City Prevails Over Pilots

By Jorge Casuso

July 22 -- A Superior Court Judge this week ruled that Santa Monica Airport is following the provisions laid out in a landmark 1984 Agreement regulating airport use, deciding in favor of the City on 12 of 13 actions filed by a local pilots' group.

In earlier pre-trial motions, the Court already had dismissed 11 other causes of action filed by the Santa Monica Airport Association, which challenged the City's practices in the operation of the Airport's layout and aircraft noise abatement program.

"This allows the City to move forward in planning for the airport, how we are going to deal with the noise problems and aviation in general," said Deputy City Attorney Martin T. Tachiki, who represented the City in the case. "Instead of looking back to old history, we can now talk about moving forward."

"I am pleased that the Court acknowledged the City's efforts to operate perhaps the nation's most compatible airport in a highly populated urban environment," said Airport Director Jeff Mathieu. "In doing so, the airport's layout, noise mitigation program and provision of aviation services were validated as being in compliance with the 1984 Agreement."

In the only ruling in favor of the Airport Association, Malibu Superior Court Judge Cesar C. Sarmiento ruled that the City must consider entering into leases with two current month-to-month tenants at the airport.

The leasing issue was also the subject of an administrative complaint filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by the airport association and two other private parties in 1999. The FAA's decision in favor of the City is now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Filed in November 1999, the association's lawsuit alleges that the City failed to provide the facilities and services described in the 1984 Agreement and had not implemented the aircraft noise abatement program the agreement set forth.

In his closing statement, the plaintiff's attorney, Lloyd Kirschbaum, argued that the City failed to provide sufficient space to permit at least 550-based aircraft and 40 transient aircraft to park or tie-down at the airport.

"They carved out residual land based on intentions to provide and maintain tie-downs that were never fulfilled, and plans that were never enacted, and now want to continue the charade of relying on a given amount of 'extra land' without providing enough aviation land to satisfy the minimum aviation requirements that they agreed to," Kirschbaum said.

"The City's scheme is no different than deciding how much of the meal is going to be left over before starting to eat dinner," he said.

The association also challenged the City's enforcement of the noise abatement program, including increasing fines for violating the noise limit.

In closing arguments, the City argued that the 1984 Agreement "was intended to be a conceptual blueprint for the development" of the airport and not "a detailed guide to the Airport's daily operations over the 1984 Agreement's 31-year term."

By consolidating "aviation activities" near the runway, the airport has been able to provide parking spaces for the 590 aircraft called for in the agreement, while a noise program built on voluntary compliance virtually eliminated willful repeat offenders, the City said.

Monday's decision indicates that the City's efforts to balance the needs of aviators and residents who live near the airport have been recognized, City officials contend.

"The ruling provides a basis of support for the City's continuing efforts to implement new and even more effective mitigation measures," City officials said in a statement released Monday.