Questions or comments about proposed 3-year lease extensions on the 1948 Instrument of Transfer Parcel
Questions and Comments Submitted:
- If the City of Santa Monica grants leases to fixed base operators (FBO) that support the jets that fly in and out of Santa Monica Airport and litigation goes on for 3, 5 or 10 years, and the airport is not shut down, then what does that mean for airport jet traffic? Does that mean that jet traffic will continue to grow at SMO until the airport is shut down? Does that mean it will be business as usual for jets at SMO in the meantime? Is there nothing we can do immediately following the expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement and the expiration of leases at SMO that would reduce jet traffic at the airport and begin to give some relief to the surrounding neighborhood? Thank You.
- Why does the City believe it has to provide any leases at all?
- Will this strategy also risk triggering a Part 16 hearing since it proposes two different lease terms on the Instrument of Transfer Parcel versus the Western Parcel?
- What happens if after extending the leases, it is determined that the runway must stay open, but no aviation services (fuel, leases, maintenance, etc.) are not required. Will this be a missed opportunity to effectively reduce or eliminate aircraft traffic, while still complying with having a runway open?
- Why extend leases to the existing FBO's? Why not consider new ones including those that do not operate jets?
- Why is there a rush to extend leases before other alternatives are explored?
- When will the market rates be effective?
- Why not 6-month, 12-month, 18-month, or 24-month leases? Aren't there more than two alternatives?
Please comment on the February 23, 2015 presentation by David Goddard, Chair of the Santa Monica Airport Commission, regarding the proposed leasing policy recommendation to the Santa Monica City Council. Also, please forward the presentation to others (See: http://bit.ly/smo-leasing-policy).