SR 04-26-2016 3A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 26, 2016
Agenda Item: 3.A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Martin Pastucha, Director, Public Works, Airport
Subject: Approval of Contract for Santa Monica Airport Noise Monitoring System
Equipment Upgrade and Maintenance
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP# 58 to Brüel & Kjær EMS Inc. (B&K), a California-based corporation,
software, replace six permanent noise monitors, and provide maintenance and
support services for the Noise Monitoring System;
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Brüel &
Kjær EMS Inc. (B&K), in an amount not to exceed $358,400 for one year, with
four additional one-year renewal options in the amount not to exceed $101,325,
with a 2% increase per year, for a total amount not to exceed $776,024 over a
five-year period (including a 10% contingency), with future year funding
contingent on Council budget approval.
Executive Summary
Staff recommends an upgrade of the Santa and
Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) to replace the antiquated hardware and
noise events via the six Noise Monitoring Terminals (NMT) and, using proprietary
software, correlate these events with flight track data. This information is used by staff
to identify arriving and departing aircraft in order to enforce the
Fly Neighborly Program. Additionally, this system provides a public portal where
community members can view flight track information and submit complaints of aircraft
operations to staff.
Failure to upgrade the existing ANOMS could result in the breakdown of the system,
and consequently the inability of staff t
Noise Code.
In October 2015, the City issued a Request for Proposals to replace six permanent
noise monitors, upgrade the software and provide maintenance and support for the
ANOMS system. After reviewing the proposals received, staff recommends Brüel &
Kjær EMS Inc. (B&K) as the best firm to provide these services in an amount not to
1 of 6
exceed $776,024 over a five-year period (including a 10% contingency).
Background
The current noise monitoring system was ins
Sciences, Inc. (now Harris Corporation). On September 5, 2001, Council approved an
upgrade to the system (Attachment A). The system consists of six remote noise
monitors (microphones) that record noise levels to a centralized computer system. This
information is integrated with Radar data (i.e. NextGen data) using propriety software.
In order to ensure accuracy of the noise readings and integrity of the system,
maintenance, which includes calibration of the monitors twice annually, is required. On
June 25, 2013, Council approved a second modification of contract No. 9057 (CCS)
with Exelis, Inc. (now Harris Corporation) to provide maintenance and support services
ns monitoring system, purchase of
flight track data, and to provide public access to flight track data through June 30, 2015,
with two one-year options to renew (Attachment B).
Discussion
The reliability of the noise monitoring system is critical to enforcing the Noise Code.
The existing NMT equipment is subject to regular outages. Parts required to repair the
NMTs are difficult to obtain due to their age, resulting in repair delays and system
downtime. Moreover, the existing software platform is obsolete and can no longer be
maintained or repaired by the vendor. It is paramount to replace the system to avoid
potential equipment failure, and avoid the cost and downtime of an emergency repair
that might occur at any time.
While the future configuration and status of Santa Monica Airport is the subject of active
litigation the resolution of which remains uncertain, there is an urgent need to replace
the current system. While this request to authorize a five year contract, Santa Monica
contracts allow the City to end contractual services with a 30 day notice prior to contract
expiration. This contract has two major components: the first is the replacement of the
system software and hardware, and the second is maintenance and support services.
2 of 6
Replacement of system software and hardware
The ANOMS system consists of six remote noise monitor terminals (NMTs) that record
and transmit noise event data from arriving and departing aircraft to the associated
software. Raw data, in the form of noise events, are gathered from the ANOMS system
for processing and correlation with flight track data for graphical presentation, and
secured storage. The system would 1) allow staff to correlate noise events with flight
tracks to identify Noise Code violations and conduct investigations of aircraft operations
to identify aircraft deviations of the Fly Neighborly Program; and 2) provides public
access to flight track data through an online public portal which allows the community to
view aircraft operations and submit their inquiries with the Airport. The upgraded
system would include new NMTs and upgrade the associated software.
B&K, would also provide the option of integrating Vector Airport Systems (Vector) data.
in capturing aircraft operations
depart SMO. Currently staff uses these images during instances that the aircraft
registration numbers of departing aircraft are not displayed via radar data. This allows
and/or deviate from the recommended Fly Neighborly Procedures. This option would
automate this process and alleviate stawould also add a greater
level of detail to the information available to the public via the open web portal.
Service and Maintenance
Preventative maintenance of noise monitoring equipment and associated software is
essential to its reliability. The preventative maintenance program would include bi-
annual service visits to each noise monitoring terminal to perform preventative
maintenance and calibration as well as on-going customer support for both software
and hardware.
The lead time for the installation and testing of the new system is approximately nine
months from contract execution. Staff would exercise the last renewal option with the
3 of 6
current vendor Harris Corporation, beginning on July 1, 2016, to continue the
maintenance of the existing system to ensure its reliability until the new system
becomes operational.
Vendor Selection
On October 14, 2015, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Noise
Management Equipment and Maintenance for the Santa Monica Airport. The RFP was
-line bidding site, and notices were advertised in the Santa
Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. A
total of 161 vendors were notified and 26 vendors downloaded the RFP. The following
three proposals were received on November 25, 2015.
Proposal Cost: Implementation Cost: Cost:
Equipment/ Software 5 Year Total
Maintenance
Brüel & Kjær EMS Inc. $208,050 $438,742 $646,792
Harris Corporation $220,262 $550,109 $770,371
Casper Airport Solutions, $309,160 $563,162 $872,322
LLC
Responses to the RFP were reviewed by a selection panel of Public Works staff.
Evaluation was based on the following selection criteria: technical solution, past
performance, staffing capability to meet project timeliness, the ability and past
experience in assembling a highly qualified team of sub-consultants, description of
previous project experiences to show how quality control was achieved for former
clients, cost of services, cost control, reporting, and performance within budget
allocations.
Staff recommends B&K as the best qualified firm and lowest bidder to provide an
oise Monitoring System software, replace
4 of 6
six permanent noise monitors, and provide annual maintenance. B&K demonstrates a
clear understanding of the scope of services, has many years of experience in noise
management systems and equipment projects (including Burbank Bob Hope Airport,
Los Angeles World Airports, and John Wayne Airport), has a highly qualified project
team, and offered the lowest, most competitive price. Additionally, staff contacted
references and all reported B&K work was completed in a timely and cost-efficient
manner.
Additionally, B&K provided an option of integrating the landing data (Vector Airport
Systems) as part of their submittal. This option was not part of the RFP nor did it play a
factor in the vendor selection. The integrated data will be available to view by both the
public and the staff. Incorporating the landing fee data with the noise management data
aircraft, as staff will no longer need to cross reference two separate sets of data from
two separate sources. Staff recommends adding this option to the contract at
an additional one-time fee of $27,460 for data migration and installation in addition to
$6,000 for annual service fee. The service fee would be adjusted annually by 2%. This
option would be for five years at a total cost not to exceed $58,684.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The agreement to be awarded to Brüel & Kjær EMS Inc. is for an amount not to exceed
$776,024 over a five-year period including a 10% contingency. Funds in the amount of
$358,400 are available in the FY2015-16 Capital Improvement Budget in account
C339089.58900. Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.
5 of 6
Prepared By:
Kate Schlesinger, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Staff Report September 25, 2001
B. Staff Report June 25, 2013
C. Written comments
6 of 6
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:John Murdock <jbmlaw@hotmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2016 3:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Craap
Subject:SMO Noise contract?
IseefromanemailfromCRAAPthatthereisapprovalfornewnoisemonitoringsystematSMO.Thisseemsan
unnecessaryandwastefulexpenditureunlessitisaccompaniedbyevidencethatsuchsystemshavebeencosteffective.
Pleasehaveareportpublisheddemonstratingexactlyhowmanynoiseviolationswereidentifiedinthepastandexactly
howmanyofsaidviolationweresubjecttoenforcementactions.Onlyifenforcementhasresultedinfinesand
demonstrabledeterrenceshouldanewcontractbeapproved.Onewouldthinkthatnoiseviolationsareobviousto
anyonewithasetofworkingears.Youdon'tneedaweathervanetotellwhichwaythewind,sblowing.Lestyouthink
that'sajoke,ithasbeenquotedinappellatecourtopinionstopointouttheobvious.
SentfrommyiPad
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Rob Nokes <robnokes@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2016 4:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Brüel & Kjær EMS Inc. make great microphones
Dear Council,
B&K make great microphones but please close the horribly noisy airport sooner than five years.
Thanks,
Rob Nokes
2428 3rd St.
Santa Monica
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Gavin Scott <gavin.scott@verizon.net>
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Nicola Scott; Craap; NO JETS Santa Monica Airport
Subject:Monitoring expenditure
Dear Councillors,
Please do not waste our money on pointless monitoring.
Instead, take back the Western Parcel, throw out the jet tenants and close the airport.
Sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
ApprovalofContractforSantaMonicaAirportNoiseMonitoringSystem
EquipmentUpgradeandMaintenance
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Award RFP# 58 to Brüel & Kjær EMS Inc. (B&K), a California-based corporation, to
provide an upgrade to Santa Monica Airport’s Noise Monitoring System software, replace six
permanent noise monitors, and provide maintenance and support services for the Noise
Monitoring System;
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Brüel & Kjær
EMS Inc. (B&K), in an amount not to exceed $358,400 for one year, with four additional one-
year renewal options in the amount not to exceed $101,325, with a 2% increase per year, for a
$776,024 over a five-year period
total amount not to exceed (including a 10%
contingency), with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Charles Blum <drcblum@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2016 7:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda item: 3A CONSENT CALENDAR
I am shocked at the attempt of subterfuge taking place with Item 3A. I am trying hard to come up with
something that expresses my shock, intense dismay, and smoldering disgust.
I don’t think the voters could have been clearer with their overwhelming passage of Measure LC and voting
down of Measure D in the 2014 election. We have given the city a clear path of what we, their employers, want
them td do. Our city council can do this aggressively through legal channels (if possible), slowly through
gradual phasing out of all airport related activities, and any other innovative means at their disposal.
But spending $700,000 of tax payers money to help sustain the airport is something we clearly do not ever
want. Spend that money finding ways to close or limit airport activities not creating noise monitoring activities
expected to be sustained for 5 years and more. If we are phasing out the airport as directed by Measure LC,
then we should not be seeing anything like an Item 3A for consideration.
Charles
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail communication (including attachments) is covered by
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18, U.S.C 2510-2521, is confidential and may
be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the
sender that you have received this message in error, and then delete it. Thank You.
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Alan Kerner <kerners@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2016 12:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 3A of Agenda
CityCouncil,
IamwritingtocommentonItem3Aofthecouncilsagenda.Iamatalosstounderstandthethinkingofthecouncil,
directingstafftopresentanitem,which,ifapproved,wouldfundupgradesandimprovementstonoisemonitoringat
theairport.Whatwillwegainbyyourcontemplatedaction?Howwillthisitembringusclosertoourunanimouswish
toclosetheairport?
Yourproposedactionsappeartomyuninitiatedlimitedfacultiestoindicatesomehesitationandlossoffocus.
Pleaseprovidemewithinformationthatwillclearmyfuzzythinking.
AlanKerner
1761SunsetAve.
SM90405
SentfrommyiPad
SentfrommyiPad
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Royrico@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2016 3:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:smo airport
please stop wasting time and money in actions to keep the airport open - the residents of surrounding areas have made it
clear: CLOSE THE SANTA MONICA AIRPORT.
By keeping the airport, you are maintaining the source of toxic, dangerous, carcinogenic pollution present in our
neighborhood. please do what is right and also the will of the people: do all you can to close the airport rather than
placate big money interests resulting in contradictory actions. We need one unified voice coming from the city council to
close down the Santa Monica Airport that is a scourge on the city of Santa Monica and surrounding areas in Los Angeles.
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:John <agave8@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 3A
Hello
WelivinghereinSantaMonicadonotwantanyleasestoJetAviationCompanies.Wehaveputupwiththenoiseandair
pollutionfortoolong.Ourhealthandsafetyareatrisk.
Wewanttheairporttobecomeaparktoserveallresidentslivinghere.
Thecouncil,thecityattorneyandcitymanagerhavefailedtosupportthewishesofthepeopletheyaretoserve.
YoucontinuetocowtowtotheFAAandtheprivatejetcompaniesaswellasrichcelebritymoney.
Pleasedonotcontinuetopretendyouareworkinghardonthisimportantissue.
pallaviationpractices.Flightschools,sellingjetfueland
Wearetiredofthedelaytoclosetheairportandfailuretosto
allowingtheonslaughtofprivatebusinessjetcompanies.
Ourhealthandwellfarearecompromisedandindanger.
Thisairportneedstoclose.Wecannotaffordtowaitanother20yearsforyoutoACTontheresidentsManyRequests
toclosetheairport.
Thankyou
JimStevens
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Mark Corbin <mcorbin560@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 10:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda 3A
Dear Santa Monica City Counsel,
I implore you to continue your quest to close down the Santa Monica airport. The emission, noise
and congestion created by this airport does not outweigh any benefits from having an airport. This
airport has a negative impact to three different cities surrounding it. Please push hard to close down
the entire airport.
I am also hoping that pushing forward on Agenda 3A (noise surveillance) is a temporary fix to a long
standing problem at the airport.
Regards,
Mark Corbin
12282 Sunset Park Way
Los Angeles, CA 90064
-------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Corbin
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Griffin <smbgriffin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 9:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:CRAAP
Subject:Item 3A
As a neighbor of Santa Monica, living just northeast of the airport, I do want to comment on the proposed
investment in a new noise-monitoring system. Monitoring the noise will not reduce it, nor will monitoring have
any effect on the jet pollution that routinely wafts over our area, making it impossible at times to sit outside and
enjoy the California sun. It also will not address the problem that haunts me, the possibility of a catastrophic jet
crash in this residential area that should never have been approved for jets this large by the FAA. If the FAA
does indeed "make its policy in blood," as one of its employees once told me, then Santa Monica should
seriously consider its own potential culpability here. By enabling the FAA to keep this airport open until there
is a catastrophe, is your city going to be partially responsible for the damages that the airport has caused and
will cause in the future?
Susan Griffin
2584 Armacost Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90064
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Vernice Hankins
From:Hardin <joehardin@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 11:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:jetairpollution@earthlink.net
Subject:SMO monitoring ???
Dear Concerned Leaders,
Why would anyone consider spending any more money to upgrade or even maintain equipment
used to measure sound levels at SMO? The jets are too loud and create too much noise and
air pollution...There is no amount of monitoring that can change that fact.
Please stop dragging your feet and remove the Western Parcel from aviation uses.This will
solve the problem.
Thank you for your hard work,
Joe 310-428-5031
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:THEO SWERISSEN <theo@theo.la>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 6:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NO! Agenda Item 3A.
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
I oppose the approval of paying for and planning for a new noise system.
Complete waste of money.
We expect council to send a CLEAR message for the CLOSURE of SMO.
I completely oppose this new noise system contract. The old system is useless and did nothing to mitigate the
noise from planes from where i live.
Every time a really noisy plane came barreling through causing us to complain, SMO replied with not too loud
by law.
This noise system is a waste of money and supports companies to maintain their efforts up to keep the waste of
space SMO open.
mixed signals
PLEASE NO NO NO! more wasting money and sending about your intention on the future of
the space at SMO.
Best, Theo Swerissen
PS CLOSE SMO!
______________________________________
T h e o Swerissen Management
o: 310.479.6100 m: 310.927.5355 e:theo@theo.LA
Note: This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under federal or state law. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the
information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender by return e-mail and delete and/or otherwise destroy the
original message and all copies.
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Linda Wilson <lawilson9@live.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 10:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Martin Rubin
Subject:item 3A
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Council Members:
I have been under the impression, based on what I thought you were saying, that the City
Council was committed to listening to the residents of Santa Monica and closing Santa Monica
airport (SMO). However, Item 3A, if passed, would spend tax-payer money (i.e., taxes paid by
the very residents of Santa Monica you now seem to be abandoning) on new and improved ways
to monitor the noise resulting from the ongoing use of SMO.
If plans were in place to close SMO, as Santa Monica residents voted to do, developing
enhanced methods for monitoring noise, noise which would be eliminated were the airport to
cease to exist as an airport, would be not just unnecessary, but ludicrous as well.
Perhaps you can understand my confusion. Were you not elected to represent those of us living
in Santa Monica? Did you not say you were in favor of closing the airport? Is Item 3A not in
direct contradiction to what you have said you were taking steps to accomplish?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Wilson
631 Strand St. Unit 4
90405
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Martin Rubin <martinrubin@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 5:21 PM
To:Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole
Cc:Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution; NWNA Members ; Nelson Hernandez;
Paul Koretz -Los Angeles City Councilman District 5; Mike Bonin - Los Angeles
Councilmember District 11; Bill Koontz; Joseph Schmitz; Lael R. Rubin; 'Peter Donald,
SM Airport Commissioner'; 'Stephen Mark (SM Airport Commissioner)'; Suzanne E.
Paulson Ph. D.
Subject:Item: 3A - Strongly opposed to staff's recommendation
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
April 25, 2016
Agenda Item: 3A of the April 26, 2016 Consent Calendar
Strongly opposed to staff's recommendation
Mayor Vazquez, Council Members, City Manager Cole,
I respectfully request that you hold off making a decision regarding Agenda item: 3A of the Consent
Calendar, "Approval of Contract for Santa Monica Airport Noise Monitoring System Equipment
Upgrade and Maintenance".
I would ask that you allow the community ample time to give input that might have a significant
bearing on how you decide to move forward.
It would certainly be helpful to hold a community meeting formatted to focus on this important item
and allow for questions and comments beyond the 2 minute time allotted at a Council meeting.
Not enough notice was given to allow time for comments on an issue that is rather complex. Without
strongly opposed to staff's
understanding how this expense will be beneficial, I am
recommendation
.
Sincerely,
Martin Rubin
Director, Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution
President, North Westdale Neighborhood Association
Co-Chair, Mar Vista Community Council Santa Monica Airport Ad-hoc Committee
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:bbd <bdickieson@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 8:30 PM
To:'Martin Rubin'; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole
Cc:'Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution'; Nelson Hernandez; 'Paul Koretz -Los
Angeles City Councilman District 5'; 'Mike Bonin - Los Angeles Councilmember District
11'; 'Bill Koontz'; 'Joseph Schmitz'; 'Lael R. Rubin'; 'Peter Donald, SM Airport
Commissioner'; 'Stephen Mark (SM Airport Commissioner)'; 'Suzanne E. Paulson Ph. D.'
Subject:RE: Item: 3A - Strongly opposed to staff's recommendation
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
TotheMayor,CouncilMembers,andCittyManageCole:
PleaseaddmyvoicetoMr.wǒĬźƓƭopposition.
Respectfully
BruceDickieson
12216MaloneSt.
MarVista
From: Martin Rubin \[mailto:martinrubin@earthlink.net\]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:21 PM
To: clerk@smgov.net; Rick.cole@SMGOV.NET
Cc: Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution; NWNA Members ; Nelson Hernandez; Paul Koretz -Los Angeles City
Councilman District 5; Mike Bonin - Los Angeles Councilmember District 11; Bill Koontz; Joseph Schmitz; Lael R. Rubin;
'Peter Donald, SM Airport Commissioner'; 'Stephen Mark (SM Airport Commissioner)'; Suzanne E. Paulson Ph. D.
Subject: Item: 3A - Strongly opposed to staff's recommendation
April 25, 2016
Agenda Item: 3A of the April 26, 2016 Consent Calendar
Strongly opposed to staff's recommendation
Mayor Vazquez, Council Members, City Manager Cole,
I respectfully request that you hold off making a decision regarding Agenda item: 3A of the Consent
Calendar, "Approval of Contract for Santa Monica Airport Noise Monitoring System Equipment
Upgrade and Maintenance".
I would ask that you allow the community ample time to give input that might have a significant
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
bearing on how you decide to move forward.
It would certainly be helpful to hold a community meeting formatted to focus on this important item
and allow for questions and comments beyond the 2 minute time allotted at a Council meeting.
Not enough notice was given to allow time for comments on an issue that is rather complex. Without
strongly opposed to staff's
understanding how this expense will be beneficial, I am
recommendation
.
Sincerely,
Martin Rubin
Director, Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution
President, North Westdale Neighborhood Association
Co-Chair, Mar Vista Community Council Santa Monica Airport Ad-hoc Committee
2
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Mindy Taylor-Ross <mindytr101@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 10:05 PM
To:Martin Rubin
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution; Nelson
Hernandez; Paul Koretz -Los Angeles City Councilman District 5; Mike Bonin - Los
Angeles Councilmember District 11; Bill Koontz; Joseph Schmitz; Lael R. Rubin; Peter
Donald, SM Airport Commissioner; Stephen Mark (SM Airport Commissioner); Suzanne
E. Paulson Ph. D.
Subject:Re: Item: 3A - Strongly opposed to staff's recommendation
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Mayor Vazquez, Councilmembers, and City Manager Cole:
I strongly echo Martin Ruben's comments below.
I'd like to add that the cities around Santa Monica Airport are tired of being inundated by your unending noise
and exhaust.
We need relief, and we need it now!
We don't need noise monitors, we need noise cessation!
Sincerely,
Mindy Taylor-Ross
Venice, California
On Monday, April 25, 2016, Martin Rubin <martinrubin@earthlink.net> wrote:
April 25, 2016
Agenda Item: 3A of the April 26, 2016 Consent Calendar
Strongly opposed to staff's recommendation
Mayor Vazquez, Council Members, City Manager Cole,
I respectfully request that you hold off making a decision regarding Agenda item: 3A of the Consent
Calendar, "Approval of Contract for Santa Monica Airport Noise Monitoring System Equipment
Upgrade and Maintenance".
I would ask that you allow the community ample time to give input that might have a significant
bearing on how you decide to move forward.
It would certainly be helpful to hold a community meeting formatted to focus on this important item
and allow for questions and comments beyond the 2 minute time allotted at a Council meeting.
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Not enough notice was given to allow time for comments on an issue that is rather complex. Without
strongly opposed to staff's
understanding how this expense will be beneficial, I am
recommendation
.
Sincerely,
Martin Rubin
Director, Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution
President, North Westdale Neighborhood Association
Co-Chair, Mar Vista Community Council Santa Monica Airport Ad-hoc Committee
2
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Paulson, Suzanne E. <paulson@atmos.ucla.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:43 AM
To:Martin Rubin; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole
Cc:Nelson Hernandez; Paul Koretz -Los Angeles City Councilman District 5; Mike Bonin -
Los Angeles Councilmember District 11
Subject:RE: Item: 3A - Comment
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
AgendaItem:3AoftheApril26,2016ConsentCalendar
MayorVazquez,CouncilMembers,CityManagerCole,
WhileIsupportreplacingthenoisemonitoringsystem,Iwouldliketoencouragecouncilto
activelysolicitinputfromthecommunityintotheprocessofsettingitup,ortodirectstaffto
doso.Thisisarareopportunitytogetinplaceamonitoringsystemthatservesthecommunity
better.InourbriefdiscussionintheAirportCommissionmeetinglastnight,severalexcellent
ideaswerebroughtforthfromcommunitymembersastohowtomakethenewsystemserve
thecommunitymuchbetterthanthecurrentsystem.Theseideaswerewellreceivedbystaff
andseemtohavepotentialtobeworkedintothenewcontractfortheinstallationand
maintenanceofthenewnoisemonitoringsystem.
Iamnotsuggestingalengthyprocessthatwoulddelayimplementationofanewsystemby
severalweeksormore,asthereseemtobeadvantagestoinstallinganewsystemsoon.
However,giventhegreatideasfromthesmallnumberofcommunitymembersinattendance
attheairportcommissionmeetinglastnight,itseemslikelythattheresourceprovidedbythe
communityonthisissueŷğƭƓƷyetbeenleveragedtotheextentthatitshouldbe.
Cheers,
SuzannePaulson
SantaMonicaresident,AirportCommissioner
3
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:agave8@yahoo.com
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:43 AM
To:Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis; Terry
OÔDay; Ted W. Lieu; Santa Monica City Council Member Sue L. Himmelrich; Nelson
Hernandez; SM Airport Commissioner Peter Donald; Billr-mikebonin; CouncilLA;
senator@feinstein.senate.gov; Lisa Pinto (District Director for Congressman Henry A.
Waxman-30th District); Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution;
CONGSenMay2010; councilmtgitems
Cc:Suzanne E. Paulson Ph. D.
Subject:Oppose Item 3A-Airport Future
Hello
I strongly oppose Item 3A on the agenda. No item regarding the Santa Monica Airport should be
passed
without proper input from the public. We do not need to spend any money on an airport that is
to close in the near future, this creates the wrong message.
The only money we would like spent is for environmental assets-planting trees, bike paths, open
fields, gardens, creating a park, not upgrading aviation and encouraging aviation business.
We strongly disagree with the path you are taking. We want you to stand up to the FAA, the
Business Jets, the flight schools, spend the money fighting aviation injustice not encouraging.
Thank You
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:shaybebo@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd
Cc:Martin Rubin; Suzanne E. Paulson Ph. D.; Lael R. Rubin; Joseph Schmitz; Bill Koontz;
Stephen Mark (SM Airport Commissioner); Peter Donald, SM Airport Commissioner;
Nelson Hernandez; NWNA Members; Paul Koretz -Los Angeles City Councilman District
5; Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution; Mike Bonin - Los Angeles
Councilmember District 11
Subject:Opinion on Noise Monitors @ SM Airport
DearMayorVasquez,CityManagerCole,andDistinguishedCouncilMembers,
IliveinMarVista,incloseproximitytoSantaMonicaAirport,butontheEastsidetheͻĻǣƦƌƚƭźǝĻtakeƚŅŅͼsideof
Bundy/Centinela.Theissueofnoisecomingfromtheincreasingvolumesofjetsexitingtheairportisjustoneofthe
pollutionfactorsthecommunityhastoendure.Upgradingthenoisemonitoringsystematgreatexpensewilldolittleto
decreasethetrafficorthenoise.Morenoiseviolationswillresultinmorefinesandmorerevenue,butthejetswilljust
payitandcarryonasusual.Howisthisexpenditurepromotingthenewmandateofcommunitycompatibilitywhenthe
deeppocketsofthe1%willdowhattheywantregardlessofthewishesofthecommunity?Iwouldthinkthatair
pollutionmonitorswouldbeamorebeneficialinstallmenttojudgetheamountsofparticulatematterevacuatedfrom
leadedfuelcombustion.Isthereafineforairpollutionorjustnoisepollution?
IstronglyopposetheimmediateapprovalofanexpensivecontracttoupgradethenoisemonitoringsystematSanta
assessthe
MonicaAirport.Moretimeisneededtoevaluatethisstepasaprudentuseoffundsandavaluablewayto
compatibilityofjettraffic.
ThankYou,
ElinKatz
3017DahlgrenAvenue
LosAngelesCA90066
3108014429
April26th,2016
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Ted Winterer
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:48 AM
To:Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis; Terry OÔDay; Ted W.
Lieu; Santa Monica City Council Member Sue L. Himmelrich; Nelson Hernandez; SM
Airport Commissioner Peter Donald; Billr-mikebonin; CouncilLA;
senator@feinstein.senate.gov; Lisa Pinto (District Director for Congressman Henry A.
Waxman-30th District); Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution;
CONGSenMay2010; councilmtgitems; agave8@yahoo.com
Cc:Suzanne E. Paulson Ph. D.
Subject:Re: Oppose Item 3A-Airport Future
Thecontractisfornoisemonitoringandflighttrackingtoallowforenforcementofviolationstoprotectthe
public,isforhisoneyearwithoptionstorenewannuallyandcancelableatanytime.
Weallhopetherewillbenoneedforthisequipmentinthefuture,butit'sessentialnowastheexisting
monitoringhardwareisfailing.
Ted Winterer
Mayor Pro Tempore
Santa Monica City Council
From:agave8@yahoo.com<agave8@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday,April26,20168:42AM
To:KevinMcKeownFwd;TonyVazquez;TedWinterer;PamOConnor;GleamDavis;Terryh5ğǤͳTedW.Lieu;Santa
MonicaCityCouncilMemberSueL.Himmelrich;NelsonHernandez;SMAirportCommissionerPeterDonald;Billr
mikebonin;CouncilLA;senator@feinstein.senate.gov;LisaPinto(DistrictDirectorforCongressmanHenryA.Waxman
30thDistrict);ConcernedResidentsAgainstAirportPollution;CONGSenMay2010;councilmtgitems
Cc:SuzanneE.PaulsonPh.D.
Subject:OpposeItem3AAirportFuture
Hello
I strongly oppose Item 3A on the agenda. No item regarding the Santa Monica Airport should be
passed
without proper input from the public. We do not need to spend any money on an airport that is
to close in the near future, this creates the wrong message.
The only money we would like spent is for environmental assets-planting trees, bike paths, open
fields, gardens, creating a park, not upgrading aviation and encouraging aviation business.
We strongly disagree with the path you are taking. We want you to stand up to the FAA, the
Business Jets, the flight schools, spend the money fighting aviation injustice not encouraging.
Thank You
1
Add to 3-A
04/26/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Sandra Casillas <sandra74542@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:jetairpollution@earthlink.net
Subject:Santa Monica Airport
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
I write to you ask why on earth are you discussing an upgrade to Santa Monica Airport’s Noise Monitoring
System software and noise monitors, and contracting for maintenance and support of same. I beg you to put an
end to this dangerous and toxic airport NOW and to stop wasting money like you did when you built the blast
wall. The blast wall did not stop toxic air pollution from being blown into Los Angeles. What it did do was give
the FAA an argument for keeping SMO open longer.
Why on earth would you spend more money on the airport when your highest goal is to close it?
Sandra Casillas
Mar Vista
Sent from my iPhone
1
Reference:
Agreement
No.
10289 (CCS)