.
Feedback

Blog: City Vision on SMO Is Biased

Airport Commission and the community want more information from the city.

Residents in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles have expressed great concern that Santa Monica's vision process for the future of Santa Monica Airport has been a biased process, and it has not begun to determine uses of the land if the airport were to be closed or even if it could be scaled back in size. And yet City Council members have asked for the community's trust.

Although the Santa Monica Airport Commission has repeatedly asked to be included in a more participatory role in the Santa Monica Airport vision process, they have been basically ignored. At the last Airport Commission meeting, an ad-hoc committee's request that the item be placed on a City Council agenda was not successful.

For years, community concerns regarding air pollution have fallen under the City Council's radar and continues to do so to this day. Trust the City?

If SM City Council wants the community's trust they need to actually respond to both the Commission's and the community concerns. Hopefully, now with two new CRAAP-endorsed Council Members, Tony Vazquez and Ted Winterer, they will now start.

Below is an email that was sent, on behalf of the Airport Commission, to City Council requesting again that the Airport Commission's recent recommendation be placed on the City Council's agenda for an upcoming meeting.

[Dear Mayor O'Connor and Council Members,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Airport Commission with an urgent request to place an item on the City Council Agenda on an expedited basis.  The item relates to a motion passed by the Airport Commission at a special meeting on December 11, 2012, relating to Phase III of the Airport Visioning Process. Because Phase III of the Airport Visioning Process is scheduled to be concluded in late March or early April of this year, the Airport Commission is requesting that Council consider the matter on an expedited basis, before it is too late.

Background information

At the May 8, 2012, City Council meeting, based on the body of information received during Phase II, Council directed staff to proceed with the following objectives for Phase III of the Santa Monica Airport Visioning Process:

1. Address concerns about transparency, communications and trust.
2. Transform Santa Monica Airport into a model Green Airport.
3. Pursue making Santa Monica Airport a better neighbor with greater community benefit.
4. Evaluate possible design improvements for non-aviation land.
5. Continue on-going dialogue with the FAA to assess possibilities for voluntarily reducing adverse impacts of Airport operations, recommending to City Council that Council concerning the scope of the  recommendation that the City Council.

Staff was directed to hold two meetings during Phase III to provide updates and obtain feedback from the public and the Airport Commission; the first meeting was held during the Airport Commission Workshops on November 26, 2012.

The Airport Commission took public input after Staff's presentation of their report on the direction and progress of Phase III of the Visioning Process.  Based upon the public's input, the Airport Commission asked Staff if it could incorporate some of the public's various requests and address some of the public's concerns as Staff completed Phase III of the Visioning process. 

Staff responded that it would need to investigate whether accommodating those requests and concerns was within the parameters of the direction given to Staff by Council at the May 8, 2012 meeting.  Therefore, the Airport Commission scheduled a special meeting for December 11, 2012 to hear and consider Staff's response as to whether it would address the public's requests and concerns as a part of Phase III of the Visioning Process.  On December 11, 2012, Staff informed the Airport Commission that Staff did not believe that it could accommodate the public's requests and concerns as a part of Phase III of the Visioning Process without further direction from City Council.  Therefore, on December 11, 2012, based upon public input, the Airport Commission passed the following motion:

"The Airport Commission recommends that City Council request that staff provide the following: 
  
1. The information matrix that was previously presented as a part of the Phase III Visioning Workshop be augmented to include:
a. any additional information on flight school operations, and analysis of same, as staff can provide;
b. information concerning the number of tie-downs spaces at the airport;
c. the number of aircraft permanently housed at the airport; and
d. the number of transient aircraft that regularly require tie-downs from city owned tie-downs, if any;

2. A survey of the best practices and proprietary rights concerning the sale of fuels at other similarly situated airports, which shall mean airports either having a comparable  number of annual operations; or of comparable size in terms of acreage of airport property; or in terms of runway length; so limited to those three factors and general aviation airports; and

3. A copy of the “City’s facilities survey” reflecting condition, useful life, and square footage of the facilities that house aviation related operations at the airport and copies of the leases for those businesses that occupy the buildings.

The Airport Commission also recommends that City Council provide direction to staff to clarify and expand the scope of City Council’s previous instructions to staff on May 8, 2012 regarding the Phase III Airport Visioning Process to include:

1. That staff examine, analyze, and include in its report to City Council, and the Community Workshops, how all aviation related operations might be conducted after the expiration of the 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement to mitigate negative effects of the airport, including, but not limited to, evaluating:

a. whether that aviation related operation is subject to a FAA claim for further legal obligations and the source of that FAA claim;
b. the cost and benefit of altering those operations and the potential neighborhood effects on altering those operations (the analysis can include expanding as well as reducing aviation related operations), evaluating flight school operations, tie-down spaces, the sale of fuel, continued ownership and/or other issues related to the actual building spaces on the airport, reducing or eliminating the number of fixed based operators (FBOs) and other aviation related businesses, operating a FBO as a City owned business;
c. removal from aviation use of the western portion of the runway quit claimed to the City in 1949, (the non-1984 Instrument of Transfer parcel); and
d. the types of leases currently at the airport, including those of aviation businesses and review whether those businesses are paying a fair market rent, what the fair market rent for that space occupied by the business would be, or is; whether its current use is the best use for that space, and if there are public policies that might dictate another use other than the best space used for that leased spaced."

The motion also approved formation of an ad hoc committee charged with contacting City Council to request that the item be placed on an upcoming City Council Meeting, on an expedited basis, and presenting a brief report to City Council regarding the motion.

The ad hoc committee was unable to have the matter placed on a City Council Meeting Agenda and, as of the date of the January 28, 2013 Airport Commission meeting, Staff indicated that it had not received any further direction from City Council regarding the scope of Phase III of the Visioning Process. During the course of that meeting, the Airport Commission and Staff were able to work out an understanding, wherein Staff agreed to do what it could relating to the additional information that the Commission sought to be included in the previously presented information matrix, regarding fuel sale practices at similarly situated airports and some of the information requested concerning the buildings located on the aviation side of the Airport.  However, Staff reiterated its position that none of the other matters could be addressed in Phase III of the Visioning Process absent further direction from City Council.

Request that Item be Placed on Upcoming City Council Agenda

The Airport Commission feels very strongly that as presently formulated, Phase III of the Santa Monica Airport Visioning Process does not adequately address the issues of transparency, communications and trust that City Council enumerated as its first objective for Phase III.

The public has strongly voiced concern that as presently formulated, Phase III of the Santa Monica Airport Visioning Process does not adequately address City Council's next two objectives for Phase III, which were to explore how to transform Santa Monica Airport into a model Green Airport and pursue making Santa Monica Airport a better neighbor with greater community benefit.

In order to address the public's concerns regarding issues of transparency, communications, trust and the adequacy of Phase III of the Visioning process in exploring how to transform Santa Monica Airport into a model Green Airport and pursue making Santa Monica Airport a better neighbor with greater community benefit, the Airport Commission believes that it is essential that City Council at least consider the motion set forth above prior to conclusion of Phase III of the Visioning Process.  Unless the public's concerned can be aired before City Council prior to the conclusion of  Phase III, the process is likely to lose its credibility and the benefit that could be derived from the Visioning Process will be diminished.

Therefore, the Airport Commission hereby requests that the City Council place this item on an upcoming agenda on an expedited basis.  We know how busy you are and how packed your Agendas are with other time sensitive issues.  To that end, our report will be short, five minutes or less.

Thank you for your consideration.

Peter Donald,
Vice-Chair Airport Commission

Ofer Grossman,
Airport Commissioner]

 





 



 



Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Santa Monica Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
j pena May 23, 2013 at 09:19 am
The City Council and Planning Commission have given our city away to billionaire developers andRead More business. Developers should be footing the bills. They need to stop rolling over to the likes of Dell, owner of the Miramar, who ripped off the city for several million dollars already. Instead they are considering letting him build 150 5 million $ luxury condos at the Miramar. In a residential neighborhood, a 22 story eyesore at our city gate.
Eddie Greenberg May 8, 2013 at 09:09 pm
Thank you Marilyn Wexler. I totally agree with all that you have said in this eloquent letter. SMPDRead More have done well in DUI checkpoints for the past few years and they are appreciated for doing so. We are all better off for their efforts!
Aaron Mirsky April 11, 2013 at 06:26 pm
Great letter! Mr. Hill, you have a wonderful perspective and attitude. I am relatively new hear, myRead More family moved to Santa Monica in 1976. I cherish my memories at Santa Monica Beach and hope to continue to "refresh my soul" for many years to come.
Steven Rosen April 10, 2013 at 01:43 pm
Beautiful letter and I under his perspective. But I think if you look at the Quality of Life from aRead More generic standpoint (if there is such a thing), I don't think we headed in an upward trajectory. I cannot imagine more traffic, and new skyline created by tall buildings and newly-required traffic management to make the Quality of Life better for any of us.
Stodj April 9, 2013 at 04:41 pm
Lovely comment. I sense from your letter a new perspective on why this growth is happening, besidesRead More the $ involved, everyone needs to refresh their souls in this time of history and Santa Monica does that...at least at the beach where, hopefully, building will not progress. We do need to focus on halting the height of buildings as that will seriously change the environment here. Thanks, Michael.
karen April 11, 2013 at 11:02 pm
I left Santa Monica in 1987. I went to Samohi and Lincoln, worked at Sears and loved the small townRead More feel. Yes it's changed, but so has everywhere else. If my kids were young enough to drag along I would move there in a heartbeat. If you don't like it anymore, don't visit. I don't really understand why anyone would write to a local media outlet and complain about the town. How insulting. I'll take SM over the Bay area (talk about expensive!) any day.
SantaMonicaNative April 8, 2013 at 07:02 pm
Continued (sorry) The city changes. More people, more housing needed. More people more cars, moreRead More traffic, more trash, more dogs. Next we get the commercial builders who see Santa Monica as a cashbox. In city where 10 stories is tall, we get money hungery people who don't live here, who think 20 stories is better. That's where we are now. A turning point in the city. Once you build them you can't take them back. The city will change even more with the Expo line. We can't stop change, we can't restrict building except through zoning. We can temper it. What we can do is shop locally to save the few local businesses that remain and call City Hall on over ambitious projects. Speak up! It's frustrating-they don't listen but eventually they can be voted out. Don't let Santa Monica turn into Beverly Hills by the sea. We need normal businesses we can afford. Places to eat that you don't need a loan. Stop voting for group politics, read the ballot, get involved, even if only on a personal level. Know your city, don't just complain.
SantaMonicaNative April 8, 2013 at 06:47 pm
My parents loved Santa Monica, the first place i remember was a huge old house on 4th and MontannaRead More which had been subivided into units. If my parents had kept all the properties they owned in this city, i'd be rich. That said i must admit i still love Santa Monica. Go back to any city you grew up in and you will be shocked by the change. Part of the change has to do with the congested state if Caliornia. There are more people, no doubt of that. The other thing is memory tends to blur the facts. The things that matter to an adult are meaningless to a child. There are so many things that have disppeared from this city but they have been replaced by other things. Nothing but bugs are ixed in amber,cities can't be. In addition to that, Santa Monica has not grown in a natural fashion. The City Council has intervened in the natural growth of the city with laws, taxes and programs to fashion a city THEY want, not necessarily what would have been. The city has been pushed into a schitzophrenic combination of high ideals and directed outcomes. Rent control remade the city, changing it from a city with children and families to single renters. Vacancy decontrol helped to change that. Mom and pop owners are almost gone. Few small businesses can exist here, they can't compete with chains The city favors tenants over landlords, lawyers are expensive so properties get sold, torn down and replaced by multiple units. Low income housing increases the density of neighborhoods.
Steve Herbert April 10, 2013 at 08:12 pm
Many folks say the biking is not for them, therefore it can't work for everyone. What should theyRead More should say is it may not work for them but if a larger percentage of those who can ride would, the total numberof drivers would be reduced as more of them are out of their cars and riding bikes. Also consider if you can afford to drive a car you very likely can afford an electric bike. These "hybrids" are a nice blend of an electric motor with a bicycle which can provide as much or as little assistance as the rider prefers. As they still qualify as bikes so you can use and benefit from the bike lanes, but as they are electric they can help those with arthritis, sciatica and other people make the impossible, possible.
RJ April 9, 2013 at 06:18 pm
...ditto Paul!
RJ April 9, 2013 at 06:17 pm
.....Barbara, you forgot to add the need to eliminate about half of the population in Santa MonicaRead More before one could "rediscover" the sleepy beach town it used to be. Then don't forget the other "bike riders" that drive just a crazy as some automobile drivers....failing to abide by the rules of the road...and law! Unfortunately city officials have been trying to squeeze 10 pounds of garbage into 5 pound bags for the last 20 years....then come up with bright ideas like proposing to build movie theaters that enter/empty right on to 4th Street at Arizona (after tearing down the City parking garage) were we all know every idiot that has been issued a driver's license will stop and hold up traffic to drop off their kids...only to return to do it all over again when picking them up. Heaven forbid their kids have to walk from a block away where the parent could avoid blocking traffic on one of the busiest main thoroughfare streets in the city. I’m sure you could come up with many more examples of the most insane development that has happened or is proposed to happen. So Barbara......where is that area with "no congestion"???
Jonathan Friedman April 10, 2013 at 04:08 am
Good luck Jessica. Watch out for Jerry.
Paul S April 10, 2013 at 01:47 am
Don't correct it Jerry - it's very you and we all knew what you meant- and it was fine
Jerry Rubin April 10, 2013 at 01:16 am
CORRECTING my previous comment: Welcome Jessica!
Chris Loos April 4, 2013 at 04:00 pm
When the Expo line is complete and people start using it to travel back and forth from Santa MonicaRead More to DTLA, I think the idea of going without a car (or getting by with 1 car per household instead of 2) will seem mainstream to many more people.
Michael April 4, 2013 at 03:33 pm
3) Getting folks to part with their cars is like forcing divorce upon a couple rapturously in loveRead More 40 minute commute from Santa Monica to Downtown LA on the Expo Line!! Where do I sign up? I will be one of the first to move to a residence within walking distance of a Santa Monica Expo Station. If not having a parking space makes my rent cheaper I have no problem selling my car.
Chris Loos April 4, 2013 at 01:43 pm
Great article Juan!
Glenn E Grab March 30, 2013 at 02:12 pm
last week it took me 1 hour and 15 minutes to go from Sepulveda and Culver to the Lemlee Theatre onRead More 2nd street at 3:30 on Sunday afternoon...I can ride my bike there in 30 minutes...the only reason I took my car was because I went with two friends...one of whom was temporarily on crutches..we griped at him the whole evening..
mimi March 29, 2013 at 02:22 am
There is another travel option for the disabled called Access Services. They transport all over losRead More angeles and neighboring suburbs. You may want to check them out. You are fortunate to have a friend who transports you around instead of riding with WISE, which you dislike.. You could be of great help to your friend if you used Google Directions (before you leave home) to find various routes to your destination. I am familiar with the Chez Jay location on Ocean Ave. There are better and worse ways to get there. I suggest you choose better. Of course, this requires advance planning and a bit of home work. Think of all the aggravation you will save yourself and your friend. The choice is yours.
Dan Charney March 29, 2013 at 02:21 am
Well said- I never go downtown - haven't for almost ten or more years- once every few years I go toRead More the Genius Bar- take the bus-( which no longer runs on my street)- I have been going to Chez Jay almost 40 years or more- I used to work out on the bluffs- can't do any shopping anywhere near Wilshire or Montana- I can walk to Main - get my groceries at night- what is happening here is no different than what is happening in Congress and to our entire country- the rich are doing as they wish - the rest of us can die- the building that will be gone soon will be any with low income tenants and shabby houses- all gone