Loading...
SR 05-22-2018 3C City Council Report City Council Meeting: May 22, 2018 Agenda Item: 3.C 1 of 3 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Airport Subject: First Modification to Contract #10373 with Birdi & Associates, Inc. for Airport Security Enhancement Project Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #10373(CCS) in the amount of $55,142 (including a 10% contingency) with Birdi & Associates, Inc. (“B&A”), a California-based company, for security enhancement project services, and extend the term of the agreement by one year. This will result in a one-year amended agreement expiring on June 30, 2019 with a new total amount not to exceed $266,342, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. Executive Summary The City is committed to maintaining the safety and security of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). The City contracted with B&A for the Airport Security Enhancement Project, which included evaluating the Airport’s current security system, providing recommendations for enhancements and developing design plans based on their recommendations. The City’s agreement with B&A expires on June 30, 2018. Staff requests a one-year extension of this agreement to allow for the implementation of the security enhancement design. This will require additional services from B&A. Staff recommends a first modification to the agreement with B&A, resulting in a one-year amended agreement expiring on June 30, 2019, with a new total amount not to exceed $266,342. Background On October 27, 2015, Council directed staff to explore expanding security measures at SMO to meet the City’s commitment to maintaining the safety and security of the Airport and its users and visitors. On August 23, 2016, Council reaffirmed this 2 of 3 commitment by directing staff to proceed with the selection of a qualified airport security firm to enhance the Airport’s security (Attachment A). On October 25, 2016, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with B&A to evaluate and design a security system, including infrastructure, security protocols and safety procedures (Attachment B). On January 28, 2017, the City Council and the federal government entered into a consent decree, which allowed among other things for the City to shorten the length of the runway to 3,500 feet. Staff directed B&A to stop their design efforts until the new Airport layout was selected in order to incorporate the new layout into their airport security design. As a result, the original project timeline was delayed (Attachment C). Discussion B&A held several meetings with personnel from the Santa Monica Police Department, Information Systems Department, Office of Emergency Management, and Airport staff to identify security concerns that had to be addressed as part of the new security design. The project was delayed because of the runway shortening project. B&A waited until the new Airport layout was approved by Council before completing their security design plan. B&A made all the necessary revisions to ensure the Airport security system encompassed all aspects necessary to provide a more robust airport security system. Staff recommends that Council authorize an extension of the contract term and additional funds to cover the cost for additional B&A consulting services that are necessary for the effective completion of the project. These additional services were not part of the original agreement and would include facilitation of outreach efforts to present the consultant’s recommendations to the public, development of the scope of 3 of 3 services that would be incorporated into the procurement documents, assist staff with selecting a contractor to construct the new security system, and provide project management support during the construction phase. The first modification would extend the B&A contract for one additional year. Staff anticipates that the security enhancement project would be completed during FY 2018-19. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions The agreement modification to be awarded to Birdi & Associates, Inc. is $55,142 for an amended contract total not to exceed $266,342. Funds are available in the FY 2017-18 Capital Improvement Program budget in the Airport Fund. The contract will be charged to account C334035.589000, Security Enhancement Project. Prepared By: Kate Schlesinger, Senior Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. August 23, 2016 Staff Report B. October 25, 2016 Staff Report C. Consent Decree (FAA - Santa Monica) D. Birdi Oaks Initiative Form City Council Report City Council Meeting: August 23, 2016 Agenda Item: 11.A 1 of 20 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Cole, City Manager, City Manager's Office, Administration Subject: Resolution Regarding Local Control and Closure of the Santa Monica Airport; Policy for Eliminating Private Provision of Aeronautical Services and Establishing Exclusive Public Proprietary Fixed Based Operations With City Provision of Aeronautical Services Required By Law; Consideration of Other Lawful Means of Curtailing Adverse Airport Impacts, Including, Among Others: Applying to the FAA for Runway Alterations; Enforcing Local, State & Federal Laws Relating to Airport Operations; Transitioning From Leases to a Permit System for Certain Airport Uses; Eliminating Lead Fuel; and Enhancing Airport Security Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution declaring that it shall be the policy of the City to close the Santa Monica airport to aviation uses, as soon as legally permitted, with the goal of on or before July 1, 2018, and directing the City Manager to implement all necessary administrative measures accordingly; and 2. Adopt a Policy for Establishing Exclusive Public Proprietary Fixed Based Operations (FBO) Services with City Proprietor Services and directing the City Manager to implement all steps necessary or advisable to implement that policy. Executive Summary The passage of Measure Local Control (Measure LC) in November 2014 and the subsequent expiration of the City’s 30 year agreement with the FAA to continue to operate the Airport as well as the disputed expiration of the 20 year Grant Assurances in 2015 have set the stage for the City of Santa Monica to definitively re-exert local control over 227 acres of land owned by the City for more than a century. During that time, it was the site for the making of aviation history and performed a vital function in peace and war. In recent years, however, an airport originally established for biplanes has become an ever-more- active jetport for personal and corporate jet traffic. The adverse impacts of noise, pollution and safety hazards of Airport operation have long been documented. At the unanimous direction of the City Council, the staff recommends adopting a Resolution and policy to move forward decisively to exert and test our local authority by officially asserting the City’s intention to close the Airport as soon as legally permitted with the goal of doing so by June 30, 2018 or sooner if possible. 11.A Packet Pg. 201 2 of 20 Acknowledging the many legal challenges regarding that authority now pending, the City should continue to exercise its legitimate authority to enforce its recently adopted leasing policy; replace the existing FBOs with exclusive City operations; consider removal of the Western Parcel from aviation use; and take other such steps for an orderly transition as are appropriately within its legal jurisdiction. Finally, the Council expressed a commitment to initiate the lengthy and complex process of planning and environmental review for transition to a complete park campus containing uses consistent with the terms of Measure LC. The recommended resolution authorizes the commencement of that future planning to establish and fund an array of natural, recreational and cultural resources and amenities to serve the residents and neighbors of the City of Santa Monica for generations to come. On July 26, 2016, the City Council agreed to consider a resolution expressing the City Council’s intention to close the Santa Monica Airport to aviation use, as soon as that is legally permitted with a goal of June 30, 2018 and earlier if possib le, and, authorizing the City Manager to initiate all administrative measures necessary to implement the resolution. The land currently occupied by the Airport consist s of 227 acres of multiple parcels, much of which has been under exclusive City ownership since 1926 when Santa Monica voters approved a park bond ballot measure. Beginning in the late 1950s, with the advent of jet aircraft, the relationships among Douglas Aircraft, the City of Santa Monica, and the residents soured and became adversarial. In 1981, the City Council declared its intention to close the Airport when legally possible. After a series of negotiations, FAA and the City reached a 30 year comprehensive settlement that expired in 2015. Despite the settlement, the adverse impacts of airport operations continue, and in some respects accelerated, due to the significant increase in jet aircraft operations, continued use of leaded fuel, and the fear and actuality of accidents. In June 2014, Santa Monica voters were presented with two opposing Airport ballot measures. Measure D was supported by aviation interest and Measure Local Control (Measure LC) was backed by community residents; Measure LC received 60% of the vote and Measure D was defeated when it earned only 40% of the vote. Mea sure LC reads: Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport, manage Airport leaseholds, condition leases, and permanently close all or part of the Airport to aviation use. If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, t his section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses. There are multiple reasons to transition the land currently occupied by the Airport into uses consistent with Measure LC: closing the Airport would stop adverse impacts of Airport operations; effectuate Measure LC; and greatly improve the quality of life. It would be a major transformative event. 11.A Packet Pg. 202 3 of 20 The City is involved in two legal proceedings that have material effects on when the City can close the airport. First, the federal lawsuit regarding the effect of the Instrument of Transfer (IOT) is hugely determinative. The case is scheduled for trial August 2017. The second case is a Part 16 administrative proceeding. This case involves the date when Federal grant obligations expire, thus freeing Santa Monica from the need to comply with key federal regulations regarding the Airport. On August 15, 2016, as expected, the FAA upheld its previous determination that the City is obligated until 2023. The City should appeal the FAA determination to the federal courts. If the resolution and policy are adopted the City Manager intends to implement a series of actions that may include all of the measures below but is not necessarily limited to these actions: 1. Commencing the park planning process, including conducting an environmental analysis as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). 2. Investigating whether certain fractional jet operators are operating as scheduled airlines. 3. Submitting an application to FAA which would alter the Airport runway by removing the 1949 Quit Claim Parcel, also known as the “Western Parcel” from aviation use. 4. Ceasing forbearance of lax enforcement of the Santa Monica Airport noise ordinance and apply enforcement as written. 5. Transitioning aircraft hangar uses from lease agreements to permits. 6. Creating a City of Santa Monica Fixed Based Operation and eliminate the current providers. 7. Eliminating lead fuel. 8. Enhancing airport security. BACKGROUND Few issues have as long, contentious or significant a history as the struggles over the future of the Santa Monica Airport. “Exerting Local Control” over the City -owned land occupied by the Santa Monica Airport is one of the City Council’s top five Strategic Goals. On July 26, 2016, at the request of Mayor Tony Vazquez and Mayor Pro Tem Ted Winterer, the City Council agreed to consider a resolution (1) expressing the City Council’s intention to close the Santa Monica Airport to aviation use, as soon as that is legally permitted with a goal of June 30, 2018 and earlier if possible, and, upon compliance with applicable legal processes, to transition the land currently occupied by the Airport to uses consistent with Measure LC (Local Control), and (2) authorizing the City Manager to initiate all administrative measures necessary to implement the resolution, including commencement of planning and environmental review processes 11.A Packet Pg. 203 4 of 20 required by the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Planning Act. The motion passed by unanimous consent. The subject resolution is a clear acknowledgement by the City Council to implement Measure LC and it intends to close the Airport as quickly as legally permitted and by lawful means. Evolution of the City and Airport Relationship According to Cloverfield.org, as early as 1922 the land currently occupied by the Airport was used as a landing field. In 1926 Santa Monica voters approved a park bond ballot measure to purchase the land currently occupied by the airport. Below is an exc erpt of the 1926 ordinance. The property has been under city ownership from that time to present , having undergone expansion during and after World War II. Since its establishment over 90 years ago, the Airport has played an important part in the evolution of Santa Monica. For instance, the Douglas Aircraft factory at the Airport produced more than 6,000 DC -3 and other fighter/bomber aircraft to help the United States win World War II. Beginning in the late 1950s, with the advent of jet aircraft, the rel ationships among Douglas Aircraft, the City of Santa Monica, and the residents soured and became adversarial. The City (responding to residents’ protests) refused to extend the SMO runway even at the cost of losing local jobs to avoid “locking in” noise f rom the DC-8 jetliners that Douglas proposed to build in 1958. In 1962 a public hearing was held at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium to discuss the impacts of airport operations on residents. In 1967, a large group of residents sued the City, claiming jet operations had 11.A Packet Pg. 204 5 of 20 damaged their property values and their quality of life. Five years later, the City adopted an ordinance designed to reduce aircraft noise and ban jet aircraft. In 1981, the City Council adopted Resolution 6296 declaring its intention to close the Airport when legally possible. After a series of negotiations, FAA and the City reached a comprehensive settlement in 1984. “The 1984 Agreement” recognized the City’s authority to mitigate aircraft noise, impose curfew limits, ban helicopter t raining, limit the number of aircraft tie-downs, and remove certain land on the south side of the airport from aviation use. In return, the City agreed to: 1) operate the airport until June 30, 2015 and 2) permit fixed base operators (FBOs) to serve passe ngers, service and maintain aircraft, and sell avgas and jet fuel. Fractional aircraft is a common term for fractional ownership of aircraft where multiple owners share the costs of purchasing, leasing and operating the aircraft. Commercial programs for large aircraft include LuxJet Group, NetJets, Flexjet, Flight Options, PlaneSense, Executive AirShare, AirSprint and Autumn Air. Fractional jet operations transformed business jet operations nationally and ushered in the escalating jet operations at SMO that continues today. The bar chart below clearly shows the trend in the growth of jet aircraft at the expense of piston aircraft. 11.A Packet Pg. 205 6 of 20 By 1999, increased jet traffic caused Los Angeles City residents to sue the City of Santa Monica based on adverse health impacts and nuisance caused by the Airport. By 2008, the City Council passed an ordinance banning (larger and faster) Category C and D aircraft from using SMO due to their adverse environmental impacts and increased safety hazards resulting from faster landing speeds coupled with the short (4,970 foot) SMO runway length. The FAA enjoined enforcement of this ordinance and later prevailed in Federal Court. A common theme in this long-running issue centers on the environmental impacts of jet operations, particularly the loud noise of jets that residents nearby the Airport find intolerable. According to the City noise violation database from May 1, 2013 to April, 30 2016 – jet operations account for 92 % of all the (95 decibel) SMO noise violations. For context, a 95 decibel jet noise seems as loud as a jackhammer at 50 feet. The Santa Monica Municipal Code imposes a 75 decibel maximum five-minute noise exposure limit for the community. 11.A Packet Pg. 206 7 of 20 As shown below, total operations have decreased significantly since the 1999 peak. However, jet operations continue to increase at SMO, thus exacerbating and increasing noise pollution and the potential for a significant large scale accident. Because jets are typically much larger and carry far more fuel (a Gulfstream IV weighs as much as 75,000 pounds and carries 15 tons of jet fuel), jets pose far greater risks to residents than do propeller aircraft, should an accident occur. 11.A Packet Pg. 207 8 of 20 Aircraft accidents, noise, and air pollution are not the only risks that the Airport poses to nearby residents. For nearly 25 years, California has banned lead as an additive for automobile fuel because of its toxic effects on humans, particularly children. Leaded auto gas was banned because of the highly adverse environmental impacts it has on people and the environment. Since 2008 the EPA found there is no safe lead particulate exposure level (especially for infants) and it recommended limiting the use of lead in aviation fuel because the lead particles from avgas comprise more than 50% of the total US lead emissions. Unlike jet aircraft, piston aircraft utilize leaded fuel. In 2009, the EPA studied SMO lead emissions (totaling 800 pounds in 2002) and estimated the lead particulates had been roughly halved due to the decrease in piston aircra ft traffic by 2009. At the Airport, two FBO vendors combine to sell approximately 260,000 gallons of leaded fuel each year. Each gallon of avgas fuel contains about two grams of lead. Thus, SMO generates 260,000 x 2 = 520,000 grams, or about 1,160 poun ds of lead particles. If SMO were to close, more than half a ton of lead particles that impact this region would cease to be generated. The Office of Environmental Health Assessment, (OEHA) which is a department within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), produces a pollution burden map. According to OEHA, the census tract in which the airport lies, ranks in the 79 th percentile of most pollution burden census tracts in all of California. The OEHA 11.A Packet Pg. 208 9 of 20 pollution burden index consists of various pollutants, including diesel, PM2.5 and toxic releases. In the case of diesel, PM2.5 and toxic releases, the census tract that houses the Airport has the highest reading for diesel, PM2.5 and toxic releases in all Santa Monica. In summary, all the aforementioned trends and impacts of noise, pollution, and dangers have a wide-reaching adverse impact on a large area around SMO today. Over 1,800 residents as far as three miles away from the runway (Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, Mar Vista and Marina del Rey) articulated these negative impacts in personal letters to Congressional Representatives Ted Lieu and Karen Bass. These personal testimonials were presented to the FAA on July 8, 2015 in Washington, D.C. The map below indicates where a portion of the residents are located. A Geospatial Analysis of the Distribution of Westside Residents Negatively Impacted by the Santa Monica Airport 11.A Packet Pg. 209 10 of 20 There are over 130,000 residents within two miles of Santa Monica Airport. Red markers indicate a partial sample of documented complaints by residents that were presented to the FAA by Congressional Representatives. Adoption of Measure Local Control (Measure LC) In June 2014, Santa Monica voters were presented with two opposing Airport ballot measures. Measure D was sponsored and supported by the National Business Aircraft Association, (NBAA), the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association (AOPA), and the Santa Monica Airport Association (SMAA) – entities presently suing the City to keep SMO open for business. Measure D, funded by almost $1,000,000 from the NBAA and other Washington DC special interests, can only be described as a pro -aviation measure designed to change the City Charter and thereby ensure the continuance of 11.A Packet Pg. 210 11 of 20 airport operations at SMO. Measure D, which had no local community support or endorsements, lost 40 percent to 60 percent. Measure LC was supported by virtually all local Santa Monica groups, neighborhood associations, and organizations. Measure LC passed 60 percent to 40 percent; it clearly presents an electoral mandate to the City. Measure LC reads as follows: Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport, manage Airport leaseholds, condition leases, and permanently close all or part of the Airport to aviation use. If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses. While residents did not vote to close the Airport, they clearly intended that City Council limit/reduce airport operations and specified that if t he Airport closes, the land currently occupied by the Airport must be used for the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses, unless there is a vote of the people to the contrary. The voter turnout in the Sunset Park and Ocean Park neighborhood precincts (those residents most impacted by SMO operations) approached 75 percent with LC approval rates of over 80 percent. Post Measure LC Actions Taken by the City Since Measure LC passage, the City has taken various steps to regain local control over the property now occupied by the Airport. On March 22, 2016, the City adopted a new leasing policy. Only uses that are compatible with surrounding neighbors are permitted per this policy, unless the use is required by law. Second, the City has continued its legal battles, both in the federal courts and through ongoing FAA administrative proceedings. Third, the City did not extend the lease of the largest 11.A Packet Pg. 211 12 of 20 Airport master tenant, Gunnell Properties. The City is in the process of bringing Gunnell’s former sub-tenants into compliance with the Council’s adopted Leasing Policy. Fourth, City staff has begun the process of eliminating the remaining mast er tenants while maintaining an orderly transition. Fifth, the City and Justice Aviation reached an agreement, and Justice Aviation voluntarily vacated. Sixth, consistent with Measure LC, the City Council approved hiring a park planning consulting firm in order to expand Airport Park from 8 acres to 20 acres. In a related action, the City removed all aircraft from the southeast parcel to clear the way for the park expansion. Last, the City required the Airport Fund to repay the General Fund $1.2M in FY 1 5-16 in order to reduce the Airport’s debt obligation to the City. DISCUSSION Closing the Santa Monica Airport Would Be Transformative The Santa Monica Airport, located in a highly urbanized and densely populated region , occupies 227 acres consisting of multiple separate parcels. While many transient aircraft transit SMO, only 310 aircraft are based at the Airport. Thus, the benefit of dedicating a vast track of valuable land for the tiny number of aviation users comes at the expense of precluding an increased quality of life for tens of thousands of residents (and visitors) who would otherwise enjoy greatly improved park, recreational, cultural, and community amenities. It should be noted that in Los Angeles County there are 3.3 acres of park for every 1,000 residents. Santa Monica falls fall below the County average at only 1.4 acres for every 1,000 residents. If the parcels of land currently dedicated to aviation are converted to park space, the City of Santa Monica would reach parity with Los Angeles County. Moreover, closing the Airport represents perhaps the greatest and last opportunity to create a “great park” in Santa Monica, or perhaps the entire West Los Angeles area, analogous to Central Park in New York, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, or Millennium Park in Chicago. Transforming this precious property into uses consistent with Measure LC may well become the greatest transformative event of this century for the City of Santa Monica, equal to or surpassing the pier or extending the Expo Rail line to the beach. In March of this year, the City Council adopted a leasing policy. The leasing policy authorizes the City Manager to enter into lease agreements at the Airport, provided the 11.A Packet Pg. 212 13 of 20 term of the agreements does not exceed June 30, 2018. T he Council selected June 30, 2018 as the longest lease term because by said date, or perhaps sooner, the courts are expected to resolve the legal matters in favor of the City thus allowing the City to close the Airport. Should the City Council elect to pass this resolution and adopt the policy, it can cite the reasons below: 1. Closing the Airport Would Eliminate Adverse Impacts of Airport Operations. Santa Monica and indeed, all of Southern California has become increasing ly urban. The Santa Monica population exceeds 11,000 persons per square mile –greater than surrounding Los Angeles communities while our park acreage trails that of Los Angeles. Land uses that were once prominent such as drive-in theaters have closed due to economic pressures, and land -uses such as land-fills have been relocated to more appropriate locations in order to stop their adverse impacts on large highly urbanized communities. While an airfield may have been an allowed use, and perhaps even innovative in 1926 at the time of the bond measure, as the City has evolved the harmful environmental impacts of SMO operations have increased to the point where the Santa Monica Airport is no longer a community benefit. From December 1928 to August 1939 there was an average of only 70 flights per year, hence the airfield was not incompatible with the semi-rural nature of the city at that time. In addition to removing the threat of a catastrophic jet aircraft accident, closing the Santa Monica Airport would halt ongoing adverse environmental impacts of airport operations, e.g.: 1) noise pollution, 2) fine particulate air pollution, and 3) lead particle pollution. Closing the Santa Monica Airport may be the single most important, immediate, and locally achievable environmental protection measur e available to the City Council. 2. Transitioning the Airport to Be Consistent with Measure LC Would Greatly Improve the Quality of Life. In 2014, Santa Monica residents approved Measure Local Control. Per Measure LC, only “parks, public open spaces, and p ublic recreational 11.A Packet Pg. 213 14 of 20 facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are permitted on the land currently occupied by the Airport without a vote of Santa Monica residents.” The transition of property currently us ed for aircraft operations at the Airport to uses permitted under Measure LC would dramatically improve the surrounding conditions for Santa Monica and West Los Angeles residents by replacing highly dangerous environmental threats with desirable surroundings that will greatly enhance residents’ quality of life. 3. Closing SMO Is A Matter of Local Control and Property Rights . The City owns the land now occupied by the Santa Monica Airport. Property owners, including cities, have legal right to exercise their property rights within the constraints imposed by the authorized land use regulator. The Federal Government is not a local land use regulator, thus, FAA does not have jurisdiction over land use decisions in Santa Monica. Using its municipal powers, including its property rights and land use authority in 1926, the City created an airfield and park and in 1941 leased the land to the Federal Government during a time of national emergency. Now after 90 years of transformative change, if the City Council determines that the negative environmental impacts of airport operations outweigh the benefits that SMO provides, the City has the sole authority, as the property owner and as the land use regulator, to make that decision, not the FAA. 4. Legal Liability. As owner/operator of the Airport, the City is legally responsible and potentially liable for injuries resulting from Airport operations. In contrast, the federal government has no liability because it is immunized by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. Thus, according to the FAA, the City has all the responsibility and potential liability for Airport operations and impacts, but none of the authority to control them. This places the City in a position that is both untenably risky and grossly unfair. The Current Legal Environment The City is involved in two legal proceedings that have material effects on when the City can close the airport. First, the federal lawsuit regarding the effect of the Instrument of Transfer (IOT) is hugely determinative. The IOT p rovided the mechanism by which the Federal Government (a) surrendered the land it leased from the City and, (b) transferred 11.A Packet Pg. 214 15 of 20 the buildings and improvements on the leased land to the City after using it during World War II. The attached documents from the N ational Archives Offices in Riverside, California demonstrate that the Federal Government agreed to surrender the 168 acres of runway land and transfer the buildings and improvements to the City. 11.A Packet Pg. 215 16 of 20 11.A Packet Pg. 216 17 of 20 The FAA claims the 1948 Instrument of Transfer requires the City to operate the airport in perpetuity; the City rejects this FAA claim. The federal trial will be next August. Earlier this year, the City won a preliminary victory in this case when the 9 th District Circuit Court of Appeals determined the facts of the case are so intertwined that the Court could not separate the statute of limitations from the merits of the case and thus a trial was warranted. The Court of Appeals returned the case to District Court and ordered the case be tried on its merits. The second case is a Part 16 administrative proceeding. This case involves the date when Federal grant obligations expire, thus freeing Santa Monica from the need to comply with key federal regulations regarding the Airport. The City argues that these obligations expired in 2014 but the FAA claims the obligations remain valid until 2023. On August 15, 2016, as expected , the Associate Director for Airports, upheld the previous FAA determination. The City should appeal the FAA determination to the federal courts. Post Airport Closure Resolution Actions of the City Manager The subject resolution states: “A resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica making findings regarding the adverse environmental, health and safety effects of the Santa Monica airport; declaring the policy of the City to close the Santa Monica airport to aviation uses as soon as legally permitted, and directing the City Manager to implement all lawful administrative measures consistent with these findings and declarations”. Therefore, the City Manager intends to implement all measures listed below, or other measures should he determine that said measures would be consistent with the findings and declaration: 1. Commence the park planning process, including conducting an environmental analysis as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Transitioning the land currently occupied by the Airport into a “great park” may require the City to comply with certain planning and environmental laws and that will take considerable time and energy. Hence, in order to coordinate the construction of a great park with the closure of the airport, the time to commence the planning and environmental analysis is now. 11.A Packet Pg. 217 18 of 20 2. Investigate whether certain fractional jet operators are impermissibly operating as scheduled airlines. It should be noted that both FAA and the City of Santa Monica prohibit scheduled airline operations out of SMO. 3. Submit an application to FAA which would alter the Airport runway by removing the 1949 Quit Claim Parcel, also known as the “Western Parcel” from aviation use. As noted above, the Western Parcel is not subject to the IOT; the only tenuous hold the FAA may have on the Western Parcel for aviation use is the 1994 Grant Assurance. The City will appeal the recent grant assurance determination by the FAA to the federal courts. Thus, it makes sense to file the application to close the Western Parcel to aviation as part of the City’s appeal of the grant assurance. 4. Cease forbearance of lax enforcement of the Santa Monica Airport noise ordinance and apply enforcement as written. The City’s enforcement practice of its noise ordinance pre-dates the advent of fractional ownership and jets on demand services. Hence, enforcement should be adjusted to reflect the current state of airport operations. 5. Transition aircraft hangar uses from lease agreements to permits . There is a great uncertainty regarding whether FAA has legal rights to impose control over City land in order to accommodate aviation uses. Until those legal questions are resolved, the City seeks to avoid binding real estate commitments that would preclude the City from swiftly ending aviation uses as soon as legally permitted. A permit system is a reasonable accommodation until the City prevails in court and expeditiously closes the Airport per the subject City Council Resolution. The proposed permit system provides an important step forward toward greater local control over the property now occupied by aviation users. 6. Create a City of Santa Monica Fixed Based Operation. If the City is required to operate the airport and if FBO services are required, the City would have greater 11.A Packet Pg. 218 19 of 20 local control by establishing a municipal FBO. FAA regulations permit cities to operate an FBO provided the operation is done with city employees and resources. Hence, it is legally permitted and there are examples of city run FBOs, including the City of Naples, Florida. As part of our due diligence, staff will examine issues related to: fuel farm operations, employee recruitment, training and retention, equipment, costs and revenue, and liability. The two private FBO providers will be eliminated when City staff are ready to assume the duties. 7. Elimination of lead fuel. Despite the known dangers of leaded fuel and a viable alternative, FAA has yet to phase it out. Therefore, because there is a viable alternative that could service an estimated 65 percent of the propeller aircraft fleet based in SMO, the sale of leaded fuel should be phased out completely as soon as legally possible. In place of leaded fuel, staff would recommend the sale of unleaded fuel and would request that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations for the provision of said fuel. 8. Enhanced Security. In accordance with previous direction of the City Council, staff is in the process of selecting a highly qualified airport security firm. Staff expects to recommend the contract in September or October 2016 Resolution’s Impact on the City Council’s Airport Strategic Goal On August 23, 2015, the City Council adopted five strategic goals. One goal was to regain local control of the land occupied by the Santa Monica Airport. If the City Council adopts this resolution, staff will revise the Airport strategic goal to reflect this resolution, develop performance measures that correspond to this resolution, and present those performance measures first to the Airport Commission and then to the City Council. Al ternatives to an Airport Closure Resolution The Council may elect to not approve the proposed resolution and maintain the status quo. However, as explained in this staff report, the status quo is inconsistent with Measure LC, produces adverse environmenta l impacts, creates the possibility of hazards, and does not improve the overall quality of life. Hence, if the optimal public 11.A Packet Pg. 219 20 of 20 policy goal is to eliminate noise and air pollution from all aircraft and to maximize park, open space, cultural and education facilities, the City Council should adopt the proposed resolution. Fiscal Impacts Adoption of the resolution does not have a direct fiscal impact. The fiscal impact of creating a city FBO service and hiring consulting services in connection to the planning process and environmental analysis will be determined when more information is available and proposals have been submitted. Prepared By: Nelson Hernandez, Senior Advisor for Airport Affairs Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Resolution B. Policy C. Written comments D. Powerpoint Presentation 11.A Packet Pg. 220 11.A.a Packet Pg. 221 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 11.A.a Packet Pg. 222 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 11.A.a Packet Pg. 223 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 11.A.a Packet Pg. 224 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 11.A.a Packet Pg. 225 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 11.A.a Packet Pg. 226 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 11.A.a Packet Pg. 227 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 11.A.a Packet Pg. 228 At t a c h m e n t : R e s o l u t i o n ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) CITY OF SANTA MONICA POLICY FOR ESTABLISHING EXCLUSIVE PUBLIC PROPRIETARY “FIXED BASED OPERATIONS” AND PROVIDING OTHER AERONAUTICAL SERVICES AT THE SANTA MONICA AIRPORT Pursuant to the findings, declarations, policies and directions of the “RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF THE SANTA MONICA AIRPORT; DECLARING THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO CLOSE THE SANTA MONICA AIRPORT TO AVIATION USES AS SOON AS LEGALLY PERMITTED, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT ALL LAWFUL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES CONSISTENT WITH THESE FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS” the City Council now sets forth the following policies which shall govern the provision of Fixed Base Operations and related aeronautical services at the Airport as long as it remains open: 1. The City Manager shall replace all current private fixed base operators such as Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers, (each an “FBO” and collectively the “Airport FBOs”) with fixed base operations provided by the City on an exclusive proprietary basis, on or before December 31, 2016, or as soon as practicable thereafter. 2. The City Manager, in order to ensure an orderly transition, shall initiate such legal action as are necessary and appropriate to cause the removal of the Airport FBOs (which currently occupy space at the Airport under expired leases), including any legally required “Notice to Vacate”, by September 15, 2016, or as soon as practicable thereafter. 11.A.b Packet Pg. 229 At t a c h m e n t : P o l i c y ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) 3. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take whatever steps he deems appropriate for the City to offer some or all of the same aeronautical services as were offered by the Airport FBOs. The aeronautical services offered shall include only those FBO services required by law, as may be determined by the City based upon written communications with the FAA, the California Department of Aeronautics, and other federal and state agencies. 4. The City shall use some or all physical assets owned by the City, in cluding those which may currently be being used by the Airport FBOs, including real property, fuel tanks, hangars, tie-downs, tarmac areas and other City- owned physical assets. The City Manager is further authorized to engage City personnel and/or contractors to support the provision of such aeronautical services. 5. The City will also allow individual aircraft owners to hire aeronautical service providers located off the Airport premises to provide aeronautical services within the Airport, on fair and reasonable terms, but only to the extent legally required, as the same may be determined by the City Manager based upon written communications with the FAA, the California Department of Aeronautics, and other federal and state agencies. 6. This policy shall remain in effect through March 31, 2017. The City Manager is further directed to return to this City Council prior to March 31, 2017, to allow this City Council to renew, enhance or modify this policy. 11.A.b Packet Pg. 230 At t a c h m e n t : P o l i c y ( 2 0 8 6 : A i r p o r t C l o s u r e ) City Council Report City Council Meeting: October 25, 2016 Agenda Item: 3.G 1 of 5 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Airport Subject: Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Santa Monica Airport Security Enhancement Project Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Award RFP Airport Security Enhancement Project to Birdi & Associates, Inc., a California-based corporation, to provide consulting services in connection with designing a security system to upgrade what is currently being u sed by the Santa Monica Airport; 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Birdi & Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $163,350 for one year, with one additional one-year renewal option of $47,850, for a total amount not to exceed $211,200 (including a 10% contingency), with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and 3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of the report. Executive Summary Although the City Council voted to close the Santa Monica Airport by June 2018 or as soon as legally feasible, the City will continue to operate the Airport in a safe and secure manner so long as it remains open. The Santa Monica Airport currently has an Access Control System that controls and monitors all vehicle gate access onto the airfield as well as 24/7 patrol provided by Santa Monica Police Department Public Service Officers. In response to Council’s direction to evaluate the Airport’s current security system and develop enhancements where necessary, the Santa Monica Airport is seeking consulting services to design and upgrade the Santa Monica Airport’s security system. In March 2016, the City published a request for qualifications to provide consulting services in designing and upgrading the Santa Monica Airport’s security system. Four firms were shortlisted and interviewed. In July 2016, the City solicited requests for proposals from two of the four shortlisted firms. Staff recommends Birdi & Associates, Inc. as the best firm to provide these services in an amount not to exceed $211,200 (including a 10% contingency). Background 2 of 5 On October 27, 2015, Council directed staff to explore expanding security measures including passenger and pilot screening, and screening of others working on aircraft at the Airport. Although the City Council has voted to close the Airport by June 2018 or as soon as legally feasible, the City remains committed to ensuring the safety and security of its Airport is maintained. Staff direction was given at the August 23, 2016 (Attachment A) meeting where Council’s direction was to enhance Airport security. The current security system at the Santa Monica Airport is called Brivo Access Control System. Brivo Access Control System is a hosted system that provides security gate access control monitoring and also provides a badging and credential system for tenants who are granted airfield access. The Airport’s perimeter is also secured by a perimeter fence and it is patrolled by the Santa Monica Police Department Public Service Officers 24/7. Although no significant security issues have occurred, it is important to constantly evaluate and keep improving the established security system. Discussion As exemplified by the Council’s commitment to outstanding police and fire services, public safety is the most important priority of the City. Regardless of location, maintaining a safe and secure environment, including the airport, is paramount. Although there have been no significant problems at the Airport do date, it is imperative to constantly evaluate current practices and make continuous improvements, as necessary. Therefore, acquiring the services of a consultant to evaluate and enhance the airport’s security to ensure that it meets Federal, State, and local regulations and provides an improved level of security and safety for the people that utilize the airport facilities is essential. The current security system has been in place for many years, therefore, the consultant will be tasked with designing a system that will address, at a minimum, any gaps of the airport’s vehicle and pedestrian access points; the airport’s perimeter fence; and access points from buildings that are alongside the airport’s restricted area of the airport. 3 of 5 Additionally, the consultant would study avenues to ensure the security of passengers and screening of pilots and others working in restricted areas of the airport. Consultant Selection On March 29, 2016, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ#32916) for Airport Security Enhancements for the Santa Monica Airport. The RFQ was posted on the City’s on-line bidding site, and notices were advertised in the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. 74 vendors downloaded the RFQ. The following eight (8) firms responded: Birdi & Associates, Inc. BSecure Corporation Convergint Technologies Elert & Associates Reem Aviation Security Consultants, LLC Safeguard on Demand LLC Siemens Triad Consulting System Design Group Responses to the RFQ were reviewed by a selection panel of staff from Public Works, the Santa Monica Police Department, Information Systems, and the City Manager’s Office. Evaluation was based on the following criteria: knowledge and prior experience with Airport Security, references and experience of key personnel based on resumes showing technical knowledge and relevant experience, evaluation of firm’s previous projects of comparable level of complexity and nature, training and proven expertise in the area of work required, firms proposed work plan, and knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration and Homeland Security Airport Security Regulations and best practices particularly as it relates to small reliever airports in highly urbanized settings. This evaluation allowed staff to short list four firms who were then invited to interview and present their airport security work plans. Staff then shortlisted two pre-qualified firms: Birdi & Associates, Inc. and Triad Consulting System Design Group. On July 18, 2016, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Airport Security Enhancements for 4 of 5 the Santa Monica Airport to the two shortlisted firms. Both firms submitted proposals. Responses to the RFP were evaluated on: experience and technical competence; ability to meet work plan and timelines; ability and past experience in assembling a highly qualified team; description of previous project experiences to show how quality control was achieved for former clients; cost of services; cost control; performance within budget allocations; and breadth of service by demonstrating the ability to provide innovative solutions, recommendations, and improvements . Birdie & Associated, Inc. demonstrates a clear understanding of the scope of services, has many years of experience in Airport security systems (including Ontario International Airport, Van Nuys Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and San Diego International Airport) and has a highly qualified project team. Based on these criteria and criteria in SMMC 2.24.073, Birdi & Associated, Inc. is recommended as the best qualified firm. Additionally, staff contacted references and all reported Birdi & Associates, Inc. work was completed in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Project timeline Staff anticipates that the design phase of the project will occur during FY2016-17 and the construction phase during FY2017-18. Staff will return to Council for approval of the construction contract and a phasing schedule of the enhancements at a future date. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions The agreement to be awarded to Birdi & Association, Inc. is for an amount not to exceed $211,200. The Airport Security Project would cost $163,350 in FY2016-17. Funds in the amount of $125,000 are available in the FY 2016-17 Capital Improvement Budget. Implementation of the program requires an FY 2016-17 appropriation of $38,350 to account C334035.589000. The agreement will be charged to account C334035.589000. Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval. 5 of 5 Prepared By: Kate Schlesinger, Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. August 23, 2016 Staff Report REFERENCE: Modified Agreement No. 10373 (CCS)