The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-05-08-2012-4Ac7® City of City Council Report Santa Monica 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 City's consultant has submitted both the raw data gathered through that process and its report summarizing community input, emergent themes, preferences and suggestions for the Airport's 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. 1 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 Airport's 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 Airport's value to the community; (2) an initial sampling of interviews by Point C Partners to identify viewpoints about the Airport and possibilities 2 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 Airport's 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 Il. On December 6, 2011, Council approved a professional services contract with Moore lacofano 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. 3 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 MIG's Summary of Phase II Community Discussion Groups report, which is Attachment "B ". The body of MIG's report outlines the thematic outcomes and community preferences that emerged in the groups. 12 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 Airport's 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; 11 • 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, 7 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 enhancinq 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. 9 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. E 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 discussion groups regarding the future of Santa Monica Airport, staff supports the 10 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 El 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. 12 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 City's 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 Ill 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. 13 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. 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. 14 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 Ro GOuld Director of Public Works City Manager Approved: Attachments: A —Airport Campus Map B — Summary of Phase II Community Discussion Groups Report 15 City of Santa 1.1 (tniear Summary of Phase II Community Discussion Groups April 2012 M Moore lacofono Goltsman, Inc. INA I. Introduction H. Community Discussion Group Overview III. Spectrum of Positions 5 7 11 IV. Current Status of the Airport 25 A. Positive Contributions of SMO to Surrounding Communities 27 B. Negative Operational Impacts of SMO on Surrounding Communities 31 V. Key Thematic Outcomes and Community - Identified Preferences 35 for the Future of SMO VI. Recommendations for Phase ill 55 A. Supplementary Information Requests 57 B. Legal Strategies to Challenge the FAA 61 C. Potential Community Actions 63 D. Expanded Community Outreach and Political Engagement 65 VII. Appendices A. Transcribed Participant Comment Cards 69 B. Additional Written Participant Comments 91 C. Community Discussion Group Wallgraphics 97 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 ffilnUlTorb The City of Santa Monica has embarked on a rigorous three -phase public process regarding the future of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport campus. In 2015, all land and building leases throughout the airport campus as well as the current operating agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will expire. The 2015 timeframe presents the City with a unique opportunity to boldly re- envision the goals, operations and facilities of the 227 -acre airport campus. As a basis for planning the future of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO), the City has launched a participatory visioning process to identify community concerns, priorities and preferences. Phase I resulted in findings regarding best practices at general aviation facilities in relation to local communities by RAND. In addition, HR &A conducted an economic analysis of the airport's operations and activities on both the local and regional economies. This Phase concluded in fall 2011. Phase II was designed as an extensive, transparent and open public dialogue process in which all interested members of the public could share their concerns and ideas for the future of SMO. During Phase II, the City hosted a series of 32 facilitated community discussion groups between January and March 2012. MIG, a strategic planning and management firm with over 30 years of expertise in designing and implementing community outreach processes, was retained by the City to facilitate the community discussion groups and produce the Phase II summary report. The purpose of the community discussion groups was to engage participants in interactive discussions about the impacts of SMO on surrounding communities and potential opportunities for change. This Phase began with an Open House event which allowed all interested participants an opportunity to tour the site, its facilities and operations. All community comments and ideas were documented and analyzed in an effort to classify major themes. The source documents for this report include the wallgraphics (a unique, visual representation of the discussion points raised during the community discussion groups, detailed minutes taken by City staff, and participant comment cards from each community discussion group. The body of this report outlines the thematic outcomes and preferences identified by participants regarding the future of the airport campus. Grounded by the studies from Phase I and the essential community input from Phase II, the City can now undertake Phase III actions and formulate a strategic analysis of key themes. The results of this in -depth analysis will lead to the development of prioritized recommendations that will be presented to the City Council in May 2012. SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 r 0 A total of 32 community discussion groups (CDG) were conducted between January and March 2012. The breadth and frequency of CDGs were designed to engage a wide variety of participants with diverse viewpoints. The CDGs were facilitated by a professional organizer of public meetings and community processes from the consulting firm MIG. The community discussion groups were held at various locations across the City. Each CDG was comprised of approximately 8 to 12 participants and lasted for approximately two hours. The CDGs were open to all interested individuals regardless of area of residence. The relatively small number of participants per CDG gave members of the public ample opportunity to voice their concerns, frustrations and hopes for SMO. This approach emphasized inclusiveness, civil discourse and a high level of community interaction. Participant Profile During Phase II, 312 participants attended the community discussion groups and 309 participants identified their city of residence. The majority of participants consisted of residents from Santa Monica and West Los Angeles. Many Santa Monica participants were residents of Sunset Park, Ocean Park and other neighborhoods surrounding the airport. The City of Los Angeles participants were residents of various communities including Venice, Mar Vista, Pacific Palisades and Marina Del Rey. A few residents from other cities such as Gardena, Malibu and Thousand Oaks also attended the community discussion groups. (See Figure 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 for more details) Figure 1.1: CDG Area of Residence Distribution SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Figure 1.2: Map of Participants' Area of Residence Source: Information regarding participants' cities of residence was collected at each CDG through the participant comment cards. Figure 1.3: Breakdown of Participants' Area of Residence* *The breakdown of participants' area of residence does not equal the total number of CDG participants because not all participants included their city of residence on the participant comment cards. SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 City of Los City of Santa Other Cities Angeles Monica Number of Participants 93 200 8 *The breakdown of participants' area of residence does not equal the total number of CDG participants because not all participants included their city of residence on the participant comment cards. SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 The gender breakdown for COG participants consisted of males representing fifty -five percent (55 %) and females representing (45 %). (See Figure 1.4) CDG participants varied in age with the majority of participants between 45 -64 years of age (56 %). Twenty - seven percent (26 %) of participants represented the 65 and older age range, followed by the 35 -44 year age group (14 %). Only four percent (4 %) of participants were representative of the 18 -34 year age range. (See Figure 1.5) Figure 1.4: CDG Gender Distribution SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Figure 1.5: CDG Age Distribution Age of Participants 18 -34 4% 35 -44 65+ 14% 26% E 45 -64 56% The most frequently mentioned affiliations were Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP) and the Friends of Santa Monica Airport (FOSMO) organizations. Several participants listed affiliations with neighborhood associations such as the Ocean Park Association, Mar Vista Neighborhood Council and Venice Neighborhood Council. Also, a few CDG participants identified the Concerned Residents against Airport Pollution (CRAAP) group as their primary affiliation. Report Organization The report is organized to allow the reader to consider each section as a stand -alone summary for each particular topic. Consequently, some repetition of ideas and concerns expressed by CDG participants was necessary. 10 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 During the community discussion groups, participants were asked to share their opinions and ideas for improving the current conditions at the airport campus. Participants were encouraged to consider both aviation - related and non- aviation- related uses at the airport. The following section highlights participant comments based on their preference for either maintaining the airport with recommended improvements or closing the airport completely. The spectrum of positions is not listed in order of priority. The authors of this report have attempted to accurately reflect the opinions and beliefs of community discussion group participants. The body of this report is a reflection of CDG participants' experiences and perceptions regarding SMO operations. In many cases, CDG participants expressed many of the same concerns as other participants, but took different positions with respect to the future of SMO. Five profiles emerged based on common responses and perspectives of community discussion group participants. • Position #1: Close the Airport • Position #2: Close the Airport Unless Firm FAA Agreement Is in Place to Reduce Impacts • Position #3: Reduce the Airport's Operations and Footprint • Position #4: Maintain Airport Operations with Significant Mitigations and Improvements • Position #5: Maintain Airport Operations with Selected Mitigations and Improvements 11 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 12 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Many participants unequivocally support the closure of all airport operations. Participants who support this position firmly believe that the negative aspects of the airport —noise pollution, adverse health impacts and safety hazards— outweigh any benefits. These participants asserted that the airport's operations have outgrown the City and no longer add value to local residential communities. These participants identified diverse ideas to repurpose the airport campus as alternative land uses that will more directly benefit the broader community. Health Impacts • Some participants view the airport as a health hazard due to the air pollution from leaded aviation fuel and noxious odors emitted from the aircraft. • Many participants highlighted SMO's close proximity to homes, schools and parks and the potential dangers posed by the toxic air pollution. • Other participants raised concerns regarding the health impacts of ultra -fine particulates from aircraft exhaust on airport- adjacent communities. • Participants feel that the health consequences for residents are not acceptable and any benefits from the airport are insignificant in comparison to the negative impacts. Noise Pollution Many participants highlighted the various ways that loud noise levels from SMO's frequent aircraft traffic degrade the quality of life for local residents. Some participants believe that the noise has gotten progressively worse over the years due in large part to increased jet traffic and flight school operations. Participants also asserted that the noise pollution from aircraft operations can lead to learning deficits for children. Increased Volume and Frequency of Aircraft Traffic Many participants believe that SMO has increased both jet and flight school operations, which has translated into significant increases in noise pollution. The frequent departures and arrivals from both propeller planes and jets degrade the quality of life for local residents. 13 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Safety Concerns Safety issues posed by the inexperienced flight school pilots flying over densely populated communities were frequently mentioned during the discussion groups. The possibility of an airplane crash is an ongoing concern for many participants; from the perspective of some participants, there have been significant increases in the volume and frequency of aircraft traffic which raises the risks of accidents. Disproportionate Impacts Borne by Residents • Many participants are upset that the needs of a small minority of seemingly wealthy individuals who use the airport are placed above the needs of thousands of residents who bear the brunt of SMO's adverse impacts. Inconsistent with Santa Monica's Position as a Leader in Environmental Sustainability • Taken together, the noise, health and safety concerns associated with the airport are not well - aligned with the City's image as a trendsetter in sustainability and environmental stewardship. • Many participants assert that Santa Monica is acting as a "bad neighbor" due to the adverse environmental impacts that it spreads to neighboring communities of Venice and Mar Vista. Lack of Citizen Input in the Decision Making Process • Many participants resent the lack of public recourse and the inability to appeal the FAA's decisions regarding airport actions that directly affect their lives. • Numerous participants from Venice and Mar Vista also feel disregarded and disenfranchised by the City of Santa Monica despite the fact that they are significantly impacted by SMO's operations. • Some participants are frustrated by the FAA's absence from the community visioning process as well as the day -to -day operational issues of SMO. Alternative Land Uses • Instead of offering strategies to improve airport operations, many participants expressed their preference for the complete closure of the airport. • Participants protest the fact the airport's valuable land only benefits a limited number of users. • These participants identified diverse ideas to repurpose the airport campus through alternative land uses that will more directly benefit the broader community. (See pages 49 to 52 for a list of suggested uses.) is SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Reduce Impacts Some participants support closing the airport campus unless proper mitigation assurances from the FAA can be guaranteed. These participants assert that the FAA cannot be trusted to work with the City and to fairly negotiate mitigations. If the FAA were willing to implement impact mitigations, these participants may be persuaded to keep the airport open. Some participants from this group would be amenable to accepting funds from the FAA to implement specific improvements within a programmatic mitigation effort. Health Impacts • Some participants view the airport as a health hazard due to the air pollution from leaded aviation fuel and noxious odors emitted from the aircraft. • Many participants highlighted SMO's close proximity to homes, schools and parks and the potential dangers posed by the toxic air pollution. • Other participants raised concerns regarding the health impacts of ultra -fine particulates from aircraft exhaust on airport- adjacent communities. • Participants feel that the health consequences for residents are not acceptable and any benefits from the airport are insignificant in comparison to the negative impacts. Noise Pollution • Many participants highlighted the various ways that loud noise levels from SMO's frequent aircraft traffic degrade the quality of life for local residents. • Some participants believe that the noise has gotten progressively worse over the years due in large part to increased jet traffic and flight school operations. Property Devaluation • Local homeowners assert that their close proximity to the airport is damaging property values and affecting their ability to sell their homes at market rates. Unintended Consequences of SMO Closure • Participants are concerned that SMO's potential closure may lead to a change in flight paths for Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) planes over Santa Monica neighborhoods. 15 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • Some participants also fear a significant increase in vehicular traffic if the airport were repurposed as a more commercial or retail land use. Lack of Leadership Guiding SMO's Policies • Participants identified an absence of political leadership supporting the development of the airport as a safe, community - friendly resource. • Some participants are upset with the lack of sound policies to guide airport operations such as an airport master plan. Involvement of City Council Members of Santa Monica and Other Cities • Some participants proposed that the City engage, consult and partner with local elected officials from Santa Monica, Culver City and Los Angeles. Involvement of State and Federal Elected Officials and Federal Departments • Many participants would like the visioning process to include state and federal elected officials to ensure that various community interests are considered during Phase III. • Participants suggested that the City proactively develop a federal delegation of both Senate and Congress members in an effort to build a power base with federal representatives. • Some participants proposed engaging the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the environmental impacts of SMO operations. 16 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 y r.. -� ••.'. i• ! OR•r 1 Many participants hold the position that the airport's operations have outgrown the City and its context within the immediate neighborhood. These participants maintain this position due in large part to the perceived increase in the volume and frequency of aircraft traffic at SMO. Participants from this group assert that the airport campus is not community compatible in its current form. These participants are in favor of keeping SMO open only if there is a significant reduction in the airport's operations and overall footprint. Implement Overall Reduction of Operations at SMO • Many participants are in favor of SMO reducing its operations and returning to its role as a smaller, general aviation airport. • Banning jets, eliminating flight schools and reducing hours of operation (i.e., No- Fly Sundays, expanded curfews) were the most recurring recommendations regarding SMO's operations. • Participants also recommended shortening the runway to eliminate the capacity of certain aircraft, such as jets and other Class C and D aircraft. • Several participants support preserving the airport based on a romantic sense of nostalgia and a desire to honor SMO's rich aviation history. Make SMO a Green Airport • Participants demanded that the City align airport operations with Santa Monica's position as a leader in sustainability and environmental stewardship. • In the spirit of Santa Monica, participants would like the City to promote green, sustainable aviation. • Some participants asserted that SMO should undertake green building practices and sustainability initiatives (e.g., renewable energy, recycling, greenhouse gas emissions reductions and clean fuel vehicles). Close and /or Restrict Flight School Operations • A large number of participants supported the complete closure of all flight school operations, particularly targeting pattern flying. • If total closure of SMO's flight schools is not feasible, participants propose severely restricting their operational capacity, which includes reducing the overall number of flight schools. 17 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Ban and /or Limit Jets • Participants spoke passionately about the need to ban all jets from SMO due to their attendant noise pollution and emissions. • Several participants asserted that the presence of jets at SMO exacerbates safety concerns in light of the perception that the airport was not designed to handle jets. • Participants highlighted the toxicity and noxious odor of jet fuel as significant health concerns. Implement Environmental Design Improvements • Several participants would like the City to invest in the airport's infrastructure, as well as improve the overall aesthetics of the airport campus. • Some participants perceived the airport campus as "run down" and indicated that they would like to see increased recreation and community uses, improved accessibility to the property, and improvements to the grounds and facilities. • Many participants support upgrading mass transit to and from the airport, as well as improving bicycle and pedestrian access routes. • Participants recommended that the City create a "runway protection" buffer zone in high impact areas on the southern and eastern sides of the airport. • Participants also advocated for the City to make improvements to the sound blast wall near the eastern end of the runway. Avoid Development of SMO • Participants cautioned that the City should resist the urge to commercially develop the airport campus. • Participants suggested that the City allow only limited development of non - aviation- related land to limit further quality of life deterioration and excessive vehicular traffic. is SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 l • ♦. . �. 1. • ♦ • • `, 111 111 ' ♦ •, . Some participants expressed support for keeping the airport campus open if the City implements specific mitigation measures. These participants offered a wide range of strategies to reduce the airport's adverse impacts on residents and to operationalize "good neighbor" policies. The suggested strategies also included various recommendations to make SMO a "greener ", more sustainable airport. Many of these participants consider closing the airport an impractical solution based on the potential legal battle with the FAA. Although these participants acknowledge the various nuisances created by the airport, they assert that the airport is a valuable asset that should be preserved. Acknowledge Problems with SMO, but Compromise Is the Best Solution • Although some participants acknowledged the contentious airport- community relationship, many believe that both parties can reach a "middle ground" that transforms the airport from a nuisance to a community asset. Consider Unintended Consequences of SMO Closure • Participants are concerned that SMO's potential closure may lead to a change in flight paths for Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) planes over Santa Monica neighborhoods. • Some participants fear a significant increase in vehicular traffic if the airport were repurposed as a mixed -use residential, commercial or retail land use. Implement Overall Reduction of Operations at SMO • Many participants are in favor of SMO reducing its operations and returning to its role as a smaller, general aviation airport. • Banning jets, eliminating flight schools and reducing hours of operation (i.e., No- Fly Sundays, expanded curfews) were the most recurring recommendations regarding SMO's operations. • Participants also recommended shortening the runway to eliminate the capacity of certain aircraft, such as jets and other Class C and D aircraft. • Several participants support preserving the airport based on a romantic sense of nostalgia and desire to honor SMO's rich aviation history. 19 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Make SMO a Green Airport • Participants demanded that the City align airport operations with Santa Monica's position as a leader in sustainability and environmental stewardship. • Many participants asserted that SMO should undertake green building practices and sustainability initiatives (e.g., renewable energy, recycling, greenhouse gas emissions reductions and clean fuel vehicles). Close and /or Restrict Flight School Operations • A large number of participants supported the complete closure of all flight school operations, particularly targeting pattern flying. • If total closure of SMO's flight schools is not feasible, participants propose severely restricting their operational capacity, which includes reducing the overall number of flight schools. Ban and /or Limit Jets • Participants spoke passionately about the need to ban all jets from SMO due to their attendant noise pollution and emissions. • Several participants asserted that the presence of jets at SMO exacerbates safety concerns in light of the perception that the airport was not designed to handle jets. • Participants highlighted the toxicity and noxious odor of jet fuel as significant health concerns. Implement Environmental Design Improvements • Several participants would like the City to invest in the airport's infrastructure, as well as improve the overall aesthetics of the airport campus. • Some perceived the airport campus as "run down" and indicated that they would like to see increased recreation and community uses, improved accessibility to the property, and improvements to the grounds and facilities. • Many participants support upgrading mass transit to and from the airport, as well as improving bicycle and pedestrian access routes. Monitor and Enforce "Fly Neighborly Program" • Many participants suggested that the City enforce the "Fly Neighborly Program" to minimize the impacts of SMO flight operations on the surrounding communities. 20 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • A more stringent and closely monitored "Fly Neighborly Program" would help establish and maintain a partnership between airport and community members, demonstrating SMO's commitment to addressing community concerns and acting as a good neighbor. • Important elements of the "Fly Neighborly Program" would include observing flight path parameters, adhering to curfew restrictions and establishing a more predictable departure and arrival schedule. • Participants recommended that the City mandate pilot awareness workshops regarding noise abatement practices and procedures. zi SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 zz SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Improvements Some participants spoke passionately about their preference to keep the airport campus open based on the perception that SMO is one of the safest, and highest functioning general aviation airports in California. These participants believe that airport detractors exaggerate the adverse impacts such as air pollution and loud noise levels. Many of these participants assert that SMO detractors are misinformed regarding key issues including noise levels, aircraft accidents and SMO- generated air pollution. These participants view SMO as a treasured regional asset and offered a range of different perspectives on the positive contributions of SMO. Economic Engine for Santa Monica • Many participants view the airport as an economic catalyst that creates employment opportunities and generates substantial revenue for the City. • Several community discussion participants consider the airport a positive economic engine that supports tourism, pilots and aviation - related businesses in Santa Monica and the region. Historical Significance of SMO • Participants honor the rich history of aviation in Southern California and speak favorably of SMO as a local treasure that is vital to the region's legacy. • Several participants consider the airport an integral component to the City and an important educational resource for the City. Medical Emergency Resource • SMO plays a critical role in the City's and the region's emergency preparedness, serving as a major emergency response site and facility in case of natural disasters such as earthquakes or wildfires. Critical Reliever within Regional Airport System • Several participants view SMO as a critical element within the regional transportation infrastructure. 23 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Myths and Misinformation about SMO's Impacts • Many participants stated that the misinformation regarding SMO's operations prevents meaningful dialogue between adversely impacted residents and airport proponents. • Some community discussion group participants disagreed on the source of air pollution. These participants attribute the majority of the air toxins and particulate matter to the adjacent freeways and vehicular traffic in the area. • Despite the concern of many participants regarding potential crashes, airport supporters assert that flight schools have a good safety record and are compliant with the rules set forth by the FAA. Exhibit Patience as Aircraft and Fuel Technologies Emerge • Some participants highlighted improvements in aviation technology (e.g., quieter jet engines, more sophisticated noise suppression kits, more efficient propellers and mufflers) that could be standardized at SMO to address community concerns. • Participants also urged the City to be patient and forward thinking as the aviation industry makes advances in greener fuel alternatives. 24 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Key issues emerged during the facilitated community discussion groups regarding the opportunities and challenges facing the Santa Monica Airport campus. Participants offered a range of different perspectives on the positive contributions of SMO as well as the negative operational impacts of the airport on the surrounding communities. The following section highlights participant comments based on their opinions about the current status of airport operations and concerns for the future of the airport campus. Although some of this information has been covered in earlier chapters, this section provides a more in -depth analysis of participant preferences and concerns. This section is organized according to the following overarching themes: A. Positive Contributions of SMO to Surrounding Communities B. Negative Operational Impacts of SMO on Surrounding Communities 25 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 26 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Economic Engine for Santa Monica • Many participants view the airport as an economic catalyst that creates employment opportunities and generates substantial revenue for the City. • Airport proponents see the airport as a positive economic engine that supports tourism, pilots and aviation - related businesses in Santa Monica and the region. • SMO is a hub for corporate travel and many businesses choose to locate in Santa Monica due to the convenient airport location. Historical Significance of SMO • The Santa Monica Airport is one of the oldest and most historically significant airports in the United States. • Many participants view the airport with a sense of nostalgia given its vital role in the development of the City and the expansion of California's modern air transportation system. • Participants honor the rich history of aviation in Southern California and speak favorably of SMO as a local treasure that is vital to the region's legacy. • Several participants consider the airport an integral component to the City and an important educational resource for the City. Medical Emergency Resource • SMO plays a critical role in the City's and the region's emergency preparedness, serving as a major emergency response site and facility in case of natural disasters such as earthquakes or wildfires. • The airport is a valuable resource during times of medical emergencies including serving as a convenient location for the drop -off and pick -up of organ donations for local hospitals and universities (i.e., Cedars Sinai Medical Center, UCLA, etc.). Critical Reliever within Regional Airport System • Maintaining a network of regional airports throughout Southern California was identified as an important concern among participants. • Several participants view SMO as a critical element within the regional transportation infrastructure. 27 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • Participants described the great need for SMO since the number of small general aviation airports in Southern California has consistently declined over the last twenty years. Training Ground for Novice Pilots • Many airport proponents see the airport and the flight schools as valuable aviation resources that provide a great opportunity for novice pilots to learn to fly in urban areas and for those maintaining their licenses. Mixed -Use Amenities at SMO • SMO offers 40 acres of non - aviation land that is open to other uses which serve the broader community including a recreation park, restaurants and cultural events. • The non - aviation land further provides a home for a thriving cultural and arts community that includes the highest concentration of artist studios in the city as well as galleries and live theater. • Participants value the affordable art studios housed at the airport, in addition to the Santa Monica College Arts Campus. • Many participants are supportive of the airport campus because of SMO's commitment to the City's burgeoning art scene. • Airport proponents are pleased by the opening of the Museum of Flying which will introduce the general public to SMO's storied aviation history. Sparking Youth Interest in Aviation and Engineering • Many participants believe that the airport campus is a valuable resource to expose youth to the joys of flying and to spark their interest in aviation - related careers (e.g., engineering). Myths and Misinformation about SMO's Impacts • Participants expressed concern that many residents are misinformed regarding key issues including noise levels, aircraft accidents and air pollution. • These myths and misinformation prevent meaningful dialogue between adversely impacted residents and airport proponents. 28 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • Some participants think the number of flights at SMO has decreased and much of the noise attributed to SMO is actually from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). • Many community discussion group participants also disagreed on the source of air pollution. Some participants attribute much of the air toxins and particulate matter to the adjacent freeways and vehicular traffic in the area. • Several proponents of the airport suggest that SMO currently meets air pollution and noise abatement standards. • Despite the concern of many participants regarding potential crashes, airport supporters assert that flight schools have a good safety record and are compliant with the rules set forth by the FAA. Acknowledging Problems with SMO, but Compromise Is the Best Solution • Although participants acknowledged the contentious airport- community relationship, many believe that both parties can reach a "middle ground" that transforms the airport from a nuisance to a community asset. • Many participants described the operational changes that pilots and flight school owners have made to address community concerns. For example, according to some participants, flight schools no longer perform repeat takeoffs and landings and "touch and go" maneuvers are not taught during the weekends. • However, several participants acknowledged that the airport's operations need to be improved to address the problems raised by local residents. 29 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 30 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Noise Pollution • Because of the close proximity of the airport to residential neighborhoods, noise is a major issue for participants. • Many participants highlighted the various ways that loud noise levels from SMO's frequent aircraft traffic degrade the quality of life for local residents. • Several participants describe the loud noise levels as "unbearable" and extremely disruptive to their daily lives. • The noise levels at the eastern end of the runway are especially disruptive to nearby residences. • Many participants stated that the airport noise prevents their ability to work from home and also interrupts sleeping patterns. • Some participants complained that the airplane noise disrupts normal outdoor activities and impinges on their ability to enjoy their private backyards. Noise Pollution from Jets and Flight Schools • Noise concerns are generated from jet, helicopter and piston aircraft operations. • Some participants believe that the noise has gotten progressively worse over the years due in large part to the perceived increase in jet traffic and flight school operations. • Participants identified the jet noise and constant circling of flight school airplanes as significant grievances among residents. • Some participants believe that flight school students are disregarding the "Fly Neighborly Program" protocol (e.g., evening and weekend flying schedules), which increases noise pollution for residents. • Many participants also expressed frustration over the excessive pattern flying at the airport. • Several community discussion group participants assert that the City's noise monitoring system is both inadequate and inaccurate. • The disruptive noise levels, late flying schedules and various flight paths have led some participants to believe that the airport is not adhering to "good neighbor" practices. Health Impacts • Some participants view the airport as a health hazard due to the air pollution from leaded aviation fuel and noxious odors emitted from the aircraft. 31 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • The exhaust from idling aircraft, especially jets, is particularly worrisome for many participants. • Many participants cited the long -term, adverse health effects (e.g., asthma and cancer) of ultra -fine particles and fuel emissions. • Participants highlighted SMO's close proximity to homes, schools and parks and the potential dangers posed by toxic aircraft emissions. • Many participants feel that the health consequences for residents are not acceptable and any benefits from the airport are insignificant in comparison to the negative impacts. • In addition to concerns about air quality, a few participants described the harmful effects of aircraft pollution on local agriculture. Participants provided several examples of aircraft emissions harming their gardens and plants. • Participants are concerned about the cumulative exposure of aircraft emissions on residents, especially young children and seniors. Increased Volume and Frequency of Aircraft Traffic • Many participants expressed an awareness of higher volumes of general aviation activity at SMO over the last fifteen years. • Participants spoke of a perceived increase in both jet and flight school operations, which has translated into significant increases in noise pollution. • The attendant increased impacts upon residents living in close proximity to the airport have led to acrimonious relations between residents and airport users. • The frequent departures and arrivals from both small aircraft and jets degrade the quality of life for local residents. • Some participants believe that the aircraft traffic growth is out of control, especially the Class C and D planes (i.e., jets). • Many participants believe that the airport's operations have outgrown the size of the facility and the volume of aircraft traffic exceeds the capacity of SMO, making it incompatible within the neighborhood context. Safety Concerns • The flight schools area significant source of tension among SMO- impacted communities due to safety issues. • The crash of a single- engine aircraft into a local residence in August 2011 was frequently referenced by participants as a glaring example of the need to create stricter safety guidelines for pilots. • Safety issues posed by the inexperienced flight school pilots flying over densely populated communities were frequently mentioned during the discussion groups. 32 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • The possibility of an airplane crash is an ongoing concern for community members due to the perception that the volume and frequency of aircraft traffic has increased over the last ten years. • The gas station located at the end of the runway is a recurring source of worry for local residents due to the possibility of aircraft crashes. • Many participants assert that the SMO runway is not of sufficient length to handle SMO's jet traffic. Property Devaluation • Local homeowners assert that their close proximity to the airport is damaging property values and affecting their ability to sell their homes at market rates. • Many homeowners are upset that the SMO nuisance issues were not disclosed prior to purchasing their homes. Disproportionate Impacts Borne by Residents • Many participants are upset that the needs of a small minority of seemingly wealthy individuals who use the airport are placed above the needs of thousands of residents who bear the brunt of SMO's adverse impacts. • Some participants accuse airport officials of catering to special interest groups at the expense of tax - paying homeowners and residents. • Participants protest the fact the airport's valuable land only benefits a limited number of users. Lack of Citizen Input in the Decision Making Process • Participants described a feeling of powerlessness and complete disenfranchisement following the FAA's decision to change to the 250- degree heading test. • Many participants resent the lack of public recourse and the inability to appeal the FAA's decisions regarding airport actions that directly affect their lives. • Numerous participants from Venice and Mar Vista also feel disregarded and disenfranchised by the City of Santa Monica despite the fact that they are significantly impacted by SMO's operations. • This sense of disenfranchisement only serves to further fracture the relationship between airport users and community residents. • Many participants view the airport as a "bad neighbor" that cares little for the adverse impacts borne by local residents. 33 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Inconsistent with Santa Monica's Position as a Leader in Environmental Sustainability • A large number of participants mentioned Santa Monica's progress toward citywide green practices such as banning leaf blowers and plastic bags. However, participants view SMO's noise pollution, safety hazards and environmental degradation as counterproductive to Sustainability goals. • Taken together, the noise, health and safety concerns associated with the airport are not well - aligned with the City's image as a trendsetter in sustainability and environmental stewardship. • Many participants feel Santa Monica is acting as a "bad neighbor" due to the adverse environmental impacts that it spreads to neighboring communities of Venice and Mar Vista. Lack of Leadership Guiding SMO's Policies • Participants identified an absence of political leadership supporting the development of the airport as a citywide resource. • Some participants are upset with the lack of sound policies to guide airport operations such as an airport master plan. • This lack of strong leadership has allowed airport users to consistently disregard the "Fly Neighborly Program" due to inadequate enforcement efforts. • Despite the prestige associated with having a high- functioning, municipal airport, some participants feel the City has done little to invest in the infrastructure of the airport. • Many participants believe that Santa Monica Airport could be a "crown jewel on the Westside" with the proper leadership and commitment to mitigation improvements. Unintended Consequences of SMO Closure • Numerous participants expressed concern that SMO's potential closure may lead to a change in flight paths for Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) planes over Santa Monica neighborhoods. • Other participants also fear a significant increase in vehicular traffic if the airport were repurposed as a more commercial or retail land use. 34 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 ' c- r f INW67r, Y•... .� r . for the Future of SIVIO The future of the Santa Monica Airport campus is of serious importance to both the City and the surrounding communities. The forthcoming expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement between the City and the FAA and the leases at the airport campus present a unique opportunity for the City to change the direction and scope of activities that take place on the airport campus. The City is committed to considering many different options for the future of the airport. The purpose of the community discussion groups was to engage participants in interactive discussions about the impacts of SMO on surrounding communities and potential opportunities for change. By extension, participants from community discussion groups were asked to share their opinions and ideas for improving the current conditions at the airport campus. Participants were encouraged to consider both aviation - related and non - aviation - related uses and activities at the airport. Participants discussed their preferences regarding maintaining current airport operations with mitigation improvements and closing the airport completely to develop alternative land uses. Although some of this information has been covered in earlier chapters, this section provides a more in -depth analysis of participants' preferences and concerns with the goal of reflecting the texture and richness of the community discussion groups. This section details the following seven thematic outcomes based on the information collected from all 32 community discussion groups: A. Information Depth and Credibility B. Disproportionate Impacts C. The Sustainable "Green" Airport Campus D. The "Community- Friendly" Airport E. Environmental Design Improvements F. Closure of SMO and Development of Alternative Land Uses G. City: Stand with Residents! 35 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 36 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Improve Quality and Depth of SMO Studies • Many participants expressed criticism of the economic impact analysis asserting that the study was flawed and not truly reflective of the indirect and induced economic impacts of airport campus operations. • Several participants asserted that the economic impact analysis failed to incorporate alternative land use comparisons. • Community discussion group participants also criticized the noise analysis conducted in 2010 and described numerous inaccuracies related to aircraft traffic counts and noise levels. • Many participants mentioned the perceived inaccuracy of SMO statistics regarding the number of flights, length of average idling times and adherence to flight path restrictions on the City's website. • This lack of information credibility diminishes participants' trust in the legitimacy of the SMO community visioning process. • A large number of participants prefer to have all data, reports and statistics from independent, third -party sources instead of City officials. Conduct a Comprehensive Cost /Benefit Alternatives Comparison • Many participants requested that the City hire a credible, third -party source to conduct a new economic cost - benefit analysis of alternative land uses. • Several participants suggested that the City consider a limited number of priority uses (e.g., retail, recreation, housing, etc.) and hire a third -party researcher to identify the costs and benefits associated with each option. • Participants would like the City to investigate various scenarios such as recreational uses for the airport campus, and reduced airport operations combined with alternative land uses. • A large number of participants would like the new economic analysis to include the economic contribution of SMO (including flight schools) to the City through revenues and taxes, as well as the subsidies provided by the City. • Overall, participants are most concerned with better understanding which land use scenarios would provide the most benefit to the broader Santa Monica community. 37 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Improve the SMO Community Visioning Process • Participants urged the City to conduct a visioning process that is thoughtful of all potential consequences and inclusive of all community voices. • Community discussion group participants request more transparency throughout the visioning process regarding the City's potential courses of action to ensure fair and mutually beneficial outcomes. • Several participants would like clarifying information on the purpose of Phase III and the course of action following Phase III. • Many participants suggested that the City collect and disseminate supplementary data (e.g., aircraft noise levels, revenue generated by SMO) to the public in order to properly frame the Phase III visioning discussions. • Some participants stated the need to remove City personnel from the visioning process due to a perception of a potential conflict of interest. • Participants would like the City to create a frequently asked questions document (FAQ) in collaboration with aviation experts to dispel myths about SMO. • Numerous participants proposed that the City document the lessons learned from SMO's visioning process, mitigation approaches and community engagement efforts. 38 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 i l Acknowledge the Needs of Residents • Many participants are upset that the needs of a small minority of seemingly wealthy individuals who use the airport are placed above the needs of thousands of residents who bear the brunt of SMO's adverse impacts. • Some participants accuse airport officials of catering to special interest groups at the expense of tax - paying homeowners and residents. • Other participants protest the fact the airport's valuable land only benefits a limited number of users. Promote Positive Contributions of SMO to the Community • To ameliorate the perception that SMO disproportionately impacts residents, airport proponents recommended that the City engage the public by promoting the positive contributions of the airport to the broader community. • Airport proponents suggested that the City educate the general public on the important role SMO plays in the economic growth of the City. • Humanitarian efforts such as "Doctors without Borders" and Hurricane Katrina relief initiatives undertaken by SMO users should be widely publicized and promoted. • Education and outreach of SMO's economic contribution and humanitarian projects could enhance the public's view of the airport. • Some participants would like the City to embrace and better promote the airport as a valuable and unique resource. 39 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 40 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Align SMO with City of Santa Monica's Commitment to Sustainability • Many participants demanded that the City align airport operations with Santa Monica's position as a leader in sustainability and environmental stewardship. • In the spirit of Santa Monica, participants would like the City to promote green, sustainable aviation. • Participants would like the City to conduct a comprehensive environmental impact review. • Participants recommended that the City identify strategies and best practices to make Santa Monica Airport a sustainable "green" airport. • Some participants asserted that SMO should undertake green building practices and sustainability initiatives (e.g., renewable energy, recycling, greenhouse gas emissions reductions and clean fuel vehicles). Eliminate Leaded Fuel • Participants passionately urged the City to ban the use of leaded aviation fuel in favor of "greener" fuel alternatives. • Many participants recommended improving fuel regulations for jets and propeller planes to minimize adverse health impacts. • Less toxic fuel alternatives should be required of all aircraft to reduce the adverse health impacts to local residents. Install Auxiliary Ground Power Units • Several participants suggested installing auxiliary ground power units to eliminate the need for engine start -ups while the aircraft is waiting for take -off clearance. • These auxiliary ground power units are intended to reduce the noise pollution and exhaust of idling aircraft. Develop a Mid field Run -up Area • Some participants recommended constructing a midfield run -up area which would allow pilots to queue for takeoff and to check diagnostics in a contained area without disturbing residents who live near the eastern end of the runway. 41 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • The midfield run -ups act as "parking zones" and many pilots in the community discussion groups supported this mitigation strategy. Exhibit Patience as Aircraft and Fuel Technologies Emerge • Some participants highlighted improvements in aviation technology (e.g., quieter jet engines, more sophisticated noise suppression kits, more efficient propellers and mufflers) that could be standardized at SMO to address community concerns. • Participants also urged the City to be patient and forward thinking as the aviation industry makes advances in greener fuel alternatives. 42 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 D. The "Community- Friendly" Airport Conduct a Review of Best Practices • Many participants recommended that the City conduct a thorough review of best practices used at other general aviation airports across the country regarding community - friendly operations and "good neighbor" policies. • The best practices review should also include examples of the most appropriate mix of flight operations and activities for a small, general aviation airport such as SMO. Implement Overall Reduction of Operations at SMO • Many participants are in favor of SMO reducing its operations and returning to its role as a smaller, general aviation airport. • Banning jets, eliminating flight schools and reducing hours of operation (i.e., No- Fly Sundays, expanded curfews) were the most recurring recommendations regarding SMO's operations. • Participants also recommended shortening the runway to eliminate the capacity of certain aircraft, such as jets and other Class C and D aircraft. • Some participants recommended that the City shift the majority of SMO's operations to other regional airports such as Van Nuys or Burbank. • Several participants support preserving the airport based on a romantic sense of nostalgia and desire to honor SMO's rich aviation history. Close and /or Restrict Flight School Operations • The flight schools are a significant source of tension within the community due to participants' concerns regarding safety and noise levels. • A large number of participants supported the complete closure of all flight school operations. • If total closure of SMO's flight schools is not feasible, numerous participants propose severely restricting their operational capacity, which includes reducing the overall number of flight schools. • Many participants would like to eliminate "touch and go" maneuvers and restrict pattern flying in flight schools. • Many participants support restricting the flight schools' hours of operation during weekends and evenings (i.e., No -Fly Sundays, expanded curfews). • Another popular suggestion included subsidizing flight schools to move their operations and conduct their training in less densely populated areas. 43 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Ban and /or Limit Jets • Participants spoke passionately about the need to ban all jets from SMO due to their attendant noise pollution and emissions. • Several participants asserted that the presence of jets at SMO exacerbates safety concerns in light of the perception that the airport was not designed to handle jets. • Community discussion group participants highlighted the toxicity and noxious odor of jet fuel as significant concerns. • Many participants recommended that the City reduce the length of the runway which would limit the types of aircrafts able to use the airport (e.g., jets). • If eliminating all jets is not feasible, some participants prefer to only allow jet arrivals and departures to take place during the hours of 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. • Some community members proposed substantially increasing landing fees for jets to generate revenue for the City. • Participants also suggested charging more expensive landing fees than LAX and other airports to discourage jet usage at SMO. • Several participants support establishing jet performance standards regarding noise suppression measures and fuel types. Change SMO's Flight Path • Many participants stressed the importance of not reinstituting the 250- degree heading test because it is situated directly above a large number of residences. • Some participants suggested that all departing flights be mandated to fly high over the Penmar Golf Course unless safety concerns clearly dictate otherwise. • Raising flight pattern altitudes was another popular flight path mitigation effort among participants to lessen noise impacts. Monitor and Enforce "Fly Neighborly Program" • Many participants suggested that the City enforce the "Fly Neighborly Program" to minimize the impacts of SMO flight operations on the surrounding communities. • Important elements of the "Fly Neighborly Program" would include observing flight path parameters, adhering to curfew restrictions and establishing a more predictable departure and arrival schedule. • A more stringent and closely monitored "Fly Neighborly Program" would help establish and maintain a partnership between airport and community members, 44 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 demonstrating SMO's commitment to addressing community concerns and acting as a good neighbor. • Participants recommended that the City mandate pilot awareness workshops regarding noise abatement practices and procedures. • Participants also suggested that the City develop pilot education materials such as fact sheets, brochures and guidelines which detail noise abatement procedures. • Implementing and following best practices of the "Fly Neighborly Program" may help establish credibility and build trust among impacted citizens. Increase Fines and Penalties for Pilots • Participants suggested imposing harsher and more costly penalties for noise, flight path and curfew violators to discourage errant pilot behavior. • The costly fines are intended to encourage compliance with the "Fly Neighborly Program" which supports pilots flying in the quietest manner possible while observing all FAA safety guidelines. Implement More Sophisticated Safety Systems Participants advocated for the City to implement EMAS (Engineered Material Arresting System) to improve situational awareness and manage the risks associated with heavy plane traffic. Others proposed switching to a Wide Area Augmentation System to improve landing accuracy and minimize safety risks. Implement Noise Abatement Technology • Several airport proponents support efforts to implement noise suppression technology at SMO (i.e., hush kits) which are intended to reduce and limit the sound footprint of departing and arriving airplanes. • Participants would like the City to explore soundproofing options for airport - adjacent homes. • A few participants recommended that the City apply for grants to finance soundproofing initiatives. 45 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 46 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 t 1 Upgrade Environmental Design of SMO • Several participants would like the City to invest in the airport's infrastructure, as well as improve the overall aesthetics of the airport campus. • Some participants perceived the airport campus as "run down' and indicated that they would like to see increased recreation and community uses, improved accessibility to the property, and aesthetic improvements to the grounds and facilities. • Participants suggested that the City allow limited development of non - aviation related activities to limit further quality of life deterioration and excessive vehicular traffic. • A large number of participants advocated for the City to expand open space amenities (e.g., Clover Park) on the airport campus. • A few participants advocated for the City to increase security at SMO, enhancing counterterrorism measures and general safety efforts. • Many participants support upgrading mass transit to and from the airport, as well as improving bicycle and pedestrian access routes. • Some participants suggested starting a shuttle service from Santa Monica College and Bergamot Station Art Center to the airport. Implement Airfield Improvements • Participants recommended that the City create a "runway protection" buffer zone in high impact areas on the southern and eastern sides of the airport. • Numerous participants proposed that the City acquire vacant parcels and purchase homes surrounding the airport to establish a wider buffer zone. • Some participants also advocated for the City to make improvements to the sound blast wall near the eastern end of the runway. • Other related mitigation ideas from participants included adjusting departure clearances and creating 300 ft. safety zones on both sides of the runway to increase the buffer space for local residences. Expand SMO's Mixed -Use Options • In addition to its core aviation services, some participants would like the City to consider expanding SMO's mixed -use amenities such as more outdoor recreation space, neighborhood- serving retail and educational facilities. 47 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • Of the 40 acres of non - aviation land, SMO currently hosts many business and non - aviation industry- supporting uses. However, participants recommended that the City develop additional uses that more directly benefit members of the broader community. • Some suggested that the already successful outdoor recreational activities located at the airport can be expanded in terms of their size and programmatic variety. 48 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • r � r 1 - •» r Instead of offering strategies to improve airport operations, many participants expressed their preference for the complete closure of the airport. These participants identified diverse ideas to repurpose the airport campus as alternative land uses that will more directly benefit the broader community. Develop a Large Recreational Park with Outdoor Amenities • A large number of participants would like to significantly expand the existing park on the SMO campus to increase the open space resources available to community members. • Many participants proposed developing the land to serve as Santa Monica's version of New York City's Central Park or San Francisco's Crissy Field. • Participants suggested adding more recreational and outdoor amenities, such as swimming pools and sporting fields. Build a Multi- Faceted Economic Incubator Site • The airport campus could become the site of an "economic incubator' at which small startup companies could be located and supported by shared professional and support staff. • To align the airport campus with Santa Monica's reputation as a leader in sustainability and environmental stewardship, many participants would like to repurpose the land as an incubator for green businesses. • The incubator site could serve as a green tech campus that focuses on research and development of green businesses such as renewable energy and solar power. • Many participants suggested that alternative economic uses would generate more income for the City and the revenue could be used for citywide improvements. Develop Sustainable Agriculture Uses • Some participants would prefer to transform the airport campus into a sustainable agriculture resource that could include community gardens, urban farms and a permanent farmers market site. 49 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Create a Multi -Use Transportation Hub • Many participants proposed converting the airport campus into a multi -use transportation hub that accommodates public and multi -modal transit options. • In addition, the multi -use transportation hub could serve as a site for consolidating the maintenance yards of Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus and the Metro. Expand Santa Monica College Many participants spoke favorably of using the airport campus to expand the capacity of local schools, especially Santa Monica College. An attractive land use alternative for many participants involved moving Santa Monica College's Pearl Street campus to the airport campus. In turn, the City's school district could relocate high schools to SMC's Pearl Street campus. Construct Housing for Various Population Segments • Affordable housing • Targeted workforce housing for teachers and civil servants • "Live /Work' housing developments with limited density • Housing for veterans • Housing for students and visiting scholars • Hotels to attract tourism Create Streets to Ease Congestion along Arterial Roads Some participants would like to deconstruct the airport campus and create new streets to improve traffic circulation along arterial roads. To accommodate potential increased traffic from new land uses, participants proposed widening roads and connecting major thoroughfares such as National Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. Develop a Mixed -Use Cultural Center • Participants recommended that the airport shift its activities to become a mixed - use, cultural center for the City. so SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • The cultural center would also serve as a highly accessible, community gathering space that enhances Santa Monica's identity as sophisticated, creative city. Relocate City of Santa Monica Offices to SMO • Participants proposed that that City move its governmental offices to the airport facility and utilize their current downtown location for other purposes. Develop Neighborhood- Serving Commercial Retail • Many community discussion group participants suggested enhancing retail activity in the area by developing neighborhood- serving commercial uses. Implement Various Alternative Land Use Suggestions • Green retirement community • Fairgrounds for special events • Vocational training schools which could exist in conjunction with local colleges or high schools • Manufacturing plant for various products and materials • Aviation technology center • Museum for future generations celebrating the rich aviation legacy of SMO • Aviation - focused high school • Wildflower park • Migratory bird refuge • Butterfly park • Art center • Office park for local businesses • Sports arena • Large solar power field • Eco- system restoration site • Research facility for climate change • Sculpture garden st SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Implement Low - Density, Low - Impact Alternative Land Uses • Some community discussion group participants were undecided on specific alternatives; but, they supported a low- density use accessible by free or low -cost public transportation. Acknowledge Potential Consequences from New Land Uses • Several community discussion group participants cautioned that new land uses (e.g., retail and large -scale housing) may generate undesirable impacts such as increased vehicular traffic. • Participants expressed the need to critically analyze the potential carbon footprint, as well as the noise and traffic issues that could result from alternative land use options. 52 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase It Protect the Rights of Residents • Many participants advocated for the City to fight for the rights of impacted residents and to value their needs over profits. • Some participants view the City Council as "pro development" and more concerned with generating revenue for the City than improving the livability of the area near the airport. Allow Citizens to Vote on the Future of SMO • Many participants feel strongly that Los Angeles and Santa Monica residents should take a public vote to assess their preferences for keeping the airport open or redeveloping the land for non - aviation - related uses. • A large number of community discussion group participants asserted that a citywide voting process is the most democratic way to determine the final outcome for the airport. Make a Decision • Many participants would like the City to take a definitive position regarding SMO's future and to develop a long -range plan for the airport campus. • Several participants stated that uncertainty over the airport's future creates an unfavorable climate for business owners and all airport tenants. • Participants urged the City to seize the opportunity presented by the 1984 Settlement Agreement expiration and demonstrate bold leadership while deciding the future of SMO. • During the decision making process, many participants would like the City to seriously consider airport closure as a potential outcome. Improve Communications with Local Residents and Community Members • Consistent and transparent communication with residents and community members offers the opportunity to explain the improvements and efforts to address local concerns. • Participants suggested that SMO perform more outreach, education and community tours to familiarize the public (i.e., impacted residents) with airport operations and programs. 53 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • Many participants recommended that the City expand SMO's community events and activities to allow residents to interact with the airport campus (e.g., air shows, fairs). • Some participants proposed engaging both neighborhood groups and pilots to discuss the logistics of flying and to learn more about the various aircraft operations. • Another popular suggestion involved creating a permanent Ombudsman position to interact with community members and address impact concerns. • Participants would like the Ombudsman to update the community on SMO's efforts to implement "good neighbor" polices and improve airport sustainability. • Regular communication with residents could foster a "good neighbor" relationship and engender local support for future SMO initiatives. • Some participants would also like the City to disclose the airport nuisances and future growth plans to potential homebuyers in the area. 54 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 In an effort to maximize community participation during Phase III of the visioning process, participants were asked to share their thoughts and opinions for ensuring a thorough analysis of all airport concerns. Participants offered a broad range of ideas and recommendations for the City to consider. This section is organized according to the following topics: A. Supplementary Information Requests B. Legal Strategies to Challenge the FAA C. Potential Community Actions D. Expanded Community Outreach and Political Engagement 55 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 56 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 E Many participants requested additional data on a variety of topics to better frame Phase III discussions and to ensure meaningful community input. Provide Additional Data and Information Airport Statistics • An accurate map of current SMO property including ownership information • Types of aircrafts using SMO • Information regarding how each operation is defined • Level of "touch and go" maneuver activity • Information on the areas of residence of airport users • Total number of crashes per year • Total number of "on- the - ground" deaths (non -pilot and passengers) • Data regarding the emergency usage of the airport Noise - Related Information • Noise levels including the methodology for noise measurement • Percentages of noise pollution from different aircraft types • Dwell time of idling planes • Flight pattern data Miscellaneous • Amount of available capacity at other Southern California general aviation airports • Summary of pilot recommendations on improving airport operations • Information about the environmental remediation required at the airport campus and the associated costs Conduct an Economic Cost - Benefit Analysis of Alternatives • A large number of participants requested that the City hire a credible, third -party source to conduct another economic cost - benefit analysis of alternative land uses. • Participants suggested that the City consider a limited number of priority uses (e.g., retail, recreation, housing, etc.) and hire a third party researcher to identify the costs and benefits associated with each option. • Many participants would like the City to investigate various scenarios such as recreational uses for the airport campus, or reduced airport operations combined with alternative land uses. 57 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • Participants would like the new economic analysis to include the economic contribution of SMO (including flight schools) to the City through revenues and taxes. • Overall, participants would like a better understanding of which land use scenarios would provide the most benefit to the broader Santa Monica community. Conduct a Health Impact Assessment • Several participants demanded that the City conduct a comprehensive health impact assessment of SMO to determine the environmental effects of the noise and air pollution. • The health impact assessment should include a baseline study of Santa Monica's current air quality levels, as well as indirect health and social costs borne by residents. • Participants also recommended that the City follow -up on air pollution studies conducted by UCLA to assess the implications of the research. Prepare an Environmental Impact Report • Many participants advocated for the City to perform and continuously update an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of SMO's operations. Create a Map of SMO • Participants requested that the City create a map showing parcel ownership within the delineated airport boundaries. • Participants would also like the map to highlight the schools, parks and residential areas within the SMO flight path. • The map should be made available to the public and shared with the California Department of Real Estate, local government agencies and local real estate companies. Conduct a Best Practices Review of General Aviation Airports • Many participants recommended that the City conduct a thorough review of best practices used at other general aviation airports regarding community - friendly operations and "good neighbor" policies. 58 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 • Participants suggested that the best practices review focus on strategies to transform SMO into a sustainable "green" airport. ® The best practices review should also include examples of the most appropriate mix of flight operations and activities for a small, general aviation airport such as SMO. 59 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 60 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Participants recommended a wide range of tactical and legal strategies for the City to employ while negotiating with the FAA. Provide Contextual Information to Community Members • Throughout the community discussion groups, many participants described a need for more contextual information to understand the legal authority and various outcomes that may arise during the potential legal dispute between the City and the FAA. • Many participants requested more facts about the FAA's authority over the SMO decision making process and the City's ability to negotiate mitigations. • Participants requested information on the City's previous lawsuit with the FAA to ban jets and other Class C and D aircraft. • Some participants would like information regarding the legal strategies for eliminating low -lead fuel and increasing landing fees forjets. • Participants suggested that the FAA host a public meeting detailing the role of Santa Monica airport in the national airport system and the FAA's position on SMO mitigation measures. Strengthen Legal Argument against FAA through Information Collection • Many participants recommended that the City augment its legal argument by conducting a comprehensive health impact assessment and an EIR. • Several participants advocated for the City to research successful examples of communities that achieved mitigations with the FAA such as Newport Beach and Burbank. • This supportive information may give the City more leverage during negotiations with the FAA. Raise Financial Resources • Some community discussion group participants recommended that the City raise funds to finance litigation against the FAA to close the airport and /or negotiate mitigations. 61 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 62 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Create Ad Hoc Working Groups • Some participants suggested that the City establish an ad hoc airport working committees including pilots and residents from all impacted communities (e.g., Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Culver City) to address specific concerns and issues. • Another recommendation involved convening small working groups with all parties to collaboratively develop mitigation strategies to improve airport operations and guide next steps with the FAA. • Several participants would like to find "win -win" solutions in which the City works to mitigate concerns raised by residents and lessen the impacts borne by residents. Adjust SMO Airport Commission Membership • Many participants asserted that some airport commissioners do not fully understand aviation and aviation - related operations. • Participants suggested that the City appoint pilots and aviation experts to serve on the airport commission. File a Class Action Lawsuit • Some participants stated their plans to file a class action lawsuit against the City based on the SMO's adverse health impacts on local residents. • This potential litigation could include residents of Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Culver City. 63 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 64 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 '♦ Expand Outreach to Santa Monica Community Members • Numerous participants spoke passionately about the need to engage and solicit input from the entire Santa Monica community. • Participants would like to see more community outreach and resident involvement to balance out the City Council's "pro- development leanings." • Participants recommended that the City engage residents more frequently with informational updates to raise awareness about airport issues. • The City should create additional channels for the members of the general public to provide feedback and offer suggestions. • Some participants would like the City to survey local business owners about their opinions and preferences for the future of SMO. • Many participants recommended that the City involve a larger cross - section of constituents by disseminating surveys and questionnaires to Santa Monica community members. • Some participants also suggested that the City increase outreach to the local Spanish- speaking population to increase their representation in the visioning process. Expand Outreach to City of Los Angeles Communities • A large number of participants recommended that the City engage citizens from neighboring Los Angeles communities such as Mar Vista and Venice address concerns of impacted residents from non -Santa Monica areas. • Participants recommended that the City involve a larger cross - section of constituents by disseminating surveys and questionnaires to residents in West Los Angeles. Expand National Outreach to Other Cities • Many participants also supported the strategy of forming a coalition with other communities who are fighting against general aviation airports (e.g. Long Beach, Van Nuys, Burbank, etc.). • Some participants suggested that the City elevate the SMO issue to a national stage in order to receive more support from other communities across the country. 65 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Improve the SMO Community Visioning Process • Participants urge the City to conduct a visioning process that is thoughtful of all consequences and inclusive of all community voices. • Many participants request more transparency throughout the visioning process regarding the City's potential courses of action to ensure fair and mutually beneficial outcomes. • Community discussion group participants would like clarifying information on the purpose of Phase III and the course of action following Phase III. • Participants suggested that the City collect and disseminate data (e.g., aircraft noise levels, revenue generated by SMO) to the public in order to properly frame the Phase III visioning discussions. • Many participants stated the need to remove City personnel from the visioning process, due to the perception of a potential conflict of interest. • Participants would like the City to create a frequently asked questions document (FAQ) in collaboration with aviation experts to dispel myths about SMO. • A few participants suggested that the City document the lessons learned from SMO's visioning process, mitigation approaches and community engagement efforts. Allow Citizens to Vote on the Future of SMO • Participants feel strongly that Los Angeles and Santa Monica residents should take a public vote to assess their preferences for keeping the airport open or redeveloping the land for non - aviation related uses. • A large number of participants asserted that a citywide voting process is the most democratic way to determine the final outcome for the airport. Engage City Council Members of Santa Monica and Other Cities • Some participants proposed that the City engage, consult and partner with local elected officials from Santa Monica, Culver City and Los Angeles. Engage State and Federal Elected Officials and Federal Departments • Many participants would like the visioning process to include state and federal elected officials to ensure that various community member interests are considered during Phase III. 66 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Some participants suggested that the City proactively develop a federal delegation of both Senate and Congress members in an effort to build a power base with federal representatives. Participants proposed engaging the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the environmental impacts of SMO operations. Engage the FAA • Participants recommended extending invitations to authoritative representatives from the FAA and state aviation agencies to discuss cooperative strategies. • Some participants suggested that the FAA host a public meeting detailing the role of Santa Monica airport in the national airport system and the FAA's position on mitigation measures. Make a Decision • Many participants would like the City to take a definitive position regarding SMO's future and to develop a long -range plan for the airport campus. • Several participants stated that uncertainty over the airport's future creates an unfavorable climate for business owners and non - aviation tenants. • During the decision making process, many participants would like the City to seriously consider airport closure as a potential outcome. Avoid Development of SMO • Several participants view the City Council as "pro- development" and more concerned with generating revenue for the City than improving the livability of the area near the airport. • Participants cautioned that City should resist the urge to commercially develop the airport campus. • Participants suggested that the City allow only limited development of non - aviation- related land to limit further quality of life deterioration and excessive vehicular traffic. 67 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 68 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 MM i Transcribed Participant Comment Cards During the series of community discussion groups, 309 participants submitted participant comment cards. The participant comment cards included information regarding participant demographics, affiliation, general comments, etc. The comment cards have been compiled and transcribed. 69 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 70 SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 Appendix Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process Participant Comment Cards 9 Years 0 CDG Date, ,Time„ -, Genders ; :qge Residence ;, Residence Affiliation „, ' = Relationship to;AirpOrt �� `� , '� ,' GenerahCOmments' ' there was a consensus that participants would like to come backfor a true. live 2.5 blocks from western "visioning' discussion when more data came available incluidinga cost - benefit 1/21/2012 ! 10:00 AM Female 45-64 Santa Monica 14 FOSP end of airport '.: analysis of different aviation and non - aviation uses of airport Santa Monica Conservancy OPA; not here inany official ':impacted since 250 degree 1/21/2012 : Male 45 -64'. Santa Monica 13 capacity :headingtest need truevisioning; start over! private pilot/ Instrument Friends of Santa Monica rated, trained and fly from 1/21/2012 Male 45 -64' LA 2 Airport; AOPA KSMO 1/21/2012 ! Male 65t :' Santa Monica 1 3.5 SMO Commission should be real visioning profess looking at all possibilities and based on real data (61R, cost- benefit analysis, etc.); top priority;. close the airport, next: ban jets and resident affected by all flight flight schools; them develop land into community orchards;: garden, park land, 1/21/20121 Female 45 -64'. Santa Monica 32 'paths (negatives) affordable housing, art spaced education and orchards 1/21/2012 Male 1834. LA : 6 noise dumping ground this has not been visioning of realistic alternatives: housing; transportation, regional '. infrastructure. This is valuable land, but noise renders adjoining property difficult to 1/21/2012 1 Male 45-64 Santa Monica 30 under the noise pollution ) occupy 1/21/2012 3 Male 45 -64! Santa Monica 1 16 ww ,.wsmatorg concerned citizen lives in the city; affected by safety, noise, sustafnability 1/21/2012 : Female 45-64, Santa Monica 190PA member and economic; impacts wanted to talk about the future butwefocused on the past and current complaints I l students circle- my home :: eliminate flight schools and pattern flying orjtraining overmy neighborhood,itwas 1/21/2012 2:00 PM Male 35-44 Santa Monica 17 : constantly ; perfect priorto 2010; eliminate old load planes 1/21/2012 Male 45.64 Santa Monica 18 UCLA Medical School ;neighbor airport presents risks to the health and well -being ofSanta Monica citizens .1/21/2012: Male 45 -64 Santa Monica 10 '. noise pollution from small cinching airplanes Is unbearable! SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase II 71 a` 0 > v D � E`o U w o E N N 0 a 0 E`o 0 2• O O E E y N 4 N N N N N N N N N N N mma- 3 a` c 0 > v EE p U £ E O N fA 0 d L 3 3 N N N d p p C c N O W v � v « « v - - d E E E E E v E n n> v v m m S v v � Y Y � � C u ii L L E E C � � � 0 o o E o o v L L 0 0 E 0 v « c co_ ° v o « 0 d d n ' v c Q Q N L L C � ✓ C VI d V V O r ry d N N �l = C = m ry O p W O O W p p O O o ?g: o a v v O. 3 3 O `w v v m ° ° ° m c m m o u v v m m m 4 > > 3 c m d d 4 � � b �eK co c co c co c E E E O O , ,C v c a O O a v v e y W W E E E v v v v E E v v v v a 0 i=i o o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O � w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w 4 a` c 0 > v EE p U £ E O N fA 0 a` 5 v Dm ca E'o E t U E N f/1 @ `v a T N b4 c - - _ 2 o p o c E m a N E y m N N c c° o F C O a O¢ r6 m O C T vii a m 5 m m �0 O t N E w v o v r^ Z@ r .. O m C t o N C a m t N N C O i C p -Y ✓_ V N ii° 3 °' n N; m_ ` a° E m o U °' '•>-• = °1 w o a m E 3 'c R i v o o a O 'v •.° v >' a= o o g« c« 2 j m 2 >, > o v N? -p @ r @@ 3�n o uE E'�vvc° F-mm m c a s c c c o_ o m a 0LL i N O A O +�, y h tD m ✓i W N W Oa OJ O Y „K y o o o N u V O U D � i v 4 ee > W VI Ip N Vl VI Ip VI N I� s b v n a E o 0 0 0 m vi N N N N N N N N N N CC C C C C C CC 9 N N N N N N N N N N 0 a` 5 v Dm ca E'o E t U E N f/1 2 Dm E E 0 E 2. N ZIMEI- 4-"Magog '2` -W "0 'M W� mw 3� -An -40 -t-R a, AX �'Og'�" M - -'W ^ti T N-NI M" I N, MR- �d, 'N c. ME A@ -R, 5 0— 'A m 5, U M EMN M glglmwvmmwg� �WOM �3�4M %g-�"" �MM M NAM , vm' M "All �ma MIR MISMOR A2 W4, V 4-1 A u -A V �'g� -o 0/1 -W A, �P IM m�n A rar U M� �-A`M gl"P g� I—, t g" M W� 1— -T MWORM" �M Am Mi og QQ4 -gg M 2 IR M�M gn� a 5 %. . . ....... . R" R—.7 MPOnm if" ' gp'w- y E '2 u�-' WW"-a 0,1"�"' g� �gg O M—' "M--u'm N O gg SIV M WCor- Air "S� A g"an"gRg m - INS" AM I WIN IN 's pg"% OREM K, R -k' NMI-, Oe M. 01 PV1, g' Em, cw3 122 {9 On R"M 'T I E" . . . . . . . . . . . R p 011 le mg - 9NM MUM= Al m TI 2 Dm E E 0 E 2. N a co_ a E o U E o E E W y a a r E O " Qa' o s w V E A �L c v 3 S „y� R b FL R wo v Jw a o '° o o O LL C C a G Van 3 Q 4 H V � L R c 3 o A A H v w A n R R m 0 �?R a `0 5 Q d O o p Q O rYQ O 6 N y O l0 T O O O °1 M O V a N O h h l0 V O N J M N M N M M N O N ei V N N N N N yW a Wk} Y; s d W U V C N C O O O O O a W O O O O O N N N VI N 1I1 N N N Vl N VI N N N N m a E E E a tl G n a °o, E r • „ o 1” O N r N :fl'E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � rw \m \mom mm � � mmm mmmm mr m mm� \ a co_ a E o U E o E E W y v a` v �a E o 0 E E Nm m o v t > L o u D � — v L v v —0 v L o f n a L.. 3 n p n v Y O O. 6 H v E E o n 0 Y= v n E E n s L p a m v m •� « v m c s « u �o, w L v Y n °« E v o m v > La w i vm ss n v p c o L' y vet 1° c m .K c O o au 0 E E `m ;v 'P °0 0 - E o 'n c " c v fO c -� 3 c c n _.:u L n o c s > u m n w u o 4 Nu o o Y c m w a m ¢ u m io °o. p D m ry o 3 ° ° v ° o a, m u — 12 w ° e N ° LL 0 vo .6 a£ c n a m 1°.. v n in m E m LL o d' mm 'N ei o.+in N N N m v��nti ei ei N. n H M n M o 0 Y' om N m C r. Y � i u . E ..:.c y o 0 o `o `o o 0 o° o o o a o p a `m 19 v N VA :VI VI N Lh ;.: I& 1l1 VI VI m V1 Il1 V1 VI a v v a Iv w E ti v E m m w v E v v LL LL E o 0 0 0 p � o N y ii ei rl : e4 'i '4 'i 'i N 'i rl fi N ei N N N N N N v N N N N N N N IN m� m N m N m N m N � N n I n N n N N N N N v a` v �a E o 0 E E Nm 0 m 0 D N ca E o E Z, U E o E N 41 T o h m r z v m v n Y o Y v n a a m � CL/ O C y Y i � N Y E L m pp � N C C m C v c v v o p Y rs v 2 4 u v °o T s — � v u a a o v m v m t ° -E a 0 v a a Y c n o ti c o LL m LL w s « 3 c LL a p r O:C y � l N N N N N N N r �. Lam°_ co c0 co v > o o 0 0 0 f mr° r° vrn a m m as r0� y v v m w n vv "E" m E E" E a 4 N c 00 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 '!h N. 0 m 0 D N ca E o E Z, U E o E N 41 E`6 os z 2 j g_g -OM"o o N --ogNs" R 'El "so o s MI�11111211 OUR AW ewsw- 5� r�n s, -I A R-0 sg ZM'x .."f, tp gt g� M 1p E' W� o O gpf§ IM —MV "a, Al 0 tf 0 0 0 0 sQ "ZZ E`6 os a 0 v i� m �d E o U � O £ � � to W 0 a` `o v §a` E 16 0 m O E N (n a` co d a ca E 6 O r U E 2 E N W v 0 a E t 9 t is o a n d w n 0 � n y � v R a N a N o a « v ti .O C O O O t Y 6t `m o °o o °o' ° E s a v m v m v v o a c o a � o- _n o o p a O O t O. O a . 4 O n ip 9 c y =m sm cw w« O �a v � �0 v c0 c0 0 0 0 0 o c0 0 u.9 i3 49 a is v a a s a VI IA N tit :Yl N VI Vl VI VI Vl my Vl VI VI W Vl `w v v v E E E " E E m w v v v w E '.E 0 0 F. N lD 0 0 o a o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.ate. .ai B mm m m m mm m mm mm mm mm a` co d a ca E 6 O r U E 2 E N W 0 a` w `o > m E E`a E$ oa U E NN a — a _ v m L eo Y _ J � N 19 o o p m E c m J E o s a r v s NV E m E :v 2 i o o nvo > w v �E°a v a '.o E: oOOS o. w.ms l ama w C ' a m o >'y :.m° a -:�a tea° m> o o N a c o r c o e- o a ca�m.>t.�na «° n >uo ° m ' o ° t m m .. i. o v N _ o m c o a c c c t�0 E E'o c oL. :o` >a N:40 mg5 v3 o w�� ° N o a 0 a` w `o > m E E`a E$ oa U E NN a s a L � N 19 m m 2.�>. m J v a NV C ' a o o N a c o r c o e- o a E'o o p ° 0 a` w `o > m E E`a E$ oa U E NN a s a � N 19 m m m J v a NV 0 a` w `o > m E E`a E$ oa U E NN v a` 0 v �� ,a E � U � o E � � N N N. w 2 gg, aff, z 3, MEMO, gm HAS, -110- M, �aY ---ro —10 IV %,p4r A, '20 A o g9mmw 6 a -a. w M INS a p! gp ON '5 V- a W " Q M g -jw-Am;- -o gam �zg§ M I A � M 36 ;J2 MW yj� A4} �rd —May x"d ""Zo — Sri E0 Wfa, I-M Nis _0 'Al a 05 WIX Mg 70 maw psg-lo ga 'g O ELM, amn M-11 5,R g I!, "OR IR k N a v "OS, f R kmw IzA as W "AP M-1 ZIR', ta 00 ATI, F-I 0 N- 5 RE p �r"R, tffi- v ag, r szf r, pm, *K, Sd N. E -6 E E 0 E -�15�D T 'a "- BTT—M--�� '%010&1191;1�111 ��M�-lel �n ��m MRR'llf AW-IRIIN --g A O"T"k-, W 4,T ME, I MT -w m NEW- T"", TM w g� pogtlg A SAMP-Ti All A Al, Owl WIN` -0 e2l'-Z'PO�-In, i,6� 11"W"v-11111-1-1 lz/'11'111�21', T �- W Ww� MEAnzalt s E k'� N� b$, IT, '17 Zll-�l Egg' ll�T -a -WC2AmU4,A I &I M A2 E Wl� slim Tl §q REMz ne-Tte MEN- I- tKM INI'de- HEM 0 ...................................... An, 'B TO E T,l -7 4 . ......... I gg-� .43 P1, "o �tt,�,,Wwf mv M5 E -6 E E 0 E m m e a 0 v Am �a E � o � v E � � N (n a 0 v Am ,`a E � m U E � E hN SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase II 90 Additional Written Participant Comments Some participants elected to submit written comments to City officials regarding their opinions and ideas for the future of Santa Monica Airport. These comments have been documented and compiled in this appendix. Written Comment #1 To Susan Cline and the Santa Monica City Council, Please include the concerns of the Mar Vista community in the Santa Monica Airport Visioning process. I live a mere 300 meters from the east end of the runway. I attended one of the recent discussion groups and am actively involved in the local efforts to reduce or eliminate noise and pollution from the airport. Although we are not Santa Monica residents, we receive the lion's share of the pollution from SMO and therefore wish to be fully represented in this discussion. The following is a general overview of our goals. 1. CLOSE THE AIRPORT: First and foremost, we would like to see the airport closed permanently. In its place we would strongly prefer an open parkland (the majority of the runway sits on state - designated parkland anyway). The remaining land could be used as a green energy station (solar, wind, etc), expansion of Santa Monica College, or other types of revenue - generating businesses. We fully understand that Santa Monica has a vested interest in finding income - producing uses for the land, and although we'd rather not see a giant WalMart in its place, we'd rather have anything than an airport. 2. IF NOT CLOSED, REDUCE: If efforts to close SMO again run up against FAA opposition, the next best thing would be a safer, more environmentally - friendly airport with significantly fewer flights. This would entail four major components: a) NO FLIGHT SCHOOLS b) NO JETS c) NO USE OF LEADED AVGAS d) SAFETY BARRIERS AT BOTH ENDS OF THE RUNWAY 3. BUSINESS AS USUAL IS NOT AN OPTION: In light of the expiring 2015 lease agreements, the Mar Vista community is willing to remain patient and see the visioning process through while standing side -by -side with our Santa Monica neighbors. If, however, the FAA again prevails and the end result is the status quo, we would like to suggest several measures that would ultimately help to protect our own health, safety, and way of life. The immediate purpose of these efforts would be to give the City of SMO Community Visioning Process 91 Summary of Phase 11 Santa Monica added ammunition in its legal battle with the federal government, and might include: a) Working with the LA City Attorney's office to legally reclaim the parcels of Los Angeles -owned land that lie within the current boundaries of SMO and could impact the runway alignment. b) Pursuing legal action under the Clean Air Act for lead poisoning of nearby residents, including all children at Mar Vista and Richland Avenue elementary schools, seeking either punitive damages or closure of the airport. c) Forming a class action lawsuit on behalf of all homes within a half -mile radius of the airport seeking either $40k per home for upgrades to windows, doors, and air - filtration systems, or closure of the airport. (Similar programs have already been completed at all other LA area airports and many airports around the country). In summary, the Mar Vista community can no longer tolerate the relentless noise, pollution, and safety risks posed by SMO. As the majority of Santa Monica residents and our neighbors in Venice will echo, we're ready for a change. The evolution of aviation has made this airport's tiny footprint of land unsafe and obsolete. Please include our concerns and goals in the airport visioning process so that we may bring an end to this blight on our community. SMO Community Visioning Process 92 Summary of Phase 11 Written Comment #2 Dear Ms Cline: I am an aviation consultant who used to live in the area where Santa Monica Airport is located. In the 1970s I rented aircraft at the airport, and was involved in some community consultations at the airport. The City of Santa Monica has requested citizen input for the future of the airport. I feel that I understand the issues of the airport and that I can be objective. I no longer live it the area, and can be unbiased. I was involved with the El Toro International Airport program and presentations - and I learned a volume of information about airport operation and community impacts. The greatest hindrance at Santa Monica is the flow of objection from a minority of residents who constantly complain. The proponents dismiss these complaints as being NIMBY complaints but that won't stop the complaints. I must say that it is hard to distinguish a valid objection through the noise of overall objections, and I suspect that the volume and number of valid objections to the airport continuing is small. At El Toro I learned that airports are friendly neighbors after all, and while they generate some noise, and some emissions, the noise and emissions are minuscule when compared to the alternative usage of the area should the airport be closed and the land redeveloped. It seems that the NIMBYS assume that the land would become a park - a use with no traffic, few people, and no emissions. This won't happen because developer demand for land is too strong. If it is not an airport, then it will likely become a dense multi -use complex of homes, apartments, shopping malls and theaters, all traffic generators and all emission producers to some extent. I learned at El Toro when the noise study was conducted by Maestre Graves that while cars go in and out of airports, the traffic volume volume is tiny when compared to a development alternative. The El Toro traffic study, for instance, indicated that a typical development assumes ten vehicular trips per day, per residence. When I queried that, I was told this is a conservative (low) number, and that when every vehicle (postal service, FedEx, meter readers, delivery people, folks going to and from work, shopping and entertainment), that every residence accrues more than ten VTPD (vehicular trips per day). The air quality report at El Toro showed that the emissions produced by aircraft are actually very low, that even at busy periods they generate fewer than thirty movements per hour, and the air quality is excellent from airport use because most of SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 93 the emissions produced are spread over a wide area and are relatively infrequent (especially when compared to alternate uses like diesel trucks etc). Should Santa Monica Airport be closed as an airport and redeveloped, the traffic increase on suburban streets will be massive, and will lead to great increases in street traffic, vehicular emissions, and noise emissions. While locals presently complain about occasional aircraft noise, the El Toro studies made it clear that noise levels (especially from the dense multi -use that would be expected in the Santa Monica redevelopment) would be much greater as a mixed use development than from the existing airport use. Presently, Santa Monica tries to make the airport as inhospitable as possible by charging landing fees and noise fees. The city council has been clear in trying to dissuade pilots from using Santa Monica Airport, and penalizes and charges them if they do. On the other hand, I have read recently that the airport is running at a negative, so what is the answer. I propose to you and to the City Council that you do what any suffering business does - grow out of the problem. Make the airport more user friendly, and encourage pilots to come to the area. Occupants of aircraft are great for the local economy. They rent cars, use hotel rooms, support local restaurants, and often buy retail items locally. In other words, aircraft occupants are great for the local economy, and I propose that the landing and noise fees (stated in the media to be less than 10 \% of total revenue) be removed and that the airport make strides to welcome light air traffic so as to build the local economy. Local business would spring up on the airport perimeter as a result, strengthening the local economy and building the local tax base. Clearly, something must be done. Clearly, if the site is closed as an airport it is not going to become a park with flowers growing through the old runway. Instead, it will be aggressively, and densely, redeveloped with mixed use development with the consequent traffic, noise and air impacts. Playa Del Rey is an example - it had zero traffic as the old Hughes Airport, and look it now! The best remedy is to go in the other direction by building the airport business, making pilots welcome, and bringing their passengers spending to Santa Monica merchants. SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 94 Written Comment #3 2015 represents an opportunity for the City of Santa Monica to demonstrate visionary leadership for our community and the nation. I envision a SUSTAINABLE Golden Gate Park -type CULTURAL COMMUNITY SPACE with easy foot /bike access, and such features as a large bike loop, state of the art playground, innovative sidewalk cafes, art galleries, performance venues, possibly a movie theater, meeting spaces open for community use, organic Farmer's Market perhaps more than once a week, etc. Everything would be as sustainable as possible- including the buildings and way that parking was structured. There should be no regular vehicular access beyond the entry parking point, so that pedestrian health and safety are maximized. SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 95 Written Comment #4 I am a homeowner of two residences on Palm Blvd, Venice Beach. Unfortunately, we live just below the Santa Monica Airport and I understand that the residents of Santa Monica do not want the airplanes they own and store at this airport to fly over the city; but rather, have planes redirected in a Southern flight pattern, that brings the planes directly over Venice. That is not right! I have owned my home for 10 years. The noise is getting worse. I get awakened in the morning by the planes going overhead. Especially the Bi- planes. That causes the dog two doors down to start to bark and I start my day ... noise pollution and dogs barking. Lincoln traffic. Honestly if I had known that Santa Monicans were going to pay off some Politician to direct their air traffic over my home, I would have never bought here. And I am planning to leave. Just going to be more careful about where I choose to live. I know we can't stop flying; I just don't want to live under the low flying noisy planes anymore. But I wonder who will want to buy my house with so much noise? I believe it has decreased the value of my home. And now, every once in awhile, I see a large JET flying, so close. I took a photo of it. In fact a few minutes before I began to type this out. I had to tell someone I was on the phone with to hold, as I could not hear them on the phone. A loud plane was taking off, had to end the phone conversation, because it seems a plane is taking off every two to three minutes or so. And I cannot hear. I think I am going deaf from all the noise. Sometimes I wish I was. I am opposed to having any Airport so close to a heavily populated area such as where the airport is located. We have apparently been allowed to grow around this airport. It seems that a city, like Santa Monica, who bans smoking cigarettes anywhere in the City would also be concerned about themselves and their neighbors, breathing air pollutants caused by planes. And it seems that the City of Santa Monica could use the money for something that would actually make some money. I understand that the Airport is running at a deficit. This is prime property, on a hill. With a view! Thank you. SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 96 1 y MMO Community Discussion Group Wallgraphics During each community discussion group, facilitators used wallgraphics (a unique, visual representation of the discussion points) to highlight participants' thoughts and opinions regarding airport operations. The wallgraphics from each community discussion group have been compiled in this appendix. SMO Community Visioning Process Summary of Phase 11 97 �J--� �J!..,iJ��jLuyvi l�/,•� [ � t�!.H a ✓✓ / >' ✓ ✓ij /. ^.r� �$ 67..YiT "- scesoL< ASS �. ,, ? Oj - � `�i yK -ewe +�b.. =G . ..: o �N�aYS u wtr �� "�"� crt�ab2.... :/XIK w. ' �`••Y.c �.i�/�4Ct+�r�¢ pT� �� ry .fG i - ` yy.�� Cca's'. <'e.�C., �. -c✓7- �� qa° 2; 'T++v�. -iG. _N ,2c �J- h� I •�/ , ..�'9'Ra� ' r.0:' ��S Ls# t�.•t— .1,�`3u,7� � a � I Y�,c `(l� �,gE .rs.✓at1.�"' ' `�c /_a,y\` '2'eYr r A'✓ r%G. wer .4:4cN i4'�ti ✓i�.sdls. : Lg.i „ •. h1Gt'�` --i .°+R°L?�' .:J Lro s, _ ,vwdre �rrd3cu ✓� ^µl'CV �R.u°" G yzFrr,IP. AE',5 .1i ,r. rF1 t ;=der Jn r�tlC .-Xti �rgger&-¢ - t,K:fty eK? q� �� `'�DS��.v � �r �. $f � :' .ors- Nor1 -� .,�rar•'rtc>� I' /� �. cme.�4!�c� J d Fen ^ ?r cF TM l \ W4 gm�rx r� cay y 74E rm Cam? ,o CfT �y L�omr/ 'em t9,? � ?t�9 cc P&� iJf�itf. CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - San[a Monied Community Discussion Groups January 21, 2012 10:00am Prepared lay., M 99 i✓t?cR6Ft-}�s.� V'. ;1 [rFme...at^F cad..M✓a2str•¢t��D �s ]?l u 2 ... . C�<.P :�fsv£': 9 rs'R+c : zv acee+5("a ,e rLV Cl.J7?Y' Sy�..sec. P slew ff�uTieel � y;ru �E �w : p aYl' mu, uurw—e eF.e!ftP VE —_ 7.r-- psc ?? 1'c R r "ate- s vn; sever ( E N2ED r>;1i- R�^°l" CRJLE?45 b' rsr s� �YY'u� Nose. Dt4TKS`,ct'r'' �1X(±�GINC7 .. C �`�' /p,��i�d�W'EDIy$ •GOVaErn'�. ' e? Mr b Prrl�T D VO *M b ova e u sv ncvp� kC�lfi sax5n�h• �fl CA ID CITY OF SANTA MONICA °tY Of Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - z.om arooc�n Community Discussion Groups January 21, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: Q <E 100 0 -�, 7 w`— AjD U —jX, ID Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups January 28, 2012 10:00am Prepared By., M,E 101 7. AeIVI,27-1 "a lv� T ri C!" ap A<4 67 -me am.- C� ac� dr CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups January 28, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: E�a 102 � yry» � crztrs err o+ Vanta Nonlea' 5?i7i'f'inir -, r+�c,sanus ->c�2 r�a�wt�G �rcrevrLTxn:rr�i �J'£�k tYaL�. • - i '4� u•r�'L '°r�, •;i.t5rf, � c�FfSD+G ...v'�Y} � ^;X- Lrte eW G-� -- CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 4, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: Q 103 �'P�• ,k/ �tJnF gJXhYwC� ��{1rVd�Jri � FU� key✓ (�£ CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 4, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: Q 103 �j- hA2L� P457Opfs c ?r,*rvfze '!P5 vn m Santa Monioa' jr wc+rJnl� A�+i� GRovND F p O � / rr , ► i bc�eE OIPAaC� � �y p u�cP2rss�2LLT D'R�7�LPE /�d'bi s�dPrPiP'Za ltG� a 23p rll*r F p O � / rr , ► i bc�eE OIPAaC� 5si� �GIGl� - P'�JtsaE 23p rll*r a1re� � - r _ r r CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 4, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: 104 p- �p�r•- r� .urtx tv pgvBt.oP !i g: ?�z fit' 09a ib -to 6qWW*T- )F'.lnC7 �. gj4 SK�.k� it b!OR � :r/ T' or, or Saaw Moo iea' �agf'�r=I a4ft Ar � � s r r J• .rf/ .rage�r � J- �suPC�'t' area �'1E2SRt� j5 °m0"'J9C�i5M1�L*� .eaLf+d'wxk- 't— , rr �`ari'�'IY �� tT We eaUdG�L s >�; ��i CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 7, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: Q . 105 f ,;,-- � p t4 9!;"r D D: avc- Iha'u ENO �JVG cc x�S / 4 S , C17rr -t--eE Alosr. D £Y A 5xcv ova' m e� n>� D POL".M44 o cL crLAAGLY Jrl rr VCtlA n � ttt.L`Y 1/" orb 5t4 LC D c rt e8 rR �cou'K nC-,�D� htU( wNFi ✓ ply ve atRl-TD P Awe MO+�u'F .es[fcL. .P PPGP'1 i�A� aGn g ...22 .� rsxtr;ut.� --�' Rte. (i^tT �• sg �ol,L L554- "7-% urn a'E.tL ms's �b J5—c 6ka ri4� sL)Eemofts, i.+tPr� "`T IG s"vwlT CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups 9anla Moai<n February 7, 2012 3:00pm Prepared By: Mz. 106 �''t�`n DI�JJii5 fGL:_tJ urn a'E.tL ms's �b J5—c 6ka ri4� sL)Eemofts, i.+tPr� "`T IG s"vwlT CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups 9anla Moai<n February 7, 2012 3:00pm Prepared By: Mz. 106 15S✓�i b. ,; s-n e w�r( ary m Snma Uoo:e+i . V Y.eeTis vgg fir. A�tE AY,99, rp�, P> I' ;r� t <,rtiu,xa� AOW7 Y4*< �, PYfAr- nouc A� Di& s .p t9� O use v 1,pf�� E�E Y�tKt= C-Irrt", :115 .s may. Ilk CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 7, 2012 6:00pm Prepared By: M 13 107 e ca a� SAOIa NOniCu ate op= N ry 6" l!'a: �aCSA�E 6IC- ps nwr *�MG aoa� Jc - frostet� x�cc9F —` ____� �iwwc� b ti� aur*.ri- ►-w� Y -act to J,tiPOC:s ycrQbcJl�Z R ' Iwo wGr Mf�Y� PO�y..>`�ru koff" r tsw, oo-1 IV OA� PA *T ,nm /.� �" m -max I ow. �' ,� ray , �� CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 8, 2012 2:OOpm Prepared By: 108 J 6KI fi1G Ny Gq olefK ri411 CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 8, 2012 2:OOpm Prepared By: 108 f4`� v,✓j.,Yi�cj . �i rte• idles ?A>�'iG �a c:�r or Tanta Monica' C_a S�I� r-sh (yc liK� }4Jb1 -sue,- f•r�s eta -�dc D' Y k ve...- * G1% ckl,ft i nK6L•K. fvTJ� 1�� P�i h.l'•U+ h rMe ) µ Af ,- atati+►r p 09 Y xt ^r CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 8, 2012 6:00pm Prepared By: Qi: gj` 109 � Aqp�,� f� �L$�}E•Ilo� �� Y � si.�� .� i'�y5T3J�'�it +IGTs �g •�� l,Ct,T � Ceovg /be'�+E�2tS\ . � I � 1�� P�i h.l'•U+ h rMe ) µ Af ,- atati+►r p 09 Y xt ^r CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 8, 2012 6:00pm Prepared By: Qi: gj` 109 'y r ,r i �,vax�t-t � •/fir �Rv �e toss ev'Lep5 �4' Ups VIM alF .4 .t.v, CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 9, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: E 110 Fg:r�� d.elEL +�9cYi1 '� AS(6Wy 6�Ci 3>1GOA1 i �,vax�t-t � •/fir �Rv �e toss ev'Lep5 �4' Ups VIM alF .4 .t.v, CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 9, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: E 110 — tL ec -e., iN4� ` �ci?+Pi.Pt�� AEVG %t'h/ h°G`q-iuAt. 4i?-cf Or vi �Vy z�o. d �,•c� o-tPem& T'• ''rte — y + D k7t�'c4� _ . co•.n�d-'�'�� • 5r�!,�}�Tn -'tom •tdsq!4c{K' > yr x i �,U gc Py y t Avr• 17 Q"9 sfw Santa Hov:ca' CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 9, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: M 111 Y : l..fl 'L _T_^- —l7 &V 90,7<, �' D,�T, rsrre rG� �f.?N� �aF�cnatt+ES, *. 'iD �WD�fsy L4 \ K .. Lam. /�V �w�t�l�R/�l�y�.� • Yo (GT.4 .IntD- �1GC.D Y Ll-RwwlviK`✓ �� ✓ > cvtiu�cucllcarcu2 UatD E .kws�, V�MAE .a #-rte IAag!ogr46IvES r x �' Cr ` 1> ,A0 ac te;>w _ v � S �' D,�T, rsrre rG� �f.?N� �aF�cnatt+ES, *. 'iD �WD�fsy L4 \ K .. CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 9, 2012 5:00pm Prepared By: Mm 112 Lam. /�V �w�t�l�R/�l�y�.� • Yo (GT.4 .IntD- �1GC.D CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 9, 2012 5:00pm Prepared By: Mm 112 c„ of tianta Monica" Dac e. ccv y F 6' f Lam• . y Pv- t Cff ��` ,`,�`! {?'2F� .T,. � -' p �PGeE 1N 1 p �• P'ZO;" PS2tE t� i100 h1�b�i'fDi•� A% �pc�e �ira�c °.r. ScYrY Ii �1- w �v /e4�- � RaR95e#�fEC PC/�Ni�F 4MlJ. u ., ti�GAYI o la�u f X�u i �tvw 70} �r Or- cos, D GSn Opel: CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups February 17, 2012 10:00am Prepared By. Q 113 j> 250" >- 7�Dmf�• If s.m. �tloere>: Lowl $VRKZ:fi w-r Y ° /rai'il dVD I,t-� p4w," tl`f oc D/bI II.LL'� c, 5ctt�oL�i — t l cdrsis La CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Process - Community Discussion Groups February 17, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: Q tl 114 � o l ^:r" I' I fM CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Process - Community Discussion Groups February 17, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: Q tl 114 ��!wk�I .G>.�uA �J :.✓ n4N GRE14lP VGKGE.y.4t-r.�.+.: zw L> c/.*�j o' 'r°°es =. tiy;;,s£ t2'�..:v�.en.s , 5?•,.�a+`�u.='D.:�.�71r �.�n_m. ✓�cc�-c" cG5 Z'uG.2` �✓.�w ".:J!a' Vygay�, �+'L'' uric CD rtl : - L CRfF�- �f12•�wY fiG�c>✓N vG'SC� - ��ae"Ly Iti,fLY.^°�; •'%`� -'PJi "r/�-' �;Mr^n ,y, .. �!J Dnsc IF _ r .._c /0�`3 r. Irhpa Gsa T�- A'L { ? H-,L.5 lr R pup V F-J — 6 -c1IIC✓ �, 40R- djGa= vx»>7- Try CAL&Z-4 — 6�RCa?Y won, cSEi ✓ .--,.. _ .�. 5K �dV MSE7- Ski' i /2EE�R ✓ ''�°�'`''l� '?.r "�' p KNVDU- I�:L.l_OAPLr/ l v +- `t66 41-- NLCIr. Sa�4�'�2v -+�7 Fi.T- 'i13c'k§J'� r.,o> CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - tianLa Mav4<a' Community Discussion Groups February 22, 2012 7:00pm Prepared By: Q 1113 115 T-7 caX- *raw -�JS /9 ov or Santa Monicv' .iYl}Y� f rt g ,.aw- „� G� aj•(OUW "� o� ia�- trtsAl - -C�k u• r+zb, Ll jF. it � � ✓ ✓ :r - ii_ •/ rr 7r �' - ", 4v CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 2, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: 116 CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 3, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: Q. 117 dv �i'Tie, > IRV CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 3, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: Q. 117 x �• IS'; -;� cam• �+.�li . `` r�tt.�,: %�i rtv �C lee- ' �;";rr WK ON'; �r- CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - sa�ra uoo.o� Community Discussion Groups March 3, 2012 2:OOpm Prepared By: ® '® 118 A >rL J JS2 !`3 >PAf ?tih 1 c1�u• �Z. � -a-sk -vc.e e...Y�T,i� .. /�� .+a _ eayke�• �'� .+'��- Gf�G1'•�CL�i�T �� KRt�`J� � � ' CGtc�' c : A 1 isla"' 7- �yGN�fiuL D' +' � l fik yry-c am` Cry pevotN�* Lip ty r �rl sa�v cv or s:o(x xoo:en /a T16w- �LM� � catimurrf i•Y (r CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 10, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: Q'y:` m 119 LS Sawa Honied P, w4.wr , -,a W!k r Axy *L q,.W VL7-1- r ;ES LW VIM Pr MW CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 10, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: M' , E 120 - � r r> Mfr Notes snta C?N 4e.&t,. C.� d � �. vITiT�a>✓r e Savty Mvniea' CDI e 2 � VtY'lR'CC l5 }n T sov *tFqpo:�' -jFA4:5 sN[cLDg 0 7i/ lNbJs�S+'f- �srr+�.r�ei tya roe CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 14, 2012 2:OOpm Prepared By: Q.M 121 Ong "7 7 Mfg POIFL %Yli�•r C(y�i �;6tftlf�Ly ` s V mm, ► .Z ^ 1,.. CITY OF SANTA MONICA _ Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - <.,, Community Discussion Groups sanw soon °a March 14, 2012 6:00pm Prepared By: Q ", 122 J ry� i %�'.'Ge�PMG{ •�'' r��!'✓ ViWV/ �'� I �t .� JF�1'T_. 4% AA V yyy�� (�'Si •• i rr 1 }rl ' Ji ��>ST TWA YG as! c�,.,T`J��y�,�� ,NC;Jlla4bY�% . dda� i�sQ:..e'� -?�'e '�� . .. � i`" �L4''�%j � • i� f � 1 - � Y ILJ UT�.PNED Ali i Ma-,V4- CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - �9v19 il9vrp3 Community Discussion Groups March 15, 2012 6:30pm Prepared By: ® in k ✓ - - = - CIiIS��S Fes-., ust�✓r+: .. �f'Er ro�-ty � ter,_ ✓ .� a-� �„rv. -tom' / I,uvoLU� Y� 5'� ° ttoz�4 V" � = ✓,�_._- �,.r ..u� -rurrr� y,`� �� v� Fr�`�'i- Je:Ye��. �+M.:Hi�- 'eazes�'7� t, . i� 7� tiOtS <� t ima3° u m r Q� to u P m 0✓7 4 - -�7. C,usmm -c— a V4- s csas at �) <7'> rn6; —yam <c� r a_l y ; Ir�Na� V i co3 f Baas a rr �a /r AC+ukti�5 n4b'. rte¢ u5M cvz. tcs ' / � `' ..IYarTM.i�rh Nrts ::ems [� ^C^r�t_� , (i�'i,a G�TRtD Cr<pCL. =cam Y�4 C�fat$ �Q �i �oF� � aucyfD �IuGEaA3E cmr�a^°rc -�S — �TTIDy 7c rte- Sno -ffi°�� Rffi�? � CITY OF SANTA MONICA am Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - ^� °' Community Discussion Groups Santa Monica' March 16, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: M 13 124 Santa Jlooian ins, a V>tb.; 72'a3Goc L�,A twt vf*C41pm -r& PLO* fW 14 CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 16, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: M-0 125 TV15 IOU- TW 5r... P5 -n� aup- 5n4V.t TZIv V'� R-*.4rff, j Santa Jlooian ins, a V>tb.; 72'a3Goc L�,A twt vf*C41pm -r& PLO* fW 14 CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 16, 2012 2:00pm Prepared By: M-0 125 CG*�t�iu�I� ZDI Z . " _- SGatipH0luLL dl$'�T,CYL' Pew /At _ Oty�i_ t -`�'�'*s��T�$•FEs -tc.E �i _.- �- .;��GUl� Ubx+`�i -tads cG tCUnt6 ,pro- csun�F u -/ _Fu �sr7 - 6NcTze 19K, ° p _ p trfr> rci __ - — W W" unt^ C RIS TD -On5 u Sw1 rc , P i� �r reek -i z_o 2ca41sF 1, btwy a FfS� -c ,�� = �H'riti'6L7 Tb �FttreA?.- Sathp,�'A�[e�p, �r . � tdrGfl'f ?F 4fE.` 1`3r Ad%Mtft65 I 1t9EcF � tL'2u+>rr oODus� (Er2�r Ytso.efaL.-tN6 - KOFUER'(bA,45 5 `fiZr7 .pWl?N fv£x$C7rtR Prepared By: Q 126 �.° I IUD - �. :• `i J:`= V.?cv'S' I�i�lilC�b ut� li'!({: � t -ry *W o iD 'SrSE IIbT Etzua?� ?ai tclr,�� LEI... SSE 3aP2 �e'sa bw>s • -MBE Srz�tE _t,pW, �C -�f�'� / y7 7i� .[�ci, l�Md -Q.g.- qWk, eeaatj- P.619' V6y � Ij CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - c.ar Community Discussion Groups sauw uo�:en March 17, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: Q 126 xe s ruC �« �aczu cac «ems r l _,�v ✓✓ lit�t: ilkE' / ,.�. rx t�.tv� =' ia-i ?.h' gr'.e�fir 4 `f``i `�'/ ^✓�CrM u5'.{�i 76 Y6�LIE7.EZs e4Fy /k ThSAn� a.z iASa I*•n*C?±ss.Si.'! l*t fK`aµ�' - - NO /i /L.6r�lRr r.�.'J6G'S 9- .- OhLLQ(b(+Kf LLE_ ✓I .N�[SE � ( � �,.',1rts' -C.�1 "�jm,o.(rC IMPaC;t/ - - CvkStLF.2s"t�Cr'71u' L+p3'u# -' �✓' ^. +_'!Fa+f�-` pu�Lt4- �'T'..c.M �n Lam_ __(cNO+tAG''� W�j •?, -r w "i�E,...K.0 c4 -g5d8 l �� 'r`a�r�•c _;, P.Y�It:E n.ou"mr�rc.. �i9e c?= aui.' SwKs _ —mot- fo'''g X°'.! ?4CJ+�GN S86R�. Rc2 1k4r 6AFi'471 Ig" �i4LLv-fl;yl� i�r�r�..�:e«�u�si>e�i / "�tcr �—ucei FSF�J- -6SIP: �rt4'S pOkb�/ �/ r.,it"(D.'� 1L.�Rh2�dDJACLu'KSCI�ts.. ._ _ 7 ?s: 84D�GfDi >r�°'Ut �z.ou+y:4K -n +r � PAAy I� Nt>P..Rcncc 1v+6l 0 Y.F �i. q -WZI 3µ.^S v A E CLt�m.L'� ' /Aii tc° 72 0".+ •F N � lw4e 'AlRtG"Wrt vgeb, ;%2scKI+G 6 MIC mi fM .ai`¢�gyi. SLL 6AGPE0 7'Jai3� — tiaooiA 7fiC� �Y � gnre,t.L>zit'R�L%o� / -Fd.a ��CibZ',uL Per uutr.� Sa.7.%.e�T �✓�u'�I�:a-�s- P6011, �Xd* r ct Fa tau -s�c2 /j L vz5`zk- -- c uw� w�M, w s w5ms6 s use ID CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - tiavm Xoniea' Community Discussion Groups March 17, 2012 2:OOpm Prepared By: Q,® 127 i. "F ILM 17,9NIC- 1 VF oFea 9� v— f6 tc -- F6, �Aw �M"ftu 128 AU- '_"' , – L �.a " IP— � l 3x%ffl5c?5 w , " ', =6�v ►— M4,4 KP —INS to , LZSUW O.R�GtT1 4i /F6 CITY OF SANTA MONICA .M Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups Santa Mani<n' March 21, 2012 6:30pm Prepared By. M, 0 128 tA-s P`{6f* tiaata Mon[ea' h rte- pMOrKA40- 4+t=- . 4' �.rr�ta 1 3Wdlj, _T CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 24, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: M10 129 CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 24, 2012 10:00am Prepared By: M10 129 v�ob ,'3 b G Yu Fiva�rd Dry >dj'c�q y,,�✓�nTS .a: tXi� ✓7itil�'�7 + ! �� r rTvc1 T� PZ- SIG AIJ LO low ' l G D Fb SEl1Q+� GCS'Si vow av or Saaw Son iea' rr ceEASc 3i.'f y.Us� r "per'" .Mew. 5 > r _ CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica Airport Community Visioning Process - Community Discussion Groups March 24, 2012 2:OOpm Prepared By: Q,0 130