> Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution > Martin Rubin: Director > P.O. Box 643033 Los Angeles, California 90064 > E-mail: jetairpollut...@earthlink.net Website: www.jetairpollution.com > Phone: (310) 479-2529 > (If you wish to be removed from our CRAAP Contact List, please reply > with "REMOVE" in the subject line.) > I urge everyone to attend this meeting and express to the SM City > Council your concerns. > (Probably one minute public comment) > (60 comments would be good 600 would be better) > Don't let SM City Council and SM City Attorney off the hook! > City Council Meeting: May 8, 2012 > Agenda Item: 4A > to be heard no earlier than 6:30 p.m. > > > May 8th staff report to the City Council summarizing the findings > from the Phase II > > >
---------- > City Council Report > > City Council Meeting: May 8, 2012 > Agenda Item: 4A > To: Mayor and City Council > From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works > Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney > Subject: Santa Monica Airport Campus Phase II Public > Process Findings > > Recommended Action > Staff recommends that the City Council: > 1 Review and comment on the results of the Santa Monica Airport > Campus Phase II Public Process; > 2 Provide guidance to staff on Phase III; and > 3 Direct staff to proceed with the Airport visioning process, > including guidance on the Airport Commission conducting two workshops > during Phase III. > > Executive Summary > Phase II of the Santa Monica Airport visioning process involved one of > the largest community discussion processes ever conducted by the City > of Santa Monica (City). Over 300 community members and stakeholders > participated in facilitated, small-group discussions; and the Citys > consultant has submitted both the raw data gathered through that > process and its report summarizing community input, emergent themes, > preferences and suggestions for the Airports future. Based on that > body of information, staff is requesting that Council provide guidance > on the assessments to be undertaken in the third phase and direct > staff to proceed with the visioning process. > > Background > The City owns and operates Santa Monica Airport (SMO), one of the > oldest and busiest General Aviation airports in the country. SMO is > located on 227 acres of prime land, bordered on three sides by busy > arterial streets and residential neighborhoods, two of which are in > the City of Los Angeles. The Airport Campus, which is shown on > Attachment A, consists of 187 acres of land reserved and used for > aviation activities and 40 acres that are allowed to be, and actually > are used for other purposes, which are not inconsistent with airport > activities. These non-aviation uses include park space, educational > facilities, and art studios, among other things. > > Though the City owns and operates the Airport, aviation activities are > governed by federal law and heavily regulated by the Federal Aviation > Administration (FAA), with which the City has had a number of > controversies since the advent of private jet aircraft almost fifty > years ago. > > At present, the City and the FAA have an agreement (the 1984 > Settlement Agreement), which expressly obligates the City to operate > the Airport until 2015, when that agreement will expire by its own > terms. The City and FAA also have other contractual agreements. These > include grant agreements that impose conditions of Airport operation > upon the City. The last of these will expire in 2014, according to the > City, and in 2023, according to the FAA. Additionally, one of two post > World War II instruments transfers land from the federal government to > the City and purports to subject the City to conditions, including > operating the Airport in perpetuity. Finally, the City has various > contractual agreements with Airport lessees, and these leases all > expire by 2015. > > In anticipation of the opportunities that the City believes are > attendant upon the expiration of most of these agreements and of the > obligations they embody, the City undertook a comprehensive, public > visioning process regarding the future of the Airport. The visioning > process is intended to engage community members and other stakeholders > in an in-depth, public discussion of the possibilities for the > Airports future. In the past, that discussion has been limited to a > controversy about whether the Airport should (or must) be maintained > as it is, or whether the City should attempt, unilaterally, to close > it an endeavor that would inevitably involve litigation against the > FAA, which contends that the City must continue to operate the > Airport. Among other things, the visioning process is intended to > identify and assess the options between these two extremes. > > The Visioning Process began with Council authorizing professional > service contracts with consultants to assist with Phase I. It > consisted of three parts: (1) a survey by the Rand Corporation of > concepts for uses that could be located on the non-aviation land and > could enhance the Airports value to the community; (2) an initial > sampling of interviews by Point C Partners to identify viewpoints > about the Airport and possibilities for its future to be used in > developing a model for the Phase II public process; and (3) a limited > analysis by HR&A Advisors of the economic and fiscal impacts of the > Airports current operations. Additionally, Phase I included the > development of a format for Phase II, which was intended to ensure > that all interested members of the public would have an adequate > opportunity to express their views and discuss them with others. On > October 4, 2011, staff reported to Council on Phase I, and Council > gave direction to proceed with Phase II. > > On December 6, 2011, Council approved a professional services contract > with Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) to facilitate thirty > community discussion groups and provide both a report and raw data to > the City and on December 10, 2011, Phase II was launched with an open > house at the Airport. The purpose of these discussions was to provide > a forum in which community members and all other interested persons > could share their views, to build a record, and to gather views and > ideas to aid in the formulation of themes for strategic analysis in > Phase III. > > Groups were conducted on various days of the week and at several > locations in order to ensure that anyone who wanted to participate > could do so. In total, there were 312 participants in 32 group > discussions. Sixty-six percent of the participants were Santa Monica > residents; thirty-one percent were Los Angeles residents; and three > percent resided in other areas such as Malibu, Gardena, and Thousand > Oaks. The distribution of participants residences is shown on the > following map. > ---------- > > Each group consisted of about 8 to 12 members of the public. This > small size maximized participants opportunity to freely and > comfortably share and discuss their concerns, frustrations, and hopes > for the Airport. > > All participants' comments and ideas were documented. The source > documents include the wall graphics, detailed minutes taken by City > staff, and participants comment cards from each session. The input > from the participants and each focus group is included in MIGs > Summary of Phase II Community Discussion Groups report, which is > Attachment B. The body of MIGs report outlines the thematic > outcomes and community preferences that emerged in the groups. > > This staff report summarizes the community input obtained through > MIG's work, provides information about steps the City is currently > taking to address community concerns about adverse Airport impacts and > other steps the City might or might not be able to take, and seeks > Council approval and direction on proposals for Phase III. > > Discussion > Participants' Basic Opinions about the Airport and Its Future > As anticipated, the participants in the Phase II discussion groups > were sharply divided in their viewpoints about the Airports future. > Most participants live near the Airport. And, many of them favored > airport closure. Others, including a number of City residents, thought > the City should continue to operate the Airport, preferably with > improvements. The vast majority understood that the breadth of federal > authority curtails the City's choices; and they willingly discussed > their specific concerns about current operations and their preferences > as to future Airport operations. > > The MIG Report organizes participants' underlying views on the Airport > into five general positions and describes each. In summary, one group > unequivocally expressed the view that the Airport should be closed > because the detrimental impacts of emissions on health and noise upon > quality of life, as well as safety risks, outweigh any potential > benefits. Proponents of this view identified various possibilities for > repurposing the Airport land. > > At the other end of the spectrum, some participants preferred to > maintain the status quo because the Airport is one of the safest and > best general aviation airports in California and serves as an > important regional resource. Moreover, advances in jet aircraft design > and improved fuels will reduce noise and emissions in the coming years > and thereby reduce corresponding impacts. > > Between these two extremes, the MIG Report describes three positions, > each assuming that the Airport may remain open (either by choice or > compulsion) and describing conditions that should be attached to its > continued operation. In brief summary, one group urged that the City > should try to close the Airport unless a firm agreement is reached > with the FAA that guarantees operational changes sufficient to > significantly mitigate adverse Airport impacts on surrounding > neighborhoods. MIG describes a second group as arguing that the > Airport should only remain open if operations and the airport > footprint are significantly reduced. This group felt that the > Airport has outgrown the City in its residential setting and should be > closed unless it can somehow become more compatible with its > surroundings and City values. Lastly, MIG describes a third group, > which perceives the Airport as a valuable resource that should be > preserved if the City is able to implement various mitigation measures > sufficient to reduce impacts. This group considered pursuing closure > as impractical for three reasons: the potential legal battle with the > FAA; the fact that any subsequent repurposing of the Airport campus > would greatly exacerbate traffic problems; and the concern that > closure of the Airport would allow flights incoming to Los Angeles > International Airport to overfly Santa Monica at lower altitudes. > > Perspectives on Airport Operations and Issues Identified by > Participants > After soliciting participants general opinions about the Airport, MIG > sought and obtained their specific views and concerns about the > Airport and its current operations. The comments about Airport > operations are detailed in the MIG report and the appendices to the > report, which provide a wealth of data for community and Council > consideration and an excellent record to support future City actions. > > The MIG report puts these comments about the Airport and operations > into two groups: comments about negative impacts; and comments about > the positive contributions that the Airport makes to the community and > region. > > In very brief summary, most negative comments were about: > > · Noise pollution, particularly noise pollution by jets and flight > school operations; > > · Health impacts of aircraft emissions; > > · Safety risks related to flight training and proximity of homes and a > gas station; > > · Adverse impacts inconsistent with the City's environmental policies; > > · A perceived growth of Airport operations; > > · Damage to residents' life quality and property values without > proportionate benefit; and > > · Lack of local control and leadership with a corresponding sense of > disenfranchisement. > > Also in brief summary, the positive comments about the Airport > included that it: > > · Contributes to the local economy, partly by attracting desirable > businesses; > > · Represents the history of both aviation and the City; > > · Plays a critical role in emergency preparedness and certain medical > services; > > · Serves as a reliever airport and vital link in the regional > transportation system; > > · Provides training and educational opportunities related to aviation; > > · Provides recreational opportunities and a home for the cultural and > arts community; and > > · Is a low-density use in a time of rapid development. > > Key Themes and Community Preferences for the Future > MIG identifies key themes that emerged from the group discussions, > with three being predominant. First, residents repeatedly urged that > the City's Airport must be operated in a manner consistent with the > City's core values of environmental stewardship and sustainability. > Second, a large number of participants protested that the current > operation of the Airport is unfair because it benefits a few to the > detriment of many. Third, residents demanded that the City government > must "stand with the residents" and fight, if necessary, to protect > their interests and quality of life. However, even as they expressed > themselves along these thematic lines, most participants also > expressed understanding that broad federal legal authority greatly > restricts local control. Nonetheless, most participants clearly and > understandably expect the City to actively protect their quality of > life and interests in any way possible. To that end, virtually all > participants, even those most adamant about Airport closure, willingly > expressed preferences as to what should be done or attempted as to > Airport operations. > > Participants' preferences are summarized in detail in the MIG report > and are summarized here in lists organized into the thematic > preferences identified in the report. For brevity's sake some of the > categories have been consolidated in this report. Again, staff urges > Council and community members to read the report and review the raw > data as this summary is offered only for convenience and unfortunately > cannot fully convey the full range and depth of participants' input. > With that said, the main thematic preferences were as outlined below. > > > 1. The Airport must be aligned with the City's core, environmental > values. > > · The "greening process should begin with an environmental assessment > or impact review. > > · Less toxic, green fuels should be required to reduce health risks. > > · Auxiliary ground power units should be installed to reduce noise and > emissions during start up and while awaiting take-off clearance. > > · A mid-field run-up area should be created to allow pilots to queue > for takeoff and check diagnostics in a contained noise area farther > from homes. > > · Noise abatement technology, such as aircraft hush kits, should be > required. > > · Environmental best practices should apply to all Airport activities, > including building, recycling, motor vehicle operations, etc. > > > > 2. The Airport must be transformed into a better neighbor by reducing > noise and enhancing safety. > > · Best practices at other General Aviation airports should be reviewed > to make sure everything possible is done to make SMO a better neighbor > through voluntary measures, such as the Fly Neighborly program, and > through enforcement of legal restrictions on aircraft operations. > > · Hours of operations should be reduced. > > · Jets should be banned, either directly or by shortening the runway. > > · Landing fees and fines should be raised. > > · Flight school operations should be banned or reduced, or schools > should be subsidized to move operations to other airports where > patterned operations are less dangerous and detrimental. > > · Aircraft performance standards should be adopted to reduce noise and > emissions. > > · Development of non-aviation land should be limited to protect > quality of life and prevent increased traffic. > > > > 3. Airport infrastructure and design should be improved to protect > safety and enhance neighbors quality of life and afford greater > amenities to surrounding communities. > > · Safety risks should be addressed by improving navigational aids with > Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation and runway safety (e.g., > Engineered Material Arresting System-EMAS). > > · The blast wall should be expanded and additional protection measures > (e.g., sound walls or buffer zones) should be considered to protect > adjacent neighborhoods. > > · Recreational uses and facilities should be expanded, educational > facilities should be expanded, and light retail should be added. > > · Infrastructure, grounds, and facilities should be upgraded to > improve aesthetics of the Airport campus to be more consistent with > City standards. > > · Security measures should be improved. > > · Access for pedestrians and cyclists should be improved and mass > transit connections should be upgraded. > > > > 4. Community trust must be restored through increased transparency, > better communications, more sharing of information, and unbiased > analysis. > > · The economic impacts of various alternatives should be analyzed, and > the analysis must be unbiased. > > · Statistical information about the Airport operations and noise > should be accurate, unbiased and readily available to the public. > > · Communications between the City and residents about the Airport must > be improved. > > · A permanent Airport ombudsperson position should be created to > address residents' concerns. > > > Preliminary Responses to Community Views and Preferences > Staff has carefully reviewed and considered the input collected from > Phase II and has some initial information and feedback to offer for > Council and community consideration. > > First, a number of the suggestions offered in the discussion groups > are already being implemented or are being evaluated. For example, > staff shares the belief expressed by so many community members that > the Airport (like all City operations) should reflect community > values, particularly the core value of sustainability. Thus, the > Environmental Programs Manager has joined the team of City staff > members working on the Airport. Staff has already initiated work on > the possibility of implementing some sustainability initiatives > outlined in the Phase III process of this report. > > Likewise, staff agrees that the Airport must be transformed into a > better neighbor and has been working to that end in various ways. For > example, staff has negotiated a voluntary reduction in weekend flight > training hours with the flight schools based at the Airport. Staff has > designed a possible plan for subsidizing the relocation of some flight > training in order to reduce patterned operations over dense > residential neighborhoods. > > Also, staff agrees that a variety of infrastructure improvements > should be considered. Of course, those would be subject to funding > availability and Council approval. But, the possibilities noted by > Phase II participants should be explored and publicly addressed. > > And, as to improving communications and increasing transparency, staff > strongly supports these goals, has already undertaken a number of > steps, and looks forward to doing more. Initial steps in this area > included assigning Airport operations to the Public Works Department > in order to increase both support and oversight by better integrating > Airport staff into the organizational structure. Since that > reorganization, efforts have also been made to better accumulate and > share information about operations and noise. Also, more information > is now available on the City's website, including information about > the Airport's history and the legal constraints arising from the > federal governments control over aviation. Other information now on > the website is from WebTrak providing real-time flight data as well as > Landing Fee Program data that consists of dates, times, and aircraft > identification numbers. And, senior staff has met, repeatedly, with > community groups and members, other elected officials and their staff, > representatives of aviation groups, Airport business owners, and > representatives of various groups within the FAA to hear concerns and > seek solutions. Moreover, Phase II of the Visioning Process was > intended and specifically designed for the purpose of obtaining as > much community input as possible. > > To continue dialogue between interested participants that began with > the Phase II discussion groups regarding the future of Santa Monica > Airport, staff supports the concept of holding two workshops where > progress on the Phase III efforts can be provided. These workshops > could be held during Airport Commission meetings and would be > conducted within the Phase III process to provide updates on the work > of Phase III as well as continue to garner ideas and input from the > community throughout the next phase of the visioning process. If the > Council supports this proposal, timing of these workshops would be > coordinated between staff and the Commission to maximize community > input. Staff also proposes to continue efforts initiated in > coordination with the Airport Commission to provide more information > requested by the community, including more information about flight > operations, about what has been done at other airports, and about > constraints as well as options. > > As to the biggest and most difficult question: whether the City can or > should close the Airport, there is much more to be seen and said. As > explained at the Council meeting last September, although the City > owns and operates the Airport, its operations are governed by federal > law and (most important for the closure question) the City has various > contractual obligations to the federal government. These include > obligations to operate the Airport that arise or may arise from the > 1984 Agreement, grant agreements, and the post-War transfers of > Airport land from the federal government to the City. > > The 1984 Agreement expires in 2015. To recap, the City claims that the > last of the grant agreements expires in 2014, but the FAA contends > that the last grant agreement does not expire until 2023. And, in any > event the FAA claims that the City is obligated to operate the Airport > in perpetuity by the post-War transfers. These two disputes (when the > grant agreements finally expire and whether the post War transfers > require Airport operation in perpetuity) have not been previously > litigated. The City Council resolved in 1981 to close the Airport when > possible. However, the question of when that might be possible was not > decided because the City negotiated the 1984 Settlement Agreement with > the FAA. It embodied compromises that bought a negotiated peace for > many years by obligating the City to operate the Airport until 2015 > and by imposing limitations on flight operations much more favorable > to the surrounding community than are available under current law. > Thus, as explained last fall, there is significant legal uncertainty > as to whether and when the City could close the Airport. All that is > certain is that an attempt to do so will spawn costly litigation of > uncertain duration and result in the federal government and the > aviation industry strenuously opposing closure efforts. > > Much more is certain about the legality of restricting Airport > operations. The City adopted a number of ordinances in the late 1970's > to restrict operations in order to mitigate impacts on surrounding > neighborhoods. Five of the ordinances were challenged in federal > court. Four were upheld. But, a fifth ordinance, banning jets in order > to reduce noise, was invalidated based on the reality that some jets > are quieter than some piston aircraft. Thus, the court upheld a > decibel limit but invalidated the jet ban. Much more recently, the > City attempted to ban Class C & D aircraft (which are jets) in order > to protect safety by reducing the likelihood of excursions from the > Airport runway, which is shorter than current design standards require > for C & D aircraft. The FAA challenged the ban and their > administrative actions to strike down the ban were upheld by both the > Ninth and the D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal. This experience shows > that federal law will not be interpreted by the FAA or by the courts > to allow the City to ban jets based on concerns relating to noise or > runway safety. It also demonstrates the federal government's tenacity > in opposing access restrictions and the deference that the FAA is > afforded in federal court. > > Given these realities, City staff has devoted considerable time and > resources to ascertain whether any prospects exist for obtaining a > voluntary agreement with the FAA or voluntary agreements with flight > schools and pilot groups. A closure fight would certainly consume very > significant time and resources. However, this will not be a major > consideration to either the federal government or the aviation > industry, which would likely participate in opposition to the City. > More important to all parties is the reality that the results of > litigation are never certain. And, this is particularly acute in cases > that are legally and factually unusual as this one would be. In such > a situation, where uncertainties loom large, it may be possible to > reach a compromise in order to obtain certainty and a mutually > acceptable (if less than perfect) resolution or at least an extended > period of peace. > > In City staff's meetings with local and national representatives of > the aviation community and with representatives of the FAA, both > groups have indicated flexibility and some willingness to consider > alternatives. Thus, the FAA has agreed to provide informal feedback on > solutions proposed by the City, particularly if they have been > successfully utilized elsewhere. And the FAA has indicated that it > will promptly consider, and is not inclined to oppose, even novel > voluntary measures that would reduce impacts (such as measures that > would reduce local flight school operations by relocating them) so > long as those measures respect federal law. > > Staff's overall goal in this effort has been to ascertain the full > extent of any improvements in the Airport and its operations and > impacts that could be made unilaterally or collectively but without > litigation. Once that is known, the Council will be situated to fully > understand and assess the Citys options. Meanwhile, staff believes > that there is more to be learned about alternatives for reducing > adverse Airport impacts and improving its contributions to neighbors, > the City and surrounding communities. > > Recommendations for Phase III > Based upon the information received through the Visioning Process to > date, staff recommends that Council direct staff to pursue the > following initiatives in Phase III. > > > 1. Address concerns about transparency, communications and trust by: > > (a) Continuing the community dialogue as expressed in Phase II, by > continuing periodic updates to the Airport Commission and having two > workshops during Phase III that could potentially be held at Airport > Commission meetings; > > (b) Expanding the effort between staff and the Airport Commission to > provide more information requested by the community, including more > information about flight operations including a means of counting > repetitive operations, about what has been done at other airports, > about what data the FAA provides that would be updated on the Airport > website monthly; and > > (c) Continuing other ongoing efforts to make information about Airport > operations more trustworthy and available such as updating the website > and hosting seminars. > > > > 2. Prepare more detailed assessments of the possibilities for > transforming SMO into a model, "Green" Airport by: > > (a) Developing a Sustainable Transportation Incubator; > > (b) Updating the Airport Sustainability Plan; and > > (c) Formulating a specific proposal for an emission reduction program > to include, at minimum, ground power units to reduce the impacts of > noise and emissions upon Airport neighbors from existing diesel fueled > mobile auxiliary power units (Working with a Fixed Based Operator > (FBO), a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) grant > application is being pursued to aid this effort), a mid-field run up > area reducing idling time, a strategy for providing alternative > fueling stations including electric charging stations for aircraft and > dispensing aviation biofuel, and a legislative team to support the > elimination of low-lead, propeller plane fuel an effort that will be > moved forward by the City co-hosting a seminar about the future of > leaded aviation gasoline on June 30, 2012 with the Museum of Flying, > and finally, partnering with the Airport Cooperative Research Program > and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a Qualifying Aircraft > Lead Emissions at Airports study that will start this summer. > > > > 3. Evaluate the potential for making the Airport a better neighbor and > contributing a greater community benefit by: > > (a) Identifying best practices at other general aviation airports; > > (b) Conducting a fee study; > > (c) Reducing flight school operations through subsidies by moving a > portion of their operations to airports better suited to accommodate > patterned flying; and > > (d) Making improvements on aviation land, including, among other > things, improvements to the blast wall, improving navigational aids > with Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation, and runway safety > (e.g., Engineered Material Arresting System-EMAS). > > > > 4. Evaluate possible design improvements for non-aviation land by: > > (a) Evaluating mixed-use options such as expanding or enhancing > outdoor recreational space and facilities, light retail, arts and > education facilities; and > > (b) Incorporating improvements to bicycle, pedestrian and mass-transit > access. > > > > 5. Continue on-going dialogue with the FAA to assess possibilities for > reducing adverse impacts of Airport operations sufficiently to make > voluntary resolutions a viable alternative to a legal battle over > airport closure. > > Some of these activities would require assistance from consultants, > and staff would bring proposed contracts for their services to Council > with the goal of concluding Phase III and reporting back to Council in > early 2013. > > Financial Impacts & Budget Actions > There is no immediate budgetary or financial impact. Funds in the > amount of $300,000 will be included in the FY 2012-13 proposed budget. > If Council directs staff to move ahead with Phase III, staff will > return this summer with recommendations to enter into agreements for > necessary and appropriate consulting services. > > Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney > Susan Cline, Assistant Director of > Public Works > > Approved: > Forwarded to Council: > > > > Martin Pastucha > Director of Public Works > Rod Gould > City Manager > > Approved: > > > > Marsha Jones Moutrie > City Attorney > > Attachments: A Airport Campus Map > B Summary of Phase II Community > Discussion Groups Report > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
