?
Posted on 12/27/2010 12:03:54 PM PST by pabianice
SMO — City Manager Rod Gould has denied two applications for new flight schools at Santa Monica Airport, citing the "particularly intense environmental impacts" the schools would have had.
The move went against a recommendation from Airport Director Bob Trimborn but was in keeping with guidance from the Airport Commission, which last month voted 3-1, with one abstention, to urge denial of the applications.
The schools, the Flight Academy and Angel City Flyers, had sought to operate a maximum of three airplanes for flight instruction.
The Flight Academy, which is based in Washington state, had applied to operate one plane, and would have replaced a one-plane flight school, Sea Side Aviation, that stopped doing business at SMO in October, Trimborn said.
Long Beach-based Angel City Flyers had asked to operate one plane with the possibility of adding a second plane if needed.
Reached on Thursday, Trimborn declined to comment on Gould's decision but said the denials were the first in his memory.
advertisement In letters sent Monday to the flight school operators explaining his decision, Gould gave an account of Trimborn's support for the new flight schools, noting the airport director believed the permits should be granted "because overall operations have declined in recent years [at SMO]" and the new schools "would likely not alter the overall noise contours of the airport."
At an Airport Commission meeting in November, the five-member panel discussed concerns about the "repetitive, low altitude operations" that are specific to flight schools and "result in environmental impacts much more significant than those resulting from routine airport usage" before voting to withhold support, according to Gould's letter.
In siding with the commission's majority, Gould said it was important to strike a balance between having an adequate number of flight schools and protecting the environment and quality of life for residents who live near the airport.
There are six flight schools at SMO, according to Trimborn — a number that Gould said "may amount to an over concentration in terms of impacts."
The rejections come as City Hall is preparing to conduct a review of SMO ahead of the expiration in 2015 of an agreement with the federal government to operate the facility. While the FAA disputes the significance of the expiration, Santa Monica officials have argued it will give City Hall more leverage to push for changes at SMO that would mean fewer noise and other pollution impacts for airport neighbors.
To Erick Bryant, director of operations for Angel City Flyers, the rejection came as a surprise.
"On the application we tried to make it clear how focused we are on minimizing the impact on the surrounding community," he said. "We weren't successful in conveying that commitment to [the commission]."
Bryant said his company won't contest the decision but may re-apply. He said Angel City Flyers uses newer planes than some competitors, giving his company a lesser environmental footprint.
"I think the future of Santa Monica's flight training environment will be newer airplanes," he said. "I realize the residents would rather have no flight training at the airport, but I'm not sure that's a realistic goal."
nickt@smdp.com
If you read it though you see it’s about low level flight - ie the noise from the planes.
Not everything environmental is CO2.
If they had used CO2 as the reason I’m pretty sure any reasonable court would have overturned it.
The SM city council is trying to shut down the airport altogether.
LOL! Try finding the noise from two Cessna 172s against the deafening roar of SM's 24/7 traffic. This is pure Leftist evil.
Is there ANY economic enterprise in this nation, ANY job creator, that is not subject to vicious attacks from our own government?
This is a very good policy. The last thing CA needs right now is more jobs. Kudos to the People’s Republic of Santa Monica.
I don't know about you, but personally I find the deafening roar of a 172 configured for landing at pattern altitude a very thrilling sound! Of course to hear it you have to wait until your neighbor is not mowing the lawn or using one of those awful leaf blowers.
</sarcasm>
Check to see who’s ‘donated’ to the City Council re-election funds. Chances are you’ll find the current flight school owners name on the list.
I was working one Saturday with another engineer, and we hear this
noise, and wondered what it was.
A tech pokes his head in the lab, and says "That was Joe [buzzing
the building in a 152]. I guess he wants me to go pick him up
the airport. I'll be back in a bit."
Unfortunately for Joe, a cop was working a detail at the corner, and
got the tail #.
I can't remember who the tech said Joe was saying "Yes, sir", "No, sir",
and "Never again, sir" to on the phone when he got there.
re: “Yes, sir”, “No, sir”, and “Never again, sir”
A conversation with the tower or the FSS is seldom a good thing.
One of the two or three things you NEVER want to hear the controller say, “Call the tower when you’re on the ground.” Funny how they have their little ‘code’ words and phrases they use when they’re pissed. Like, “State your intentions!”
For thirteen years late in the 20th Century, we lived just two blocks from the end of the takeoff runway for SM Airport. Every two years we had a small plane crash within a block or three from our suburban home. It began to seem like life in Beirut.
Like my neighbors (who ranged from both Left to Right), we came to conclude that the airport is not well-situated for these kinds of operations. It’s closely surrounded by densely developed single family homes. Better to shift its entire general aviation load elsewhere. The land would be even more productive if used for other commercial applications.
The Hollywood celebs who are the facility’s most profitable patrons may be inconvenienced by its departure; in that event, my heart bleeds for them.
The city council and the NIMBY neighbors. Liberal irony marches on. Eventually, the city will have no economy.
One wonders if the airport was there when you moved 'just two blocks from the end of the takeoff runway'?
Crashes of planes entering or exiting S.M. Airport are extremely rare, and almost NEVER on a residential street. It is an incredibly safe airport. I found it very pleasant to live nearby, especially when pilots are flying their vintage WWII aircraft on weekends.
Who was there first? The airport or the homes?
?
I don't think I have ever heard of an instance where a city had to exercise their power of Eminent Domain in order to clear area to build a new airport. Typically, most of these secondary airports started out as grass strips miles from the nearest house.
“Crashes are...extremely rare”???
Just within the past decade, the place has averaged a fatal crash every seventeen months. Check the facts under “accidents” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Airport
As for who got there first, airport or homeowners, it doesn’t matter. It would now better serve the public interest to move the airport than to try to get rid of all of the homes imperiled by the place.
The homes near Santa Monica airport are not “imperiled.” Good grief. We recognize lib talking points when we see them. This is Free Republic, you know.
So, in other words, the airport must move because it was there first. Nevermind the fact that homeowner built or bought knowingly next to an active airport.
Got it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.