it is clear that, today, the costs of our local airport – in terms of noise, air pollution, and other environmental and safety hazards – far outweigh its benefits.
I also support the steps taken to reduce impacts to the community in the intervening time before the airport closes – including shortening the runway, increasing landing fees, and continuing to contest Part 16 claims brought against the city by the AOPA, NBAA and others – and will fight to continue to tighten operations to reduce pollution and noise impacts to the surrounding community.
2029 will be here before we know it, and there are many competing interests – including ongoing pressure to reverse the airport closure decision – that will doubtless reassert themselves. It is therefore incumbent upon council to begin the community planning and envisioning process early, so that we have a clear and positive vision for future use that will inspire and rally Santa Monicans – one that prioritizes parks, arts, and cultural purposes, meets the needs of our community, and has a clear, actionable plan to ensure its realization.
Lana Negrete
www.VoteForLana.com
Position Statement:
The community voted and passed measure LC to make sure the airport is open space and incorporates space for the arts, cultural events and activity the entire community can enjoy. As a community that is hurting for green space, open space and in need of more cultural performing arts spaces since our civic center has been closed; I hope to see the airport become just that. I think it is a lot of land and although ideal to some to use it for housing, we are on a track where this may be the only space left for more field playing space for our children, pickleball courts and tennis courts for the community, open green space and a dog park and a potential performing arts center. The community voted; it’s up to council to honor the communities voice. If there are any changes presented it should be up to the voters to decide what happens.
Position Statement:
The community voted and passed measure LC to make sure the airport is open space and incorporates space for the arts, cultural events and activity the entire community can enjoy. As a community that is hurting for green space, open space and in need of more cultural performing arts spaces since our civic center has been closed; I hope to see the airport become just that. I think it is a lot of land and although ideal to some to use it for housing, we are on a track where this may be the only space left for more field playing space for our children, pickleball courts and tennis courts for the community, open green space and a dog park and a potential performing arts center. The community voted; it’s up to council to honor the communities voice. If there are any changes presented it should be up to the voters to decide what happens.
Natalya Zernitskaya
www.NatalyaForCityCouncil.com
Position Statement:
I supported Measure LC in 2014 and can’t wait for the airport land to be reclaimed by our community and transformed into a grand park. I was relieved that Santa Monica and the FAA settled their legal dispute and entered into a consent decree in 2017 but was disappointed that it would take another 12 years to close the airport. However, I believe that this time can be used to plan for how we are going to transform that land into something that will serve more of our community while still honoring its past, as well as work on putting together the funding for its transformation and the environmental remediation that it will require.
227 acres is a very significant amount of land and there are many types of open spaces, recreational facilities, cultural, arts, and educational uses we can use it for. 2029 will be here before we know it so we need to start the planning as soon as possible so that we are ready to begin the transformation on day one.
We also need to continue our work to make the airport and surrounding land safer. We know that both the noise pollution and emissions from aviation uses, while not on a comparable level to the emissions from cars, are still impacting our residents and we need to seek ways to reduce both types of pollution.
We must remain vigilant because we have seen the FAA change their minds about the airport before and we can’t just assume that the airport will automatically close on January 1, 2029 without continuing to do the work to prepare for its closure.
Position Statement:
I supported Measure LC in 2014 and can’t wait for the airport land to be reclaimed by our community and transformed into a grand park. I was relieved that Santa Monica and the FAA settled their legal dispute and entered into a consent decree in 2017 but was disappointed that it would take another 12 years to close the airport. However, I believe that this time can be used to plan for how we are going to transform that land into something that will serve more of our community while still honoring its past, as well as work on putting together the funding for its transformation and the environmental remediation that it will require.
227 acres is a very significant amount of land and there are many types of open spaces, recreational facilities, cultural, arts, and educational uses we can use it for. 2029 will be here before we know it so we need to start the planning as soon as possible so that we are ready to begin the transformation on day one.
We also need to continue our work to make the airport and surrounding land safer. We know that both the noise pollution and emissions from aviation uses, while not on a comparable level to the emissions from cars, are still impacting our residents and we need to seek ways to reduce both types of pollution.
We must remain vigilant because we have seen the FAA change their minds about the airport before and we can’t just assume that the airport will automatically close on January 1, 2029 without continuing to do the work to prepare for its closure.
Whitney Bain
No website published.
Position Statement:
To close the Santa Monica Airport is a huge mistake.
First, you'll lose the protective bubble which is 3.1 miles that surrounds the airspace and land wise ends at Century City. Airlines will drop from 2,600 feet to make their approach from Vernon to the East on Runway 25 to 1,500 feet to save on fuel and time. The approach will be over Santa Monica. Would you deny any future president access to the Los Angeles area for his/her staging area at Santa Monica Airport once it's closed? Torrance is too far away as is Van Nuys, Hawthorne is too small. Santa Monica Airport is the only choice. Let's say that it's torn down and turned into a park. First, you have to do an environmental study which will take up to two years, second; you have to dig down 300 feet to remove the contaminants from the past 80 years that are there. Where are you going to transfer and store them? What about water? Where are you going to get it to maintain the area? What about maintenance? How many people is the city going to hire when they say they are strapped for cash? Where is the money to run the park going to come from? The cost to turn the airport into a park will be $3.2 BILLION DOLLARS and take at least ten years, so you're looking at 2039-2041 and most of the negative people who dislike the airport will be dead or too old to enjoy it.
A park? No way. The land is too valuable to be a one mile park. Condos and a business park are more like it. If you like the heavy, congested, road rage traffic now, you're really going to enjoy it in the future here. Accidents have happened at the airport. There is no denying that. Regrettably, a few people have died in them and all life is precious, but that was on the airport property. Los Angeles area motorists have accidents daily and many of them are killed, so should we outlaw all roads and cars in the L.A. area based on that statistic? If the air quality is so bad at the airport raise by alarmists, why is it they still live there? They speak as if their children are going to turn into Mad Max mutants and yet, no one had died from any disease or malady who lives in the surrounding area of the airport. What it boils down to is that if we close the airport we lose a valuable commodity to the city. Jobs will be lost, Angels Flight; a non-profit that provides emergency hospital service for those who can't afford it like heart transplants and surgery will be gone forever, Judy Barker at Barker Hanger will lose her business and it is a valuable business to this city with the diverse events that take place there, artists who create with their gifted talents will lose their space and find it difficult to locate a new one at affordable rates.
Position Statement:
To close the Santa Monica Airport is a huge mistake.
First, you'll lose the protective bubble which is 3.1 miles that surrounds the airspace and land wise ends at Century City. Airlines will drop from 2,600 feet to make their approach from Vernon to the East on Runway 25 to 1,500 feet to save on fuel and time. The approach will be over Santa Monica. Would you deny any future president access to the Los Angeles area for his/her staging area at Santa Monica Airport once it's closed? Torrance is too far away as is Van Nuys, Hawthorne is too small. Santa Monica Airport is the only choice. Let's say that it's torn down and turned into a park. First, you have to do an environmental study which will take up to two years, second; you have to dig down 300 feet to remove the contaminants from the past 80 years that are there. Where are you going to transfer and store them? What about water? Where are you going to get it to maintain the area? What about maintenance? How many people is the city going to hire when they say they are strapped for cash? Where is the money to run the park going to come from? The cost to turn the airport into a park will be $3.2 BILLION DOLLARS and take at least ten years, so you're looking at 2039-2041 and most of the negative people who dislike the airport will be dead or too old to enjoy it.
A park? No way. The land is too valuable to be a one mile park. Condos and a business park are more like it. If you like the heavy, congested, road rage traffic now, you're really going to enjoy it in the future here. Accidents have happened at the airport. There is no denying that. Regrettably, a few people have died in them and all life is precious, but that was on the airport property. Los Angeles area motorists have accidents daily and many of them are killed, so should we outlaw all roads and cars in the L.A. area based on that statistic? If the air quality is so bad at the airport raise by alarmists, why is it they still live there? They speak as if their children are going to turn into Mad Max mutants and yet, no one had died from any disease or malady who lives in the surrounding area of the airport. What it boils down to is that if we close the airport we lose a valuable commodity to the city. Jobs will be lost, Angels Flight; a non-profit that provides emergency hospital service for those who can't afford it like heart transplants and surgery will be gone forever, Judy Barker at Barker Hanger will lose her business and it is a valuable business to this city with the diverse events that take place there, artists who create with their gifted talents will lose their space and find it difficult to locate a new one at affordable rates.
Suggested Fact Check Link: https://itsourland.org/debunking-the-protective-bubble-myth
-- END --
To view the SMO Future Vote 2020 page from the previous election, please visit: www.smofuture.com/vote-2020
To learn more about the future of our public land and the closure of Santa Monica Airport visit: www.smofuture.com
