SR 07-11-2017 3L
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : J uly 11, 2017
Agenda Item: 3.L
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cline, Director , Public Works, Civil Engineering
Subject: Award a Professional Services Agreement for Airport Avenue Improvements
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP# 2466 to Cannon Consulting , a California -based company , to
provide engineering design services and prepare construction contract
documents for the Airport Avenue Improvements Project ;
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Professional Services
Agreement w ith Cannon Consulting, in an amount not to exceed $499,233
(including a 10 % contingency).
Executive Summary
The Airport Avenue Improvements Project would provide numerous streetscape
enhancements on Airport Avenue from approximately the Santa Monica Colle ge Arts
Campus to 23 rd Street. These enhancements, which were developed with community
input through the Council directed visioning process, will t ransform the busy Airport
Avenue corridor into a multi -modal corridor with improved safety for pedestrians an d
cyclists. P roposed enhancement s would include the remov al of the existing concrete
(gunite ) slope ; construction of a new reinforced concrete retaining wall; sidewalk
construction ; construction of a two -way bike path on the north side of the street;
const ruction of curb ramps; installation of new street lights and parkway trees ;
installation of fiber optic cable ; improvements to the parking lot adjacent to the Barker
Hang a r building ; and the replac ement of approximately 4,500 linear feet of water main.
S taff recommends Cannon Consulting to provide engineering design services, develop
construction plans and documents , and provide engineering support during the
construction phase for an amount not to exceed $499,233 (including 10 % contingency ).
2 of 5
Background
In 2010, t he City embarked on an ambitious three -phase public outreach visioning
process of the 227 -acre Santa Monica Airport Campus , which included 187 acres of
“Aviation Land” and 40 acres of “Non -Aviation Land”. The purpose of this public
outreach visi oning process was to define the future vision for Airport land and to better
understand the perceptions, needs, and aspirations of the community, including tenants,
and neighbors. The culmination of this effort resulted in a report titled Airport Non -
Aviat ion Land Component – Phase III Visioning Process (Attachment A) (Report),
prepared by IBI Group. As a result of these extensive efforts, the following
recommendations were identified in the Report : (1) increasing transparency,
communications and trust; (2 ) transforming the S anta Monica Airport into a model,
"Green" Airport; (3) making the Airport a better neighbor with greater community
benefits; (4) continuing an on -going dialogue with the FAA to explore all possibilities for
reducing adverse impacts of A irport operations; and (5) identifying design improvements
for non -aviation land including Airport Avenue. This project would address the
improvements to Airport Avenue .
Discussion
The City owns and operates Santa Monica Airport (SMO). SMO is located on 227 acres
of 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 consists of 187 acres
of land for aviation activities and 40 acres for non -aviation purposes such as park
spaces, educational facilities, art studios, and Airport Avenue – which is the focus of this
design effort. Airport Avenue is a two -lane road that provides a single travel lane and
bicycle sharrow s in each direction and runs e ast to west betwe en 23 rd Street/Walgrove
Avenue and Bundy Drive. It is also the main connector roadway between the Santa
Monica Airport and the surrounding communities.
The Report divided Airport Avenue into four segments based on the existing character
of the street and highlighted the deficiencies of each segment. T wo phases were
developed for each segment to remedy the deficiencies. The Report envisioned Airport
Avenue as a pedestria n and bicycle friendly corridor by reallocating some of the existing
3 of 5
space allotted for vehicular travel and opening it up for multi -modal uses . Staff reviewed
both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposed improvements and determined that Phase 2
best meets the future vision of the Airport Campus. Both phases are illustrated in the
Report. Phase 1 i ncluded only pedestrian improvements and would not create sufficient
space for the bicycle path. Thus staff determined that implementing Phase 2 would best
fulfill the community’s needs and visioning goals. Phase 2 outlines full scale, long -term
improveme nt s that would result in multiple enhancements. E nhancements include
construction of full -width ADA compliant sidewalk s ; a two -way bike path on the north
side of the street; installation of new pedestrian oriented lighting and fiber optic cable
network; i nstallation of new parkway trees; construction of new crosswalks an d
pedestrian amenities; replacement of the existing water main with a new water main ;
and pavement improvements to the existing street . The pr o posed enhancements, which
were developed with community input through the Council directed visioning process,
will transform the busy Airport Avenue corridor into a multi -modal corridor with improved
safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
Environmental Analysis
The Airport Avenue Improvement Project i s categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant
to Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15304 of CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301
provides Class 1 exemption for the minor alteration of existing public or private facilities
involving negligible or no expansion of use. Section 15302 provides Class 2 exemption
for the replacement of existing utility systems, involving negligible expansion of use.
Section 15303 provides Class 3 exemption for the construction of new small structures.
Section 15304 provides Class 4 exemptio n of minor public or private alterations in the
condition of land and/or vegetation. The project would make improvements to existing
Airport Avenue, which will include new curbs/ramps, lighting, a retaining wall and
landscape, as well as replacement of exi sting water main, to create a better pedestrian
and bicycle environment. Therefore, the project qualifies as a Class 1, Class 2, Class 3,
and Class 4 exemption. In addition, none of the exceptions specified in Section 15300.2
of CEQA Guidelines would apply that would preclude the use of this CEQA exemption –
The project site is not located in a sensitive environment, the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment, the project would not damage scenic resources,
4 of 5
the project would not be loc ated on a hazardous waste site, and the project would not
cause a change to a historical resource. Therefore, this project is categorically exempt
from CEQA.
Consultant Selection
On February 23, 2017, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Engin eering
Design Services for the Airport Avenue Improvement Project to implement the P hase 2
recommendations of the Airport Non -Aviation Land Component Final Report. T he RFP
was posted on the City’s online bidding site, and notices were advertised in the Sa nta
Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code Provision. A
total of 52 vendors downloaded the RFP and six firms responded (Arup North America
Ltd., KPFF Consulting Engineers, Cannon Consulting , Huitt -Zollars , Inc., Tetra
Consult ing Inc., KOA Corporation ). Proposals were reviewed by a selecti o n committee
consisting of staff from the Civil E ngineering and Airport divisions . The committee
shortlisted three firms (KPFF Consulting Engineers, Cannon Consulting and KOA
Corporation) and conducted interviews with the shortlisted firms on May 22, 23 and 24,
2017.
Evaluation was based on the following selection criteria: experience; references;
proposed project work plan; proposed project team ; creativity; demonstrated technical
competenc e an d understanding of the project scope ; and cost. Based on this criteria
and criteria in SMMC 2.24.073, staff recommends Cannon Consulting as the best
qualified firm to provide engineering design services, for an amount not to exceed
$499,233 (including 10 % contingency). Cannon Consulting demonstrated extensive
knowledge and experience with similar projects in the cities of Paso Robles , San Luis
Obispo , Santa Maria , and South Pasadena . Cannon Consulting also demonstrated
through past projects its ability to offer experienced design teams that can complete
high quality project designs in an expeditious manner and at competitive hourly rates.
Next Step
The anticipated timeline for the design phase of the project is approximately 6 months
(August 2017 to Ja nuary 201 8 ). After completion of the design work, the project team
5 of 5
would prepare the bidding document s , advertise the project in the City’s on -line bidding
site, select a contractor, and return to the City Council for award of the construction
contract.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The professional services agreement to be awarded to Cannon Consulting is for an
amount not to exceed $499,233 (including a 10 % contingency). Funds are available in
the FY 201 7 -1 8 Capital Improvement Program budget in the following accounts:
Account Number Account Name Amount
M336031.589000 Airport Sidewalk/St/Slope Imp $452,998
C250136.589000 Water Main Replacement $46,235
TOTAL $499,233
Prepared By: Tom Shahbazi, Civil Engineer
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. SM Airport - Non Aviation Land Component Study
B. Oaks Initiative_2017 -06 -01
C. Written Comments
MARCH 25, 2013
PHASE III VISIONING PROCESS
SANTA MONICA AIRPORT ENHANCEMENT PLANNING PROJECT
Final Report
Airport Non-Aviation Land Component
2
Contents
List of Key Terms and Acronyms ................................................................................................. 5
The Airport Visioning Process .................................................................................................. 6
Sustainability and the Airport .................................................................................................... 8
This Study: Enhancements for the Non-Aviation Lands ........................................................... 9
Project Approach ........................................................................................................................... 11
Project Tasks .............................................................................................................................. 11
Process and Methodology .......................................................................................................... 12
Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 13
Advancement of Sustainability Goals ......................................................................................... 14
Access and Parking ....................................................................................................................... 17
Task Description ......................................................................................................................... 17
Existing Conditions: Access ....................................................................................................... 18
Vehicle Access ....................................................................................................................... 20
Public Transit .......................................................................................................................... 24
Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...................................................................................................... 26
Existing Conditions: Parking ...................................................................................................... 30
Opportunities and Needs: Access .............................................................................................. 32
Vehicle .................................................................................................................................... 32
Public Transit .......................................................................................................................... 33
Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...................................................................................................... 35
Opportunities and Needs: Parking ............................................................................................. 36
Alternatives and Evaluation: Access .......................................................................................... 37
Vehicle .................................................................................................................................... 37
Public Transit .......................................................................................................................... 42
Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...................................................................................................... 45
3
Alternatives and Evaluation: Parking ......................................................................................... 51
Recommendations: Access ........................................................................................................ 56
Vehicle .................................................................................................................................... 56
Public Transit .......................................................................................................................... 58
Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...................................................................................................... 58
Recommendations: Parking ....................................................................................................... 80
Uses, Alignment, and Design ........................................................................................................ 82
Task Description ......................................................................................................................... 82
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 83
Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 83
Opportunities .......................................................................................................................... 89
Future Land Use Scenarios .................................................................................................... 91
Evaluation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 93
Re commendations ..................................................................................................................... 95
Recommended Land Use Approach ...................................................................................... 95
Next Steps .............................................................................................................................. 98
Facilities Design and Engineering ............................................................................................... 100
Task Description ....................................................................................................................... 100
Facilities: Existing Conditions and Assessment ....................................................................... 100
Facilities: Future Opportunities ................................................................................................ 119
Open Space/Parks: Existing Conditions and Assessment ....................................................... 120
Open Space/Parks: Future Opportunities ................................................................................ 124
Infrastructure: Existing Conditions and Assessment ................................................................ 126
Infrastructure: Future Opportunities ......................................................................................... 128
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 129
Public Process and Engagement ................................................................................................. 132
4
Task Description ....................................................................................................................... 132
Internal Activities ...................................................................................................................... 132
Activities with Client .................................................................................................................. 132
Activities with Other Stakeholders ............................................................................................ 141
Sustainable Transportation Incubator .......................................................................................... 142
Task Description ....................................................................................................................... 142
The Incubator Model ................................................................................................................ 143
Definition and Opportunities ................................................................................................. 143
Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 144
Incubator Industry Key Facts ................................................................................................ 145
Market Assessment for Santa Monica ..................................................................................... 146
Land Use and Incubator Decisions ....................................................................................... 146
Implementation Process ....................................................................................................... 147
Alternative Land Use / Incubator Scenarios ......................................................................... 149
Opportunities and Themes ................................................................................................... 1 51
Case Studies ........................................................................................................................ 155
Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 158
Evaluation of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 158
Incubator Approach .............................................................................................................. 160
Next Steps ............................................................................................................................ 163
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 165
A: Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 165
B: Facilities Design and Engineering ....................................................................................... 169
C: Startup Companies and Institutions in Santa Monica .......................................................... 174
5
0.0
List of Key Terms and Acronyms
Bioswales – Linear rain gardens typically installed in parking lots to absorb stormwater runoff
from impervious surfaces.
Curb Ramp – An accessible transition from the low side of a curb to the high side for easy
pedestrian and bicycle access that adhears to ADA requirments.
Delay – The average stopped time per vehicle traversing an intersection, measured in seconds
Intersection Capacity Unit (ICU) – The ratio of approach volume divided by approach capacity
for each leg of intersection which controls overall traffic signal timing plus an allowance
for clearance times. The ICU percentage tells how much reserve capacity (or over
capacity) is avalable for an intersection.
Level Of Service (LOS) – A letter designation that describes a range of operating conditions on a
particular type of facility for the average vehicle control delay. The following table displays
the amount of delay caused for each vehicle for a signalized and unsignalized
intersection.
Intersection LOS Definition
LOS Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
A ≤10 sec ≤10 sec
B 10 -20 sec 10 -15 sec
C 20 -35 sec 15 -25 sec
D 35 -55 sec 25 -35 sec
E 55 -80 sec 35 -50 sec
F ≥80 sec ≥50 sec
6
0.1
0.2
0.3
Introduction
The Santa Monica Airport (SMO) is more than just another municipal real estate asset or an
efficient functional transportation facility; it is a living piece of the history of Santa Monica. In
continuous use since 1917, the Airport has been part of the community for nearly 100 years,
during which its aviation functions have changed considerably. Starting out as a grass landing
strip in a barley field for WWI pilots (Figure 0.1 ), it then became home of the Douglas Aircraft
company, an important manufacturing area for the government‘s WWII effort (Figure 0.2 ). After
the war, it emerged as an aviation technology center , and finally a local general aviation airport,
which it continues to be to this day. Santa Monica Airport is uniquely situated given its close
proximity to dense residential neighborhoods (Figure 0.3 ).
Located two miles west of the Pacific Ocean at the eastern edge of Santa Monica bordering on
Los Angeles, SMO, as the Airport is referred by aviators, comprises 227 acres of land owned by
the City of Santa Monica. Of the total land area, 187 acres are dedicated to aviation functions,
while the remaining 40 acres of land to the south of the landing strip are classified as ―non-
aviation land ‖ (Figure 0.4 ). All leases at the Airport including those on the 40 acres of non-
aviation land will expire by 2015, opening up prospects for future opportunities and improvement
of the area. However, this condition also increas es uncertainty for all stakeholders about what will
happen from then onward. By t his date, in fact, the 1984 agreement between the City of Santa
Monica and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will have expired. The future of the Airport
remains at this time, uncertain . What is certain is that the Santa Monica Airport is in a phase of
transition – a phase that, nonetheless, can be also understood as a unique opportunity to better
integrate this piece of valuable land to the surrounding neighborhoods.
The Airport Visioning Process
The City of Santa Monica, in 2010, embarked on an ambitious three-phase public outreach
process to define the future vision of the airport lands, both aviation and non-aviation, and to
better understand the perceptions, needs, and aspirations of the wider community, including
current tenants, aviators, and neighbors. Phase I of the Visioning Process included three parts: A
general analysis by the RAND Corporation regarding best practices in local general aviation
airports and conceptual land uses that could be considered for SMO; an economic analysis
impact study of the Airport activities on the local and the regional economy, performed by HR&A;
7
0.4
and a series of preliminary community interviews, conducted by Point C. All of these preparatory
activities took place from December 2010 through October 2011, when the outcomes were
presented to City Council.
Phase II, which ran from October 2011 through May 2012, included the core public participation
piece of the Visioning Process, where 312 participants from Santa Monica and the surrounding
municipalities were engaged in 32 community discussion groups facilitated by Moore Iacofono
Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) . Opinions voiced by participants centered on whether aviation functions at
SMO should continue or not. Positions ranged widely, from ―closing t he airport‖ t o ―maintaining
the airport with select mitigations and improvements ‖.
8
0.5
The community also gave their opinions on their vision for the non-aviation lands . P articipants
voiced preference for using these areas as a vehicle for integration to the surrounding
neighborhoods and increasing the residents‘ quality of life. Specifically, comments included:
Increase community open space
Improve access for pedestrians, cyclists, and mass transit
Improve accessibility and reduce traffic impacts
Add new uses for the benefit of the community (arts, culture, education, light retail, etc.)
Implement sustainable agriculture projects
Develop an incubator for green startup businesses
Include green building practices and sustainability initiatives
Invest in the improvement of infrastructure
Improve aesthetics of the non-aviation lands
Insights from the participatory visioning process were presented to City Council on May 8, 2012,
wh en Council then authorized staff to move forward with Phase III. This phase of the Visioning
Process, which this report is a part of , takes into account the input of the community from Phase
II , investigates, and evaluates the ideas and provides recommendations . Phase three addresses
(1) increasing transparency, communications and trust; (2) transforming SMO into a model,
"Green" Airport; (3) identifying design improvements for non-aviation land; (4) making the Airport
a better neighbor with greater community benefits; and (5) continuing an on -going dialogue with
the FAA to explore all possibilities for reducing adverse impacts of Airport operations.
Sustainability and the Airport
Phase II of the Visioning Process, stressed that ―the Airport must be aligned with the City's core,
environmental values ‖. This links the Visioning Process to two municipal documents: The City of
Santa Monica City Sustainable City Plan (Figure 0.5 ); and the Santa Monica Airport
Sustainability Plan (SMASP).
Strategic policies and measures in the non-aviation lands may also provide an opportunity to
comply with SMASP goals. For example, including noise attenuation barriers, expanding the
amount of open and community space, improving gray-water and storm-water capture systems,
9
enhancing pedestrian walkways and pedestrian-oriented activities, and achieving LEED®
certification for existing and new buildings.
This Study: Enhancements for the Non-Aviation Lands
IBI Group and its sub-consultants were retained by the City of Santa Monica in August 2012 to
conduct a feasibility study of different options to enhance the non-aviation lands of the Santa
Monica Airport, serving as support consultants to the City staff on the Phase III Airport Visioning
Process. The objective of the planning endeavor was ―to develop enhancement planning
strategies for the Santa Monica Airport addressing areas including access and parking,
demographic and economic analysis, uses and design, programming and recreation as well as
community engagement in anticipation of future opportunitie s.‖ In other words, the objective was
to create a strategic set of approaches to inform and guide public policy in both areas, not a
detailed master plan.
The IBI Group Team reviewed, investigated, and tested data as described in the Scope of Work
of the RFP to develop alternative options in the areas mentioned above that could be
incorporated into future SMO urban design, capital expenditure, and recreational activity
planning. The approach of IBI Group was one of holistic understanding, synthesis, and proposal.
The different areas studied could have been worked out separate from each other, it was a
conscious decision of the planning team to develop individual components that could be
combined into, a single integrated proposal. Further we recommend incremental changes rather
than wholesale change. This would allow for immediate improvements for the airport and
neighborhoods before 2015 and the positioning of bigger actions after 2015.
This final report summarizes the activities the planning team conducted and the outcomes of
these activities. The report is organized in seven main sections. The first section lays out the
general approach, methodology, and evaluation criteria the consultant team used to conduct the
study. Most of the se criteria emanate from the needs, aspirations, and priorities expressed by the
participants during Phase II of the Visioning Process, the City/Airport sustainability goals included
in the official municipal documents, and from particular concerns expressed by City Staff. The
second through sixth sections detail the individual tasks as spelled out in the RFP, following this
order of contents: task description, analysis of existing conditions, exploration of opportunities
and/or understanding of needs, analysis of alternatives, and recommendations on how to
proceed.
10
The seventh section includes overall conclusions and recommendations, including recommended
phasing, next steps, and ideas on long-term opportunities. Finally, the Appendix contains
presentations, sketches, technical tables and documents, administrative documents, and other
relevant supporting documentation of the activities done by IBI Group and its sub-consultants.
11
Project Approach
Project Tasks
Project Tasks were defined in the Scope of Work of the RFP as to the focus, extent, approach,
and outcomes that were expected from the consultant. The tasks are primarily linked to
profession-specific activities and comprised the following seven tasks for the Non-Aviation Airport
Land component of the study:
Task 2: Access and Parking. The objective of this project task was to assess current
constraints of multi-modal accessibility and parking for the non-aviation lands and identify
strategies to improve these conditions. The aim was to maximize functional benefits for
visitors and tenants as the facilities evolve over time, while at the same time improving
the livability and connectivity concerns of neighboring communities.
Task 3: Uses, Alignment, and Opportunities . The non-aviation land has the
opportunity for enhancements that will both serve and better the community. The
objective of this task was to investigate land use enhancements identified in the previous
visioning phase and evaluate how they may be implemented in the future.
Task 5: Facilities and Infrastructure . The aim of this task was to assess the existing
conditions of the buildings, parks and infrastructures in the non-aviation lands to
ascertain their capabilities and limitations given the opportunities other parts of the study
identified for them. Opportunities for further enhancements and upgrades are discussed
where appropriate.
Task 6: Events, Programs, and Recreation. A cursory review of this opportunity area
was prepared. It was decided after this initial review that it is premature to focus on this
effort at this point in time.
Task 7: Guidelines. The purpose of this task was to provide practical implementation
tools to the City based on the insights gathered in Task 6, therefore as mentioned in the
previous task, the consultant team was asked to eliminate this task from its work
schedule.
12
1.1
Task 8: Public Process and Engagement. IBI participated in two Workshops held at the
Airport Commission held during Phase III. There is also a summary of the technical
workshops with City staff that helped refine the technical approach for the Access and
Parking, Uses, Alignments and Design, Facilities Design and Engineering and
Sustainable Incubator Study.
Task 9: Sustainable Business Incubator Feasibility Study. The objective of this task
was to investigate the concept of a sustainable transportation business incubator in the
airport complex. The task helped define what a business incubator is, the requirements
of an incubator, precedent examples, potential industries that could be served, and
requirements on the part of the City to support this venture. The analysis includes a
possible approach to be combined with the other recommendations from the other tasks
to strengthen the concept and overall Airport campus planning.
Process and Methodology
The process followed throughout the different tasks outlined above was simple and
straightforward (Figure 1.1 ): After a brief description of the task as laid out by the RFP and
putting this task in context with the different phases of the Airport Visioning Process, the
consultant team focused on an assessment of current conditions. This assessment was
conducted using profession-specific methodologies, e.g., capacity analysis in the case of traffic
and building condition analysis in the case of building assessment. After this stage, the planning
team identified opportunities afforded by the physical, functional, and timing-related conditions of
the site and its surrounding urban areas, in order to begin exploring potential enhancements. It is
here also that any specific unmet needs would be identified in order of considering these in the
enhancement proposal.
After the analysis, IBI Group and its sub-consultants proposed, for each of the tasks, a list of
alternative enhancement ―packag es‖ t hat would address identified needs and tap into the
opportunities that were found. These alternatives generally defined by Phase II of the Airport
Visioning Process. These alternatives are not implied to be equally good; therefore, to determine
Task
Description
Existing
Conditions
Opportu -
nities and
Needs
Alternatives
and
Evaluation
Recommen -
dations and
Next Steps
13
1.2
the most viable, effective, and efficient course of action, a set of evaluation criteria was
developed, against which each of the enhancement ―package s‖ were assessed. (The next sub-
section explains the individual evaluation criteria). Finally, given the selected alternative, the
consultant team concluded with specific recommendations to the City as to the individual
components of the enhancement ―packa ge‖ and the suggested ―next steps,‖ u sually divided in
two categories, pre- and post-2015.
Evaluation Criteria
The planning team defined fourteen evaluation criteria for the alternatives analysis in each of the
tasks. Seven of these come from the opinions voiced by the community in the Phase II of the
Visioning Process, and seven were determined by IBI Group given the project specific conditions.
The Santa Monica City Sustainability Plan and the Santa Monica Airport Sustainability Plan, as
well as multiple conversations held with City and Airport Staff also helped to inform these criteria.
The fourteen criteria are outlined in Table 1.2 below.
Evaluation Criteria Reason/Rationale
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life Changes which maintain or better, improve, the resident‘s
quality of life are socially sustainable.
2 Increase community open
space
More community open space builds on the success of Airport
Park and improves the urban environment and public health .
3 Improve accessibility and
reduce traffic impacts
The non -aviation lands need to be better connected to the
surrounding urban context .
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
New or complementary uses may improve the economic,
social, and/or environmental conditions in the area.
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
Existing infrastructure upkeep has been neglected and needs
to be improved, renovated, and expanded.
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -
aviation lands
The non -aviation lands and the buildings erected on it are
largely deteriorated or aged .
7
Include green building
practices and sustainability
initiatives
The physical facilities in the non -aviation lands are environ -
mentally inefficient and wasteful in the c onsumption of energy .
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 Pedestrian -oriented The final user of the area is the pedestrian , not the vehicle .
9 Local scale The focus of the enhancements should be the local neighbors
and city not regional visitors that increase vehicular traffic.
14
10 Integration with the context Each of the components of the proposal should integrate with
the surrounding components and neighborhoods .
11 Incremental actions Actions should be made viable in terms of scale, cost, and
neighborhood compatibility.
12 Flexible and adaptable Given the uncertainty of the aviation operations after 2015, the
proposal should be as flexible and adaptable as possible
13 Energy -efficient Sustainable practices should be at the base of all proposed
actions.
14 Financial sustainability Municipal finances should be impacted as little as possible.
Advancement of Sustainability Goals
The proposals contained in the body of the report advance many of the Santa Monica City
Sustainable Plan and the Santa Monica Airport Sustainability Plan (SMASP). The matrix below
(Table 1 .3 ) summarizes how the different Tasks of the project address environmental
sustainability concerns and policies at the City and Airport Campus scale.
Sustainability goal
Ta
s
k
2
:
A
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ta
s
k
3
:
U
s
e
s
,
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ta
s
k
5
:
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ta
s
k
8
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Ta
s
k
9
:
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
I
n
c
u
b
a
t
o
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
A cc
e
s
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Pl
a
n
Improve air quality ○ ○ ○ ○ ●
Monitor and reduce / attenuate noise ●
● Directly addresses concern ○ Indirectly addresses concern
15
Sustainability goal
Ta
s
k
2
:
A
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ta
s
k
3
:
U
s
e
s
,
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ta
s
k
5
:
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ta
s
k
8
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Ta
s
k
9
:
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
I
n
c
u
b
a
t
o
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
A cc
e
s
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Use and reuse water efficiently ○ ●
Increase and enhance open spaces ● ●
Eliminate or minimize the use of hazardous materials ○
Encourage public transportation and pedestrian access and
reduce traffic impacts ● ● ● ● ● ○
Achieve LEED® ratings for buildings ●
Use energy from renewable sources and increase energy
efficiency ● ○
Reduce and recycle waste ○
Support research on sustainability practices and advocate for
these ●
Support public participation, outreach, and education
initiatives ●
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
C
i
t
y
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
P
l
a
n
Conserve resources ○ ○ ●
Protect and enhance environmental health and public health ○ ● ○
Create a multimodal transportation system that reduces
automobile dependency ● ● ● ●
● Directly addresses concern ○ Indirectly addresses concern
16
Sustainability goal
Ta
s
k
2
:
A
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ta
s
k
3
:
U
s
e
s
,
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ta
s
k
5
:
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ta
s
k
8
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Ta
s
k
9
:
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
I
n
c
u
b
a
t
o
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
A cc
e
s
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Nurture a diverse, stable, local economy ●
Develop and maintain open spaces and foster compact mixed -
use projects ● ○ ●
Achieve and maintain a mix of affordable, livable and green
housing types ○
Increase active and effective participation in civic affairs and
sustainability principles ● ○
Support human dignity and empowerment in the community ● ●
● Directly addresses concern ○ Indirectly addresses concern
17
Access and Parking
Task Description
This section of the Enhancement Planning project focuses on the assessment of access and
parking for the Santa Monica Airport. The current constraints on multi-modal accessibility and
parking are identified in this section, along with specific recommendations to improve accessibility
to and from the airport campus from other locations in Santa Monica and to improve internal
circulation within the airport property, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians. The assessment of
access and parking considers multiple transportation modes, including automobiles, public transit,
bicycling, and walking.
The primary components of this assessment include the following:
Existing Conditions
Opportunities and Needs
Alternatives and Evaluation
Recommendations
The access and parking recommendations contained herein are focused on addressing near-term
needs and opportunities related to transportation. The recommendations are intended to address
identified deficiencies in the existing transportation infrastructure, while keeping in mind the
physical, operational and economic constraints faced by the city. The objective is to address
existing access and parking needs while not precluding the city‘s flexibility in planning for the
future of the Airport.
The recommendations are focused on multi-modal improvements along Airport Avenue because
it is the main connector between the Airport property and the surrounding community, including
the Santa Monica College buildings to the south. The street is currently the only bike and
pe destrian connection through the site from 23 rd Street to Bundy Drive, and a majority of buildings
front it directly, as it is the main east-west spine.
This section identifies readily-implementable strategies for multi-modal enhancement of the street
space along Airport Avenue and adjacent streets within the Airport campus, with an eye on
identifying improvements that will most directly and positively impact the accessibility and
linkages of the Airport to the surrounding community. The ideas in this section relate to access
improvements for bicycles and pedestrians, including people in wheelchairs.
18
The access and parking assessment has been informed through field reviews of the airport site
conducted by the consultant team, collection of updated traffic data, and reviews of previous
documents provided by the city. This section represents a synthesis of ideas and concepts that
were presented in previous planning efforts, along with new ideas that have emerged through the
Phase III visioning effort by the design team. Previous planning efforts and documentation
reviewed as part of this access and circulation study include, but are not limited to:
The Non-Aviation Land Use Feasibility Study (1997)
The Airport Park Program Report (2001)
Phase II Airport Visioning Reports (2012)
Santa Monica Airport Park project documents (various)
Regulatory framework documents reviewed include:
The Santa Monica Airport Master Plan (1983)
The Santa Monica Airport Sustainability Plan (2001)
Santa Monica‘s Land Use and Circulation Element (Land Use Circulation Element, 2010)
Santa Monica‘s Bike Action Plan (2011)
Santa Monica‘s Sustainable City Report Card (2012)
Existing Conditions: Access
Access to the Santa Monica Airport is provided by Airport Avenue, an east-west private roadway
owned by the City of Santa Monica. Airport Avenue connects to the larger public street network
at Bundy Drive on the east and at 23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue to the west. Figure 2.1 illustrates
the location of the airport in relation to major streets in Santa Monica and Los Angeles.
FIGURE 2.1 AIRPORT AVENUE AREA MAP
SANTA MONICA PIER AND AIRPORT ENHANCEMENT PLANNING PROJECT
C ity of Santa Monica IBI GROUP March 2013
20
Vehicle Access
The following are the primary freeways and streets that provide access in and around Santa
Monica Airport.
Roadways
Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) is an east/west freeway linking downtown Los Angeles to
Santa Monica. This freeway is located north of the airport property. Access to and from
the airport can be achieved through existing interchanges at Bundy Drive, Centinela
Avenue, and Cloverfield Boulevard.
San Diego Freeway (I-405 ) is a major north/south freeway that connects the west side of
Los Angeles County to the San Fernando Valley and Orange County. This freeway is
located east of the airport. Access to and from the airport can be achieved through
existing interchanges at National Boulevard.
Airport Avenue is classified as a Collector street and runs from east to west between
23 rd street/Walgrove Avenue and Bundy Drive in Santa Monica. The roadway provides a
single travel lane in each direction, and is divided by a striped median. The posted speed
limit is 25 mph. Curb-to -curb widths vary from 25‘ to 30‘.
Bundy Drive is classified as an Arterial Street, and is located within the City of Los
Angeles. This roadway forms the eastern border of the airport property. Two travel lanes
are provided in each direction with a striped median permitted two way left turns. The
speed limit is posted at 40mph.
Walgrove Avenue is a Collector Street in the City of Los Angeles that offers one lane in
each direction with a striped median. Walgrove runs north-south from Washington
Boulevard to Airport Avenue with on-street parking permitted. The posted speed limit is
25 mph.
23 rd Street is a Collector Street in Santa Monica. This roadway is the continuation of
Walgrove Avenue, extending from Dewey Street/Airport Avenue as a north-south
roadway. There is a landscaped median. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the
street. The speed limit is 30 mph.
Ocean Park Boulevard is classified as an Arterial in the City of Santa Monica. It runs
east and west with two lanes in each direction between Cloverfield Drive and Bundy
Drive. West of Cloverfield, the roadway is one lane in each direction. A center
landscaped median divides traffic east of Cloverfield. The existing speed limit is 35 mph.
On -street parking is permitted along many segments of Ocean Park Blvd.
21
National Boulevard is classified as an Arterial in the City of Los Angeles. It features two
lanes in each direction with on-street parking permitted. The roadway is divided by a
double yellow center median strip. The posted speed limit is 35mph.
Intersections
Key intersections providing access to and within the airport property are highlighted below.
Figure 2.2 illustrates the intersection lane geometry and peak hour traffic volume turning
movement data. Roadway traffic volumes and peak hour level of service (LOS) data for selected
intersections are shown in Figure 2.3
Bundy Drive and Airport Avenue is a signa liz ed T-intersection. A left turn pocket is
provided in the northbound direction on Bundy Drive for vehicles turning onto Airport
Avenue.
Donald Douglas Loop South and Airport Avenue is a 4-way stop intersection. Donald
Douglas Loop South is a private roadway providing access to the Airport Administration
Building to the north and egress from the Santa Monica College property to the south.
23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue Dewey Street/Airport Avenue is an unsignalized dual T-
intersection located along an S-curve. Stop signs control turning movements from Airport
Avenue and Dewey Street. Traffic on 23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue is free flow.
Roadway traffic data was collected along Airport Avenue on Wednesday, October 17, 2012.
Intersection turning movement counts were conducted at:
Airport Avenue and Bundy Drive
Airport Avenue and Donald Douglas Loop
Airport Avenue and Walgrove Avenue
23 rd Street and Dewey Street
Additionally, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was collected through 24 hour vehicle counts along
Airport Avenue between the following locations.
Bundy Drive and Donald Douglas Loop
Donald Douglas Loop and Walgrove Avenue
N/S: Walgrove Ave
E/W: Airport Ave/Dewey St
N/S: Donald Douglas Loop
E/W: Airport Ave
N/S: 23rd St
E/W: Dewey St
N/S: Bundy Dr
E/W: Airport Ave
1
4
2 3
Existing Lane Geometry
N/S: Donald Douglas Loop
E/W: Airport Ave
4
N/S: Bundy Dr
E/W: Airport Ave
3
N/S: Walgrove Ave
E/W: Airport Ave/Dewey St
N/S: 23rd St
E/W: Dewey St
1 2
Existing (Year 2012) Volumes - AM Peak Hour
14
6
2
16
1
1
0 0
52
2
51
0
0 106 0
17
8
14
2
0
0 5
0 6 44 2 100 0
0 0
4 0
N/S: Donald Douglas Loop
E/W: Airport Ave
4
N/S: Bundy Dr
E/W: Airport Ave
3
N/S: Walgrove Ave
E/W: Airport Ave/Dewey St
N/S: 23rd St
E/W: Dewey St
1 2
Existing (Year 2012) Volumes - PM Peak Hour
66
4
81
7
0 0
11
9
3
12
1
0
0 359 0
11
5
16
2
0
0 1
0 1 20
6
0
108 0
0 0
11 0
2
1
3
4
FIGURE 2.2 EXISTING GEOMETRY AND TRAFFIC VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENTS
2,
0
0
7
0
1,
0
2
8
60 10
7
0
177
0 0
0
0
0
188
0
0 6 2
5
14 7 13
139
0
0
400
0
0 28 11
16
39 3 38
135
0
84
1,
2
5
6
0
2,
1
1
7
214 62 0
292
0 0
0
0
15
4
SANTA MONICA PIER AND AIRPORT ENHANCEMENT PLANNING PROJECT
C ity of Santa Monica IBI GROUP March 2013
AM: 468 (6,470)
(4,838)AM: 353
PM: 626
PM: 499
AM: Peak
PM: Peak (Daily)
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
O
S
Sunset Ride Big Blue Bus Line 8 Big Blue Bus Line 14 Bus Stop
Bundy Dr
Cent
i
n
e
l
a
A
v
e
Cen
t
i
n
e
l
a
A
v
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
D
o
n
a
l
d
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
o
o
p
S
.
D
o
n
a
l
d
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
o
o
p
N
.
S
t
a
n
w
o
o
d
P
l
O
c
e
a
n
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
P
e
a
r
l
S
t
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
P
i
c
o
23rd
S
t
21st
S
t
22nd
S
t
Clov
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
B
l
v
d
25th
S
t
28th
S
t
31th
S
t
20th
S
t
Stew
a
r
t
A
v
e
Cabr
i
l
l
o
B
l
v
d
D
e
w
e
y
S
t
S
t
a
n
w
o
o
d
S
t
R
o
s
e
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
A
v
e
P
a
l
m
s
B
l
v
d
Bee
t
h
o
v
e
n
S
P
i
e
r
A
v
e
O
a
k
S
t
H
i
l
l
S
t
A
s
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
S
t
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
l
v
d
24
2.4
Public Transit
Numerous bus routes operated by Santa Monica Big Blue Bus and the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) operate on streets in close proximity to the Santa
Monica Airport. Additionally, the Airport is less than 2 mile s from the proposed Exposition Line
subway station at Bundy. However, while there are several bus routes in the area, only a few
stops for these routes are located adjacent or within the Airport property itself; public
transportation access to the Airport is thus limited. The existing Big Blue Bus transit routes that
operate in close proximity to the airport are described below.
Big Blue Bus Line 8 runs from downtown Santa Monica to UCLA via Ocean Park
Boulevard, National Boulevard, and Westwood Boulevard. Near the airport, Line 8
operates along Ocean Park Boulevard. The headways are 10 minutes in the AM peak
period and PM Peak Period.
Big Blue Bus Line 14 runs along Barrington Avenue from south of Sunset Boulevard to
Bundy Drive and Centinela Avenue to Culver Boulevard. This route passes Airport
Avenue along Bundy Drive. The headways are 10 minutes in the AM peak period and PM
peak period.
Sunset Ride connects the Santa Monica College Bundy Campus and Airport Park to the
Santa Monica College Main Campus. Near the airport, Sunset Ride travels along Bundy
Drive looping around the SMC Bundy Campus and back to Ocean Park Boulevard. The
headways are 15 minutes in the AM peak period and PM peak period. This route does
not operate on weekends.
Table 2.4 , below, summarizes bus frequencies and span of service. Figure 2.5 shows the
locations of the bus routes and bus stops.
Public Transit Service
Route Span of Service Frequency
Big Blue Bus Line 8 6AM – 9 PM (M -F)
6AM – 12AM (S -S)
10 min.
Big Blue Bus Line 14 5AM – 12AM
7AM – 9PM (S -S)
10 min.
Sunset Ride 7AM – 6:30PM (M -F) 15 min.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
8 1,453
1
3,
2
0
7
1
7,401 1
9
7
3
1
1
,
0
0
9
1
6,26
2
1
4,94
2
1
772
1
620
1
551
1
959
1
1,51
4
1
1,40
6
1
2
5
,
6
9
4
1
6,47
0
3
21,8
7
0
2
8
,
1
1
0
2
1
5
,
1
6
0
2
20,2
4
0
2
1
6
,
9
7
0
2
18,7
2
0
2
20,7
8
0
2
7
,
0
7
0
2
1
3
,
9
7
0
2
7
,
4
0
0
2
25,7
3
0
2
26,9
0
0
2
4,838
3
2
Bundy Dr
Cent
i
n
e
l
a
A
v
e
Cent
i
n
e
l
a
A
v
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
D
o
n
a
l
d
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
o
o
p
S
.
D
o
n
a
l
d
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
o
o
p
N
.
S
t
a
n
w
o
o
d
P
l
O
c
e
a
n
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
P
e
a
r
l
S
t
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
23rd
S
t
21st
S
t
22nd
S
t
Clov
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
B
l
v
d
25th
S
t
28th
S
t
31th
S
t
20th
S
t
Stew
a
r
t
A
v
e
Cabr
i
l
l
o
B
l
v
d
D
e
w
e
y
S
t
S
t
a
n
w
o
o
d
S
t
R
o
s
e
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
A
v
e
P
a
l
m
s
B
l
v
d
Beet
h
o
v
en
P
i
e
r
A
v
e
O
a
k
S
t
H
i
l
l
S
t
A
s
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
S
t
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
l
v
d
Level of Service:LOS A/B/C LOS D LOS E LOS F AM PM 1 ADT Traffi c Volumes from SMC Bundy, Campus Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (2004)2 ADT and LOS Traffi c Volume Reported from Santa Monica LUCE – (2009)3 New – 2012 Count LOS Intersection Data from SMC Bundy Campus Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (2004)Cumulative Base of 2012
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
5
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
M
a
p
26
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Providing better amenities for bicyclists and pedestrians directly responds to the access and
connectivity goals set during the Phase II visioning process by Airport stakeholders. By making
more room in the public right-of -way to accommodate these users, the Airport will be better
connected and more accessible to the surrounding community.
Based on community feedback and input from the visioning process, direction was given to
identify ways to make the Airport a ―better neighbo r‖ with greater community benefits, and
linkages. Another key goal was to ―transform SMO into a model, ‗Green‘ Airport .‖ Unde r this
heading the design team has been tasked with looking at design improvements for non-aviation
land, in particular how to:
“Enhance recreational and arts facilities; improve infrastructure for circulation including
vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit… ”1
The property is situated within a fairly regular network of existing and proposed bikeways, lanes,
and routes in Santa Monica to the north and west and the City of Los Angeles to the south and
east. Bike and bus facilities are depicted on the map below. Blocks are typically long in the
surrounding neighborhoods (i.e. over 600 feet) and are residential in character. Surrounding
areas are pedestrian-friendly for the most part with shade trees and ample sidewalks. The long
blocks that are created by the Airport property itself, make walking challenging, as do the lack of
safe and controlled crossings along 23 rd . The intersection of 23 rd and Airport is an especially
inhospitable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. See Figure 2.6 for the bicycle and
pedestrian existing conditions along Airport Avenue and Figure 2.7 for the existing bicycle and
transit network.
1 City of Santa Monica, Information Item Report, City Council, July 12, 2012 Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney, and Martin
Pastucha, Director of Public Works.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
6
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
De
w
ey
S
t.
A ir
po
r
t
A
ve
.
Douglas Loop S. B u nd y Dri ve
2 3 rd S t ree t
S te wa rt Ave .
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
P
a
r
k
Ba
r
k
e
r
H
a
n
g
e
r
SM
C
A
r
t
s
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
De
c
k
La
c
k
o
f
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
No
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
/
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Su
b
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
St
e
e
p
e
n
b
a
n
k
m
e
n
t
Tr
e
e
s
u
p
r
o
o
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Di
r
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
/
m
e
a
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
p
a
t
h
Missing crossings
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
c
u
r
b
r
a
m
p
s
Co
n
t
i
n
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
a
m
e
n
i
t
y
a
r
e
a
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
g
a
r
d
e
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
7
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
M
a
p
29
Physical enhancements for pedestrians and bicyclists have been made by the City of Santa
Monica along Airport Avenue over the years, such as introduction of new crosswalks, paving of
various sidewalks, introduction of bike sharrows and high-quality streetscaping enhancements
such as planting and street lights in the eastern section of Airport Avenue, along with
enhancements to Donald Douglas Loop and the construction of Airport Park. These efforts have
been somewhat fragmented and uneven over the years, in terms of where and how access and
circulation improvements have been made.
Currently the facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists are unevenly applied and sporadic along
Airport Avenue:
In the eastern portion of the street adjacent to the park, improvements have been made
to the streetspace, including new sidewalks, landscaped parkways, pedestrian lighting,
crossing enhancements and curb ramps.
In the western segment of the street some sidewalks are narrow, uneven, or do not exist
at all. At points the pedestrian must step into the street or pass through a setback to
access the walkway. At other points the sidewalk drops off all together and there are dirt
areas on which to walk. In many cases a separate concrete sidewalk does not exist and
asphalt areas adjacent to the buildings, also serve as pedestrian walkways.
There are eight locations along the street where curb-ramps are missing. A curb-ramp is
a cement ramp graded down from the top surface of a sidewalk to the surface of an
adjoining street.
For approximately ¼ mile along the north side of the street near the intersection with 23 rd
Street there is a concrete slope that precludes a north-side sidewalk.
Crosswalks are not evenly spaced. While a typical walkable block size is around 300 –
400 linear feet—that is to say 300 to 400 feet is the comfortable maximum distance
between crossings— currently it is over 1,000 linear feet between each crosswalk.
Existing street trees (Carob) were originally planted every 45 feet approximately, but are
now missing in places. Many of the trees that are still there are pulling up pavement and
asphalt, are leaning, have new growth at the base of the tree and have not been pruned,
which makes seeing and navigating around them difficult.
30
2.8
Existing Conditions: Parking
The off-street parking supply for land uses and buildings within the airport property is dispersed
throughout the property into several small lots that are accessible via driveways provided along
Airport Avenue and Donald Douglas Loop South. Below in Table 2.8 is a list of the parking lots
on the airport campus and number of parking spaces existing in each lot. A map of the parking
facilities can be seen in the Figure 2.9 .
Existing Parking lots along Airport Avenue
Lot # Parking Lot Name # of Parking Spaces
1 Car Lot – Storage of cars for local auto dealership 60
2 Small business center 43
3 Spitfire Grill and office 16
4 Open space park and dog park 60
5 General Aviation facility 59
6 General Parking behind spitfire grill 117
7 Museum of Flying 17
8 3050 Airport Avenue 131
9 Santa Monica Air Center 16
10 Barker Hanger/Santa Monica Air Center 120
11 Art Studios 79
12 Ruskin Group Theatre Co 29
13 Sidewalk of Justice Aviation 12
14 West of Building 45
15 Action Air Express 25
16 Airport Arts Campus 102
17 Krueger Aviation 25
18 Western Arts Campus Lot 85
Total Total Number of Spaces 1,042
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
9
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
43 60
16
17
13
1
29
10
2
85
25
`
26
79
12
0
16
11
7
60
59
Santa Monica Airport Park (60 Spaces)Car Lot (60 Spaces)Small Business Center (43 Spaces)Spitfire Grill (16 Spaces)General Aviation (59 Spaces)General Parking (117 Spaces)Museum of Flying (17 Spaces)Santa Monica Airport Antique (131 Spaces)Proteus Air Services (16 Spaces)Barker Hanger/Santa Monica Air Center (120 Spaces)Art Studios (79 Spaces)Ruskin Group Theatre Co (29 Spaces)Airport Arts Campus (102 Spaces)Kim Davidson Aviation (25 Spaces)Western Triangle (85 Spaces)Action Air Express (26 Spaces)Angle Parking off Street Parking / Parking Lot Entrance and Exit Points
32
Opportunities and Needs: Access
Consideration of future conditions for access is important as the City of Santa Monica plans for
the expiration of existing leases in 2015 for current uses occupying buildings in the non-aviation
portions of the airport. The examination of future conditions allows for consideration of potential
phasing for recommended improvements, since selected strategies may be best suited to
address future rather than existing access and parking needs.
Data regarding future growth potential and information presented below has been collected from
recent plans and studies conducted by the City of Santa Monica. These plans and studies
include:
Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update
Santa Monica Bicycle Action Plan
The LUCE proposes the creation of a complete multi-modal transportation system which builds
upon the City‘s major investment in transit and bicycle facilities. Consistent with the approach for
the existing conditions discussion, information and data related to future transportation conditions
is outlined herein for automobiles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
Vehicle
From the LUCE, a series of goals are set to manage local and regional congestion, provide a safe
environment for all road users and create a street network that is accessible to all modes of
transportation
Reduce automobile trips starting or ending in Santa Monica, especially during congested
periods, with the goal of keeping peak period trips at or below 2009 levels
Limit congestion to portions of the transportation network that have the least impact on
the city‘s neighborhoods, neighborhood retail areas and mixed-use districts, to the
greatest extent feasible
Strive to maximize the efficiency of the existing automobile infrastructure and manage the
major boulevards and avenues so that they provide shorter travel times than parallel
minor avenues or neighborhood streets
Discourage the use of City streets as an alternative to congested regional facilities
Manage automobile speeds on boulevards and avenues to ensure comfort and safety for
other roadway users
Manage traffic speed and volume on neighborhood streets to reduce the risk for regional
or local cut-through traffic
33
The LUCE calculates the peak hour traffic forecasts for each study intersection to reflect Year
2030 conditions. These future LOS levels are shown in Figure 2.10 below.
A goal for the City of Santa Monica, according to the LUCE, is to limit new net PM peak hour
vehicle trips generated within the City. Up to 40 percent of commute trips are made during the
PM peak hour congestion which is typically the highest during the day.
Public Transit
Future development of public transit is likely to continue to expand locally and regionally,
providing the City of Santa Monica an enhanced ridership experience, supporting the efficiency of
the transit system and reducing automobile trips. The Big Blue Bus, Metro Local, Metro Rapid
and the future Exposition (Expo) Light Rail will create an extensive public transit system to further
build upon.
Phase II of the Expo Light Rail transit line is planned to extend regional light rail transit service
from the current terminus of the Expo Line in Culver City to Downtown Santa Monica. This light
rail transit service will be a major addition to the City‘s transit infrastructure and will help to
encourage further reductions in dependance on automobiles for transportation within the city.
The Expo Line will include new stations at Bundy Drive (in Los Angeles), Olympic and 26 th , 17 th
and Colorado, and 4 th and Colorado. Improved transit access could be provided to the airport by
providing enhanced transit connections between the planned Expo Line Bundy Drive station and
the airport. While no specific improvements in transit service connections between the Expo Line
and the airport are currently planned, it is anticipated that some level of increased transit service
in the vicinity of the airport would occur when the Expo Line becomes operational.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
1
0
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
F
u
t
u
r
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
O
S
8 1,453
1
3,
2
0
7
1
7,401 1
9
7
3
1
1
,
0
0
9
1
6,26
2
1
4,94
2
1
772
1
620
1
551
1
959
1
1,51
4
1
1,40
6
1
2
5
,
6
9
4
1
6,47
0
3
21,8
7
0
2
8
,
1
1
0
2
1
5
,
1
6
0
2
20,2
4
0
2
1
6
,
9
7
0
2
18,7
2
0
2
20,7
8
0
2
7
,
0
7
0
2
1
3
,
9
7
0
2
7
,
4
0
0
2
25,7
3
0
2
26,9
0
0
2
4,838
3
2
Bundy Dr
Cent
i
n
e
l
a
A
v
e
Cent
i
n
e
l
a
A
v
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
D
o
n
a
l
d
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
o
o
p
S
.
D
o
n
a
l
d
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
o
o
p
N
.
S
t
a
n
w
o
o
d
P
l
O
c
e
a
n
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
P
e
a
r
l
S
t
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
23rd
S
t
21st
S
t
22nd
S
t
Clov
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
B
l
v
d
25th
S
t
28th
S
t
31th
S
t
20th
S
t
Stew
a
r
t
A
v
e
Cabr
i
l
l
o
B
l
v
d
D
e
w
e
y
S
t
S
t
a
n
w
o
o
d
S
t
R
o
s
e
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
A
v
e
P
a
l
m
s
B
l
v
d
Beet
h
o
v
en
P
i
e
r
A
v
e
O
a
k
S
t
H
i
l
l
S
t
A
s
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
S
t
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
l
v
d
Level of Service:LOS A/B/C LOS D LOS E LOS F AM PM LOS Intersection Reported from LUCE for 2030 Future Conditions
35
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Ideas for enhancing the streets and linkages to and through the Airport have been proposed
before, in particular the introduction of enhanced walking -- and to a lesser extent, bicycling paths
-- connecting the Airport to Clover Park and citywide paths, especially along Airport Avenue and
Donald Douglas Loop. As reflected in the Non-Aviation Land Use Feasibility Study (1997), in the
Airport Park Program Report (2001), and then during the 2012 Phase II visioning process, the
enhancement of facilities and pathways for pedestrians has been a priority while remaining a
challenge.
The Non-Aviation Land Use Feasibility Study (1997) included alternative concepts that
recommended a multi-use recreational path along Airport Avenue and Douglas Loop (walking and
jogging only). It also included recommendations for an off-street bicycling loop around the
recreational facilities at the park. The walking/jogging loop was conceived of as a 10-foot wide
decomposed granite combined walkway/parkway on the south side of the street for most of its
length. The report discussed the potential need to replace a portion of the concrete covered
slope on the north side of the street with a retaining wall and landscaping in order to
accommodate the pathway. Other enhancements were identified such as pedestrian lighting,
shade trees, and signage. Suggestions such as these are carried through to this visioning effort.
Both the 1997 Report and Airport Park Program Report (2001) described an extension of the
pedestrian-realm – i.e. a widening of the sidewalk(s). The Program Report called for
enhancements to the north- and south-side sidewalks for the length of Airport Avenue, with
elements such as a decomposed granite walkway, new planting, a green parkway, landscaping
the concrete slope on the north side of the street, etc.
Guiding Principles
Based on this direction and findings from Phase II of the Visioning process, along with review of
past studies / planning framework documents from the City of Santa Monica and the Airport, and
site connectivity and access analysis, the design team has identified three planning and design
pr inciples for Access and Circulation improvements at the Airport, relating to enhancements for
bicyclists and pedestrians:
36
Ensure Environmental Stewardship: Provide recreation amenities for residents;
contribute to the environmental health of the neighborhood; demonstrate a commitment
to Santa Monica‘s Sustainable City ideals while upgrading the street space.
Be a Good Neighbor: Encourage multi-modal access to the Airport Campus; provide
wayfinding and signage that makes it easier to navigate; engage the community in the
design of facilities and improvements.
Contribute to the Quality of Life of the Community: Provide high-quality infrastructure
that is aesthetically pleasing; design pathways and nodes to be community-oriented and
flexible for change over time; all new infrastructure and improvements should be
designed to improve safety.
These principles also respond to the Sustainability Plan for the Santa Monica Airport, which
outlines goals and visions for environmental stewardship, addresses circulation issues,
encourages the use of alternative transportation (i.e. other than cars), expands open space and
recreation opportunities, and recommends installation of stormwater capture systems,
maximization onsite retention and reuse of urban runoff, etc.
Opportunities and Needs: Parking
Future parking conditions at the Santa Monica Airport and along Airport Avenue requires advance
consideration as the existing airport lease expires in 2015. This opens up the Airport for additional
land use opportunities which may require additional parking supply or better organized and more
efficient parking.
No changes to the existing parking supply for the airport are planned as part of the baseline
future condition.
37
Alternatives and Evaluation: Access
Vehicle
The analysis of vehicular access to Santa Monica Airport focuses on the two intersections along
Airport Avenue that are responsible for connecting the airport to the surrounding public street
system. Airport Avenue at 23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue and Airport Avenue at Bundy Drive are
these two interestions. As illustrated previously in Figure 2.3 , both intersections currently
operate at an acceptable level of service, per City of Santa Monica guidelines. However, the
existing condition for the intersection of Airport Avenue at 23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue is not
optimal. This intersection experiences significant traffic volumes along 23 rd Street/Walgrove
Avenue, creating difficulties for vehicles looking to turn in and out of Airport Avenue. Additionally,
there is no provision for safe pedestrian crossings of 23 rd Street or Walgrove Avenue until the
nearest signalized intersections in either direction.
As part of the Ahbe Santa Monica Airport Park Report, signalization of this intersection was
identified as the preferred solution for addressing the traffic constraints at this location. The
provision of a traffic signal would allow for the installation of a pedestrian crosswalk across 23 rd
Street.
While a traffic signal would allow for pedestrian crossings and would facilitate all traffic turning
movements at the intersection, the traffic volumes present along 23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue
could result in significant vehicle queues and traffic congestion. Additionally, the installation of a
traffic signal at this location could be costly, as a new signal typically costs about $250,000. As an
alternative, a second intersection improvement option was analyzed to restrict left turns from
Airport Avenue onto Walgrove Avenue through the construction or restriping of a new median
treatment along 23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue. Pedestrian crossings would then be permitted
further north on 23 rd Street near the intersection with Navy Street. Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14
illustrate the Ahbe report traffic signal concept and the alternative left turn restriction concept
considered for this intersection.
Each alternative was analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology to
calculate the average intersection delay and level of service. This approach is consistent with
City of Santa Monica guidelines.
Table 2.11 below, presents the results of the analysis for the two alternatives. The analysis was
conducted using existing traffic volumes collected for the intersection.
38
2.11
Table 2.12 displays the evaluation matrix of the proposed alternatives for the intersection of
Walgrove Ave, Airport Ave, Dewey Ave and 23 rd .
Intersection Performance Results
Dewey Ave - Airport Ave - Walgrove Ave Dewey Ave - 23rd Ave
AM PM AM PM
Alternative Delay LOS
ICU
% Delay LOS
ICU
% Delay LOS
ICU
% Delay LOS
ICU
%
Baselin e 100.7 217.6 103.1 309.6
Signal 27.7 C 805.6 F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Left Turn 91 217.6 103.1 275.8
39
2.12 Evaluation Matrix for Walgrove, 23 rd , Airport Avenue Intersection
Evaluation Criteria
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
OP
T
I
O
N
1 :
Si
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
OP
T
I
O
N
2 :
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life
2 Increase community open space
3 Improve accessibility and reduce
traffic impacts
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -aviation
lands
7 Include green building practices and
sustainability initiatives
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 People -oriented rather than car -
oriented
9 Local scale rather than city or regional
scale
10 Integration with the context rather than
introverted and standalone
11 Incremental actions rather than large
unitary projects
12 Flexible and adaptable rather than
inflexible and uncompromising
13 Energy -efficient rather than resource
consuming
14 Financial sustainability rather than
subsidy -dependent
= supports the guiding principle = does not support the guiding principle = neutral / not
applicable
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
1
3
:
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
1
4
:
N
o
L
e
f
t
T
u
r
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
42
Public Transit
The Santa Monica College Bundy Campus and the east end of the Santa Monica Airport are well
served by the existing transit services operated by the Big Blue Bus. It is recommended that the
city‘s future improvements include improving the accessibility between the bus stop at the Santa
Monica College Bundy Campus and Airport Avenue. Figure 2.16 illustrates a potential strategy
for improving this accessibility. Of course, consideration will need to be made related to potential
spillover parking from the college facility to the airport lots. Additionally, wayfinding signs will
need to be installed to effectively direct pedestrians to and from Airport Avenue to the Santa
Monica College Campus.
Additionally, it is recommended to have increased bus frequency to existing transit stops along
Bundy Drive and Airport Avenue. Expanding the Sunset Ride to include weekend service would
enhance transit service to the Airport. This weekend service may require rerouting to ensure
minimal disturbance to residential neighborhoods.
Table 2.15 presents the evaluation matrix of the different options for public transit.
43
2.15 Public Transit Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation Criteria
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
OP
T
I
O
N
1 :
Re
m
o
v
e
Wa
l
l
OP
T
I
O
N
2 :
We
e
k
e
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life
2 Increase community open space
3 Improve accessibility and reduce
traffic impacts
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -aviation
lands
7 Include green building practices and
sustainability initiatives
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 People -oriented rather than car -
oriented
9 Local scale rather than city or regional
scale
10 Integration with the context rather than
introverted and standalone
11 Incremental actions rather than large
unitary projects
12 Flexible and adaptable rather than
inflexible and uncompromising
13 Energy -efficient rather than resource
consuming
14 Financial sustainability rather than
subsidy -dependent
= supports the guiding principle = does not support the guiding principle = neutral / not
applicable
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
1
6
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
S
M
C
B
u
s
S
t
o
p
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Re
m
o
v
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
W
a
l
l
fo
r
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
45
2.17
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Airport Avenue is approximately 0.85 miles in length or 4,300 linear feet. As the street changes
over time, it will be increasingly important to foster a sense of identity and character along its
length that is different segment to segment, in order to break the street down into walkable
increments. The Airport Avenue corridor has been organized into four character areas where the
look and feel of the existing character of the street changes and where the character shifts can be
amplified.
Area 1: Neighborhood Gateway
Area 2: Community-Oriented Space
Area 3: Flexible Outdoor Space
Area 4: Active Airport Community Park
There are additional focus areas along the edges of the site that have been identified as integral
to the long term vision of increased accessibility and connectivity of the Airport to the surrounding
community.
Focus Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 are depicted in Figure 2.17 . Areas in red show potential future
connections in Areas A and B.
The priorities for each of the character areas are as follows.
Area 1: Neighborhood Gateway
- Create a strong, legible, and safe entry to the community visiting the Airport Campus.
- Shift modal allocation of street space to prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists.
Area 2: Community-Oriented Space
- Repurpose underutilized space for community activity.
- Provide multi-modal amenities for visitors.
- Shift modal allocation of street space to prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists.
Area 3: Flexible Outdoor Space
- Create a flexible environment for outdoor programming and events / linking indoor
and outdoor.
- Provide multi-modal amenities for visitors.
- Shift modal allocation of street space to prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists.
Area 4: Active Airport Community Park
- Potential to extend Park space and amenities for community users as space
becomes available.
- Shift modal allocation of street space to prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists.
46
- Create a strong, legible, and safe entry to the Airport community, encouraging active
recreation and community access
Areas A and B: Future Connections
- Provide active recreation for the community.
- Join the Airport campus with a green-loop located outside of the airport fence along
Bundy Drive and 23 rd Street.
Table 2.18 presents the evaluation matrix of the alternatives for bicycle and pedestrian
improvements.
47
2.18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation Criteria
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
OP
T
I
O
N
1 :
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
Mu
l
t
i
M
o
d
a
l
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
OP
T
I
O
N
2 :
Re
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
OP
T
I
O
N
3 :
Cr
e
a
t
e
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
ev
e
n
t
s
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life
2 Increase community open space
3 Improve accessibility and reduce
traffic impacts
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -aviation
lands
7 Include green building practices and
sustainability initiatives
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 People -oriented rather than car -
oriented
9 Local scale rather than city or regional
scale
10 Integration with the context rather than
introverted and standalone
11 Incremental actions rather than large
unitary projects
12 Flexible and adaptable rather than
inflexible and uncompromising
13 Energy -efficient rather than resource
consuming
14 Financial sustainability rather than
subsidy -dependent
= supports the guiding principle = does not support the guiding principle = neutral / not applicable
48
Figures 2.19 and 2.20 illustrate an overview of bicycle and pedestrian enhancements along
Airport Avenue.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
1
9
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
1
We
l
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
w
a
y
fi n
d
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
b
i
o
s
w
a
l
e
s
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
(
P
h
a
s
e
2
)
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
a
r
e
a
(
P
h
a
s
e
2
)
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
a
r
a
i
s
e
d
t
a
b
l
e
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
-
g
r
a
d
e
p
e
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
p
a
v
e
r
s
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
b
i
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
Cr
e
a
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
r
a
i
l
/
b
i
k
e
l
o
o
p
(
F
u
t
u
r
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
)
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
w
a
y
fi n
d
i
n
g
AR
E
A
1
AR
E
A
2
AR
E
A
3
AREA 4
Ai
rp
or
t
A ve
.
Douglas Loop S. Bu n dy D ri ve
2 3 rd Str ee t
S te wa rt Av e.
Airport Park
Ba
r
k
e
r
H
a
n
g
e
r
SM
C
A
r
t
s
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
De
c
k
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
2
0
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
2
SE
C
T
I
O
N
12
3
4
56
7
8
9
AR
E
A
1
AR
E
A
2
AR
E
A
3
AR
E
A
4
67
5
(
(
7
6
(
&
7
,
2
1
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
7K
H
I
R
O
O
R
Z
L
Q
J
S
D
J
H
V
R
X
W
O
L
Q
H
W
K
H
S
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
EL
N
H
D
Q
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
H
Q
K
D
Q
F
H
P
H
Q
W
V
DO
R
Q
J
$
L
U
S
R
U
W
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
D
Q
G
D
G
M
D
F
H
Q
W
DU
H
D
V
7
K
H
S
D
J
H
V
D
U
H
R
U
J
D
Q
L
]
H
G
E
\
VW
U
H
H
W
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
$
V
G
H
V
F
U
L
E
H
G
S
U
H
Y
L
R
X
V
O
\
WK
H
F
K
D
U
D
F
W
H
U
R
I
W
K
H
V
W
U
H
H
W
F
K
D
Q
J
H
V
VH
Y
H
U
D
O
W
L
P
H
V
H
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
S
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
VH
F
W
L
R
Q
V
D
U
H
G
U
D
Z
Q
Z
K
H
Q
H
Y
H
U
W
K
H
FK
D
U
D
F
W
H
U
L
V
H
[
S
H
F
W
H
G
W
R
F
K
D
Q
J
H
23RD STREET
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
L
O
O
P
BUNDY DR
51
Alternatives and Evaluation: Parking
Many of the existing off-street parking facilities located along Airport Avenue suffer from poor
pavement condition and fading striping delineating the location of parking stalls. Overall, the non-
aviation properties at the airport would benefit from a repaving and refresh of the existing off-
street parking lots to better define the location and layout of parking stalls. Improvements to
these parking lots would also permit upgrades to include landscaping to ensure compliance with
the City of Santa Monica‘s specifications that a minimum of 10 percent of the area devoted to
parking be dedicated for landscaping. Redesigned parking lots have the opportunity to collect
pai d parking revenues to help subsidize recommended transit service expansion.
The parking lots surrounding the Art Studio south of Airport Avenue and the Barker Hanger north
of Airport Avenue would be better utilized if they were redesigned to more efficiently
accommodate vehicles. The following parking lots were considered for redesign with landscaping
improvements.
The Barker Hanger/Santa Monica Air Center Parking Lot – Located directly adjacent to
the west of the Barker hanger, this 56,810 sf lot is ideal to be restriped to fully utilize the
existing lot. The proposed redesign adds 20 spaces and 5,657 sf of green landscaping.
Art Studio Parking Lot – Along three sides of the Santa Monica Art Studio Building there
is room available for 8 feet wide parking stalls. This redesign efficiently adds 36 spaces to
the existing striping. The lot is approximately 36,800 sf, and the redesign adds over 3,000
sf of landscaping.
Ruskin Groups Theathre Co Parking Area – There is space available outside the Ruskin
Groups Theathre that would benefit from parking lot restriping. This would add 51 spaces
to the existing 30,620 sf lot. Furthermore the redesign would add over 3,000 sf of
greening and landscaping.
Table 2.21 below summarizes the number of off-street parking spaces that would result after
restriping of these parking lots. Table 2.22 is the Evaluation Matrix for the parking lot alternatives.
Figures 2.23 and 2.24 conceptually illustrate new layouts for these parking facilities.
52
2.21
Parking Lot Space Tally (changes italicized)
Lot # Reconfigured Parking Lot Existing # of
Parking Spaces
# of Parking Spaces
with Restriping
1 Car Lot – Storage of cars for local auto
dealer ship
60 60
2 Small business center 43 43
3 Spitfire Grill and office parking 16 16
4 Open space park and dog park 60 60
5 General Aviation facility parking 59 59
6 General Parking behind spitfire grill 117 117
7 Museum of Flying 17 17
8 3050 Airport Avenue 131 131
9 Santa Monica Air Center 16 16
10 Barker Hanger/San ta Monica Air Center
parking
120 1 40
11 Art Studios parking 79 115
12 Ruskin Group Theatre Co 29 8 0
13 On Sidewalk of Justice Aviation 12 12
14 West of Building 45 45
15 Action Air Express 26 26
15 Airport Arts Campus 102 102
16 Krueger Aviation 25 25
17 Western Arts Campus Lot 85 85
Total Total Number of Spaces 1,042 1,149
53
2.22 Parking Lot Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
:
Le
a
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
s
i
s
OP
T
I
O
N
1 :
Re
p
a
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
p
e
Lo
t
s
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life
2 Increase community open space
3 Improve accessibility and reduce
traffic impacts
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -aviation
lands
7 Include green building practices and
sustainability initiatives
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 People -oriented rather than car -
oriented
9 Local scale rather than city or regional
scale
10 Integration with the context rather than
introverted and standalone
11 Incremental actions rather than large
unitary projects
12 Flexible and adaptable rather than
inflexible and uncompromising
13 Energy -efficient rather than resource
consuming
14 Financial sustainability rather than
subsidy -dependent
= supports the guiding principle = does not support the guiding principle =
neutral / not applicable
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
2
3
:
B
a
r
k
e
r
H
a
n
g
e
r
/
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
R
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
2
4
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
r
t
S
t
u
d
i
o
a
n
d
R
u
s
k
i
n
G
r
o
u
p
s
T
h
e
a
t
r
e
C
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
R
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
56
Recommendations: Access
This section summarizes the recommendations of the IBI Group-lead planning team regarding
access to, from, and within the Santa Monica Municipal Airport. Access is an important
component for the Santa Monica Airport to operate effectively as a shared community space.
Vehicle, transit, pedestrian and bicycle elements are all developed for further consideration by
City staff.
Vehicle
No access changes or improvements are recommended for the intersection at Airport Avenue
and Bundy Drive.
At the intersection of Airport Avenue and 23 rd Street/Walgrove Avenue it is recommended that the
restricted left turn design concept shown in Figure 2.25 be implemented. This improvement
concept does prohibit vehicles from making the westbound left turn movement from Airport
Avenue to Walgrove Avenue, but the safety improvements and discouragement for regional traffic
to use Airport Avenue as a cut through route outweigh the potential local traffic impacts. A
conceptual-level cost estimate for a raised median, sidewalk improvements and curb ramps is
provided in Appendix A . An estimated total cost for this recommendation is about $142,000.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
2
5
:
N
o
L
e
f
t
T
u
r
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
58
2.26
Public Transit
Recommendations for improving Public Transit to the Santa Monica Airport include increasing
connectivity between the airport and the planned Expo line station at Bundy Drive. Increasing the
service frequency for Big Blue Bus Route 14 between the Bundy Station and the airport would
help to better integrate Santa Monica Airport activity centers with the city and the regional
transportation network.
It is also recommended that as uses at the airport evolve in the future the Sunset Ride service
should be improved to include weekend service from Central Santa Monica to the airport and
Santa Monica College Bundy Campus. Additional service on weekends could be subsidized by
Consideration should be given to improving pedestrian connections between the transit stop on
the Santa Monica College Bundy Campus and the airport property. This connection could be
facilitated through the creation of a passage through the existing block wall separating the two
properties. A list of pros and cons of this transit recommendation is provided in Table 2.26
below.
Recommendations of Public Transit Connection at Santa Monica College Bundy Campus Pros and
Cons
Pros Cons
Encourages transit and pedestrian access from
Airport Avenue and SMCC
Requires wall removal and installation of
pedestrian crosswalk
Increases usage of local bus routes Spill over parking from college onto the Airport
property
Allows students to easily use Airport Avenue
restaurants, sports fields and facilities
May effect bus capacity , scheduling and
neighborhood residents concerns
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Airport Avenue is envisioned as a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly corridor, with a shifting
allocation of the street space over time from vehicular to multi-modal. Regular and consistent
sidewalks should be introduced wherever possible, with street trees. Planting zones along the
sidewalks can also act as bioswales, filtering and processing storm-water and runoff from the
59
Airport. Safety features for pedestrians should be included, from new curb ramps and
crosswalks, to enhanced signage. Likewise bicyclists would benefit from enhanced signage and
over time, an increased allocation of the street space. Additional amenities should be added over
time, such as benches, bike racks, and lighting; directional signage is particularly important at the
two ends of the corridor. Cost estimates of these amenities are provided in the Appendix. Shared
spaces between vehicles and pedestrians can be designed with vehicular-grade permeable
pavers so that they can be used for outdoor events and have a friendlier feel. In later phases, the
street can be raised to incorporate additional flexible outdoor event space.
Figures 2.27 through 2.4 6 describe the proposed bicycle and pedestrian enhancements along
Airport Avenue.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
2
7
:
A
r
e
a
1
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
*(
1
(
5
$
/
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
Ph
a
s
e
1
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
(
Q
K
D
Q
F
H
H
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
V
W
U
H
H
W
F
U
R
V
V
L
Q
J
ZL
W
K
D
I
W
&
R
Q
W
L
Q
H
Q
W
D
O
F
U
R
V
V
Z
D
O
N
DQ
G
I
X
O
O
V
W
R
S
F
R
Q
W
U
R
O
$
G
G
G
L
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
D
W
H
Q
W
U
D
Q
F
H
GH
V
F
U
L
E
L
Q
J
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
X
V
H
V
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
$L
U
S
R
U
W
F
D
P
S
X
V
5
H
S
O
D
F
H
F
K
D
L
Q
O
L
Q
N
I
H
Q
F
H
W
K
D
W
J
R
H
V
DF
U
R
V
V
V
W
U
H
H
W
I
R
U
V
H
F
X
U
L
W
\
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
V
ZL
W
K
D
P
R
U
H
D
H
V
W
K
H
W
L
F
D
O
O
\
S
O
H
D
V
L
Q
J
IH
Q
F
H
Z
L
W
K
R
S
H
Q
L
Q
J
V
I
R
U
E
L
F
\
F
O
L
V
W
V
DQ
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
V
Z
K
H
U
H
IH
D
V
L
E
O
H
5
H
P
R
Y
H
V
W
U
H
H
W
W
U
H
H
V
W
K
D
W
F
D
X
V
H
KD
]
D
U
G
V
I
R
U
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
&
U
H
D
W
H
PX
O
F
K
U
H
X
V
D
E
O
H
R
Q
V
L
W
H
R
U
J
L
Y
H
Q
W
R
FR
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
3
O
D
Q
W
Q
H
Z
V
W
U
H
H
W
W
U
H
H
V
D
V
O
L
Y
L
Q
J
DL
U
¿
O
W
H
U
V
D
Q
G
Q
R
L
V
H
D
E
D
W
H
P
H
Q
W
)L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7
U
H
H
V
U
H
F
RP
P
H
Q
G
H
G
P
X
V
W
E
H
O
L
P
E
H
G
X
S
8V
H
I
W
[
I
W
W
U
H
H
Z
H
O
O
V
P
L
Q
Z
L
W
K
XQ
G
H
U
V
W
R
U
\
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
L
Q
E
L
R
V
Z
D
O
H
V
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
V
D
I
H
W
\
I
H
D
W
X
U
H
V
D
Q
G
DP
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
I
R
U
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
H
J
S
H
GH
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
O
L
J
K
W
V
W
U
D
V
K
F
D
Q
V
HW
F
5
H
S
D
Y
H
F
U
D
F
N
L
Q
J
D
V
S
K
D
O
W
X
V
L
Q
J
UH
F
\
F
O
H
G
D
V
S
K
D
O
W
R
U
U
H
F
O
D
L
P
H
G
DV
S
K
D
O
W
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
0
D
L
Q
W
D
L
Q
¶
U
L
J
K
W
R
I
Z
D
\
VI
S
I
O
N
&
U
H
D
W
H
D
V
W
U
R
Q
J
O
H
J
L
E
O
H
D
Q
G
V
D
I
H
HQ
W
U
\
W
R
W
K
H
$
L
U
S
R
U
W
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
6
K
L
I
W
P
R
G
D
O
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
V
W
U
H
H
W
VS
D
F
H
W
R
S
U
L
R
U
L
W
L
]
H
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
D
Q
G
EL
F
\
F
O
L
V
W
V
.(
<
0
$
3
23RD STREET
BU
N
D
Y
D
R
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
2
8
:
A
r
e
a
1
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
,Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
I
W
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
Z
L
W
K
O
R
Z
UH
W
D
L
Q
L
Q
J
Z
D
O
O
K
H
L
J
K
W
Y
D
U
L
H
V
D
O
R
Q
J
HP
E
D
Q
N
P
H
Q
W
$G
G
Z
H
O
F
R
P
H
D
Q
G
G
L
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q
D
O
VL
J
Q
D
J
H
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
)
L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7U
H
H
V
5H
O
R
F
D
W
H
W
K
H
F
K
D
L
Q
O
L
Q
N
I
H
Q
F
H
W
R
WK
H
W
R
S
R
I
W
K
H
H
P
E
D
Q
N
P
H
Q
W
Z
K
H
U
H
IH
D
V
L
E
O
H
3O
D
Q
W
W
K
H
H
P
E
D
Q
N
P
H
Q
W
Z
L
W
K
J
U
R
X
Q
G
FR
Y
H
U
U
H
P
R
Y
H
F
R
Q
F
U
H
W
H
W
R
F
D
S
W
X
U
H
UX
Q
R
I
I
I
U
R
P
U
X
Q
Z
D
\
D
Q
G
P
D
N
H
L
W
P
R
U
H
FR
P
I
R
U
W
D
E
O
H
I
R
U
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
2
U
WH
U
U
D
F
H
G
Z
D
O
O
$U
W
R
S
S
R
U
W
X
Q
L
W
\
D
O
R
Q
J
U
H
W
D
L
Q
L
Q
J
Z
D
O
O
ZK
H
U
H
I
H
D
V
L
E
O
H
&
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
V
W
H
Q
F
L
O
SU
R
M
H
F
W
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
5H
P
R
Y
H
D
Q
G
U
H
S
O
D
F
H
R
Y
H
U
J
U
R
Z
Q
OD
Q
G
V
F
D
S
H
$G
G
Q
H
Z
I
H
Q
F
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
,Q
F
R
U
S
R
U
D
W
H
D
W
Z
R
Z
D
\
U
D
L
V
H
G
F
\
F
O
H
WU
D
F
N
Z
L
W
K
U
R
O
O
H
G
F
X
U
E
V
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
VW
U
H
H
W
D
Q
G
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
H
G
J
H
V
3X
V
K
E
D
F
N
I
X
U
W
K
H
U
L
Q
W
R
W
K
H
HP
E
D
Q
N
P
H
Q
W
W
R
J
H
W
Q
H
F
H
V
V
D
U
\
UR
R
P
I
R
U
F
\
F
O
H
W
U
D
F
N
$G
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
R
U
L
H
Q
W
H
G
O
L
J
K
W
L
Q
J
VL
J
Q
D
J
H
D
P
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6H
H
3
K
D
V
H
$O
W
H
U
Q
D
W
L
Y
H
O
\
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
U
H
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
PD
\
E
H
F
R
Q
V
L
G
H
U
H
G
V
R
W
K
D
W
D
VR
X
W
K
V
L
G
H
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
F
D
Q
E
H
DF
F
R
P
P
R
G
D
W
H
G
L
Q
W
K
L
V
V
H
J
P
H
Q
W
1
1
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
5 3
3
7
7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 4
4 4 4 4
no
t
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
no
t
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
23RD STREET
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
BUNDY DR
¶¶¶
¶
¶
¶
¶¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
2
9
:
A
r
e
a
1
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
&R
Q
W
L
Q
X
H
W
R
D
G
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
D
P
H
QL
W
L
H
V
V
X
F
K
D
V
E
H
Q
F
K
H
V
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
DQ
G
O
L
J
K
W
L
Q
J
$G
G
H
G
X
F
D
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
D
W
W
U
H
H
ZH
O
O
V
D
Q
G
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
D
U
H
D
V
D
E
R
X
W
VX
V
W
D
L
Q
D
E
L
O
L
W
\
H
J
D
L
U
¿
O
W
U
D
W
L
R
Q
ZD
W
H
U
W
U
H
D
W
P
H
Q
W
L
Q
E
L
R
V
Z
D
O
H
V
Q
D
WL
Y
H
S
O
D
Q
W
V
F
D
O
R
U
L
H
V
E
X
U
Q
H
G
D
U
R
X
Q
G
F\
F
O
H
W
U
D
F
N
H
Q
H
U
J
\
X
V
H
D
Q
G
R
W
K
H
U
ID
F
W
V
$G
G
H
G
X
F
D
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
U
H
J
D
U
G
LQ
J
W
K
H
$
L
U
S
R
U
W
D
Q
G
L
W
V
V
X
V
W
D
L
Q
D
E
O
H
FR
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
V
H
U
Y
L
Q
J
X
V
H
V
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
H
[
F
H
S
W
LQ
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
8Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
F
X
U
U
H
Q
W
O
\
DW
W
K
H
W
R
S
R
U
E
R
W
W
R
P
R
I
W
K
H
HP
E
D
Q
N
P
H
Q
W
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
5H
P
R
Y
H
P
H
D
Q
G
H
U
L
Q
J
S
D
W
K
V
D
Q
G
LQ
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
O
H
J
L
E
O
H
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
S
D
W
K
V
Z
K
H
U
H
I
H
D
V
L
E
O
H
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
)
L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7U
H
H
V
7
K
L
Q
N
D
E
R
X
W
W
K
H
V
K
D
G
H
FD
Q
R
S
\
R
Y
H
U
V
W
U
H
H
W
5H
P
R
Y
H
D
Q
G
U
H
S
O
D
F
H
R
Y
H
U
J
U
R
Z
Q
OD
Q
G
V
F
D
S
H
$G
G
Q
H
Z
I
H
Q
F
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
1
A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
B C
3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4
4 4 4
no
t
d e p ic
t
e
d
no
t
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
n o t
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
¶
¶
¶
¶¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
0
:
A
r
e
a
1
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
3+
$
6
(
7
<
3
,
&
$
/
6
7
5
(
(
7
3
/
$
1
9
,
(
:
3+
$
6
(
7
<
3
,
&
$
/
6
7
5
(
(
7
3
/
$
1
9
,
(
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
1
:
A
r
e
a
2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
S
p
a
c
e
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
*(
1
(
5
$
/
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
Ph
a
s
e
1
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$
G
G
D
Q
H
Z
V
W
U
H
H
W
F
U
R
V
V
L
Q
J
Z
L
W
K
I
W
&R
Q
W
L
Q
H
Q
W
D
O
F
U
R
V
V
Z
D
O
N
V
D
Q
G
I
X
O
O
V
W
R
S
FR
Q
W
U
R
O
V
)
L
[
W
K
H
P
L
V
V
L
Q
J
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
FU
R
V
V
L
Q
J
D
W
H
D
V
W
V
L
G
H
R
I
6
0
&
EX
L
O
G
L
Q
J
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
V
R
Q
E
R
W
K
VL
G
H
V
R
I
W
K
H
V
W
U
H
H
W
7
D
N
H
D
G
Y
D
Q
W
D
J
H
R
I
W
K
H
W
U
L
D
Q
J
O
H
S
D
U
F
H
O
RQ
W
K
H
V
R
X
W
K
V
L
G
H
Z
K
L
F
K
L
V
F
X
U
U
H
Q
W
O
\
XQ
G
H
U
X
W
L
O
L
]
H
G
5
H
D
S
S
U
R
S
U
L
D
W
H
W
K
L
V
D
V
µE
H
L
Q
J
V
S
D
F
H
¶
I
R
U
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
R
U
L
H
Q
W
H
G
XV
H
V
D
Q
G
I
X
Q
F
W
L
R
Q
V
5
H
P
R
Y
H
V
W
U
H
H
W
W
U
H
H
V
W
K
D
W
F
D
X
V
H
KD
]
D
U
G
V
I
R
U
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
&
U
H
D
W
H
PX
O
F
K
U
H
X
V
D
E
O
H
R
Q
V
L
W
H
R
U
J
L
Y
H
Q
W
R
FR
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
3
O
D
Q
W
Q
H
Z
V
W
U
H
H
W
W
U
H
H
V
D
V
O
L
Y
L
Q
J
DL
U
¿
O
W
H
U
V
D
Q
G
Q
R
L
V
H
D
E
D
W
H
P
H
Q
W
)L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7
U
H
H
V
P
X
V
W
EH
O
L
P
E
H
G
X
S
8
V
H
I
W
[
I
W
WU
H
H
Z
H
O
O
V
P
L
Q
Z
L
W
K
X
Q
G
H
U
V
W
R
U
\
SO
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
L
Q
E
L
R
V
Z
D
O
H
V
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
V
D
I
H
W
\
I
H
D
W
X
U
H
V
D
Q
G
DP
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
I
R
U
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
H
J
SH
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
O
L
J
K
W
V
W
U
D
V
K
FD
Q
V
H
W
F
5
H
S
D
Y
H
F
U
D
F
N
L
Q
J
D
V
S
K
D
O
W
X
V
L
Q
J
UH
F
\
F
O
H
G
D
V
S
K
D
O
W
R
U
U
H
F
O
D
L
P
H
G
DV
S
K
D
O
W
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
8
Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
0
D
L
Q
W
D
L
Q
¶
5
2
:
Ph
a
s
e
2
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$
G
G
E
L
N
H
U
D
F
N
V
L
P
P
H
G
L
D
W
H
O
\
DG
M
D
F
H
Q
W
W
R
E
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
H
Q
W
U
D
Q
F
H
V
ZK
H
U
H
Y
H
U
S
R
V
V
L
E
O
H
$
G
G
E
H
Q
F
K
H
V
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
E
D
F
N
R
I
W
K
H
VL
G
H
Z
D
O
N
H
Y
H
U
\
I
H
H
W
VI
S
I
O
N
5
H
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
X
Q
G
H
U
X
W
L
O
L
]
H
G
V
S
D
F
H
I
R
U
FR
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
D
F
W
L
Y
L
W
\
3
U
R
Y
L
G
H
P
X
O
W
L
P
R
G
D
O
D
P
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
I
R
U
YL
V
L
W
R
U
V
6
K
L
I
W
P
R
G
D
O
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
V
W
U
H
H
W
VS
D
F
H
W
R
S
U
L
R
U
L
W
L
]
H
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
D
Q
G
EL
F
\
F
O
L
V
W
V
.(
<
0
$
3
.(
<
0
$
3
23RD STREET
BU
N
D
Y
D
R
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
2
:
A
r
e
a
2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
S
p
a
c
e
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
H[
F
H
S
W
5H
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
D
S
R
U
W
L
R
Q
R
I
W
K
H
WU
L
D
Q
J
O
H
S
D
U
F
H
O
Q
R
Z
X
V
H
G
I
R
U
SD
U
N
L
Q
J
I
R
U
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
X
V
H
$
O
O
R
Z
FR
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
S
D
U
W
L
F
L
S
D
W
L
R
Q
L
Q
G
H
V
L
J
Q
DQ
G
L
G
H
Q
W
L
¿
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
X
V
H
2
S
W
L
R
Q
V
FR
X
O
G
L
Q
F
O
X
G
H
³
3
O
D
Q
H
3
O
D
\
J
U
R
X
Q
G
´
G
H
S
L
F
W
H
G
6
K
L
S
S
L
Q
J
&
R
Q
W
D
L
Q
H
U
V
W
R
K
R
X
V
H
YD
U
L
R
X
V
X
V
H
V
&
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
V
D
Q
G
JU
H
H
Q
L
Q
J
&
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
R
X
W
G
R
R
U
F
O
D
V
V
U
R
R
P
ZL
W
K
V
K
D
G
H
V
W
U
X
F
W
X
U
H
(
[
H
U
F
L
V
H
V
W
D
W
L
R
Q
V
R
U
D
F
W
L
Y
H
SD
U
N
$
U
W
S
D
U
N
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
)L
[
E
U
R
N
H
Q
G
L
V
F
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
R
X
V
D
Q
G
IU
D
J
P
H
Q
W
H
G
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
V
Z
L
W
K
Q
H
Z
VL
G
H
Z
D
O
N
S
D
Y
H
U
V
&
R
Y
H
U
G
L
U
W
D
U
H
D
V
DQ
G
L
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
SH
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
U
L
J
K
W
R
I
Z
D
\
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
)
L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7U
H
H
V
$G
G
S
H
U
P
H
D
E
O
H
S
D
Y
L
Q
J
W
R
W
K
H
S
D
U
N
L
Q
J
ED
\
V
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
W
K
H
O
R
W
R
Q
W
K
H
V
R
X
W
K
V
L
G
H
RI
W
K
H
V
W
U
H
H
W
D
Q
G
J
U
H
H
Q
W
K
H
S
D
U
N
L
Q
J
OR
W
Z
L
W
K
V
K
D
G
H
W
U
H
H
V
D
Q
G
E
L
R
V
Z
D
O
H
V
$G
G
P
L
V
V
L
Q
J
F
X
U
E
U
D
P
S
V
W
R
W
D
O
PL
V
V
L
Q
J
8Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
1
1
A
A
5 3
3
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 no
t
d e p ic
t
e
d
no
t
d e p ic
t
e
d
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
3
:
A
r
e
a
2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
S
p
a
c
e
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
¶
¶
¶
¶¶¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
4
:
A
r
e
a
2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
S
p
a
c
e
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
,Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
I
W
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
)
L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7U
H
H
V
L
Q
E
L
R
V
Z
D
O
H
V
3U
R
Y
L
G
H
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
D
P
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
UH
J
X
O
D
U
O
\
5H
S
D
Y
H
W
K
H
V
H
W
E
D
F
N
D
U
H
D
E
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
ID
F
H
W
R
E
D
F
N
R
I
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
Z
L
W
K
YH
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
J
U
D
G
H
S
H
U
P
H
D
E
O
H
S
D
Y
H
U
V
IR
U
À
H
[
L
E
O
H
X
V
H
6H
S
D
U
D
W
H
W
K
H
V
H
W
E
D
F
N
D
U
H
D
I
U
R
P
W
K
H
VL
G
H
Z
D
O
N
F
O
H
D
U
O
\
I
R
U
V
D
I
H
W
\
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
YH
U
W
L
F
D
O
V
H
S
D
U
D
W
L
R
Q
V
X
F
K
D
V
E
R
O
O
D
U
G
V
RU
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
R
U
Z
L
W
K
D
F
K
D
Q
J
H
L
Q
SD
Y
L
Q
J
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
)L
[
E
U
R
N
H
Q
G
L
V
F
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
R
X
V
D
Q
G
IU
D
J
P
H
Q
W
H
G
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
V
Z
L
W
K
Q
H
Z
VL
G
H
Z
D
O
N
S
D
Y
H
U
V
&
R
Y
H
U
G
L
U
W
D
U
H
D
V
DQ
G
L
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
SH
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
U
L
J
K
W
R
I
Z
D
\
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
)
L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7U
H
H
V
L
Q
E
L
R
V
Z
D
O
H
V
$G
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
D
P
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5
5
3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6
6
4
4
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
.(
<
0
$
3
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
5
:
A
r
e
a
3
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
S
p
a
c
e
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
*(
1
(
5
$
/
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
Ph
a
s
e
1
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
D
Q
H
Z
F
U
R
V
V
L
Q
J
I
R
U
SH
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
D
W
D
G
M
D
F
H
Q
W
W
R
%
D
U
N
H
U
+D
Q
J
H
U
3
D
Y
H
V
K
D
U
H
G
X
V
H
D
U
H
D
V
Y
H
K
L
F
O
H
V
DQ
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
Z
L
W
K
Y
H
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
JU
D
G
H
S
D
Y
H
U
V
W
R
D
F
F
R
P
P
R
G
D
W
H
RX
W
G
R
R
U
S
U
R
J
U
D
P
P
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
H
Y
H
Q
W
V
ÀH
[
L
E
O
H
V
S
D
F
H
5
H
P
R
Y
H
V
W
U
H
H
W
W
U
H
H
V
W
K
D
W
F
D
X
V
H
KD
]
D
U
G
V
I
R
U
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
&
U
H
D
W
H
PX
O
F
K
U
H
X
V
D
E
O
H
R
Q
V
L
W
H
R
U
J
L
Y
H
Q
W
R
FR
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
3
O
D
Q
W
Q
H
Z
V
W
U
H
H
W
W
U
H
H
V
D
V
O
L
Y
L
Q
J
D
L
U
¿O
W
H
U
V
D
Q
G
Q
R
L
V
H
D
E
D
W
H
P
H
Q
W
&
D
Q
R
S
\
7U
H
H
V
S
U
H
I
H
U
U
H
G
8
V
H
I
W
[
I
W
W
U
H
H
ZH
O
O
V
P
L
Q
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
V
D
I
H
W
\
I
H
D
W
X
U
H
V
D
Q
G
DP
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
I
R
U
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
H
J
SH
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
O
L
J
K
W
V
W
U
D
V
K
F
D
Q
V
HW
F
5
H
S
D
Y
H
F
U
D
F
N
L
Q
J
D
V
S
K
D
O
W
X
V
L
Q
J
UH
F
\
F
O
H
G
D
V
S
K
D
O
W
R
U
U
H
F
O
D
L
P
H
G
DV
S
K
D
O
W
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
8
Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
0
D
L
Q
W
D
L
Q
¶
5
2
:
Ph
a
s
e
2
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
D
³
U
D
L
V
H
G
W
D
E
O
H
´
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
H
J
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
À
X
V
K
Z
L
W
K
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
ZL
W
K
U
H
W
U
D
F
W
D
E
O
H
E
R
O
O
D
U
G
V
R
U
WH
P
S
R
U
D
U
\
Y
H
U
W
L
F
D
O
E
D
U
U
L
H
U
V
D
W
E
R
W
K
HQ
G
V
W
R
F
R
U
G
R
Q
R
I
I
W
K
H
D
U
H
D
I
R
U
RX
W
G
R
R
U
D
F
W
L
Y
L
W
L
H
V
5
H
S
D
Y
H
W
K
H
³
U
D
L
V
H
G
W
D
E
O
H
´
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
ZL
W
K
Y
H
K
L
F
X
O
D
U
J
U
D
G
H
P
R
G
X
O
D
U
SD
Y
H
U
V
H
J
6
W
H
S
V
W
R
Q
H
¶
[
¶
6W
U
L
Q
J
O
L
J
K
W
V
D
F
U
R
V
V
W
K
H
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
W
R
UH
L
Q
I
R
U
F
H
W
K
H
T
X
D
O
L
W
\
R
I
W
K
H
V
S
D
F
H
DV
D
Q
R
X
W
G
R
R
U
U
R
R
P
D
W
V
X
I
¿
F
L
H
Q
W
KH
L
J
K
W
W
R
D
O
O
R
Z
W
U
X
F
N
V
W
R
S
D
V
V
XQ
G
H
U
Q
H
D
W
K
$
G
G
E
L
N
H
U
D
F
N
V
L
P
P
H
G
L
D
W
H
O
\
DG
M
D
F
H
Q
W
W
R
E
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
H
Q
W
U
D
Q
F
H
V
ZK
H
U
H
Y
H
U
S
R
V
V
L
E
O
H
VI
S
I
O
N
&
U
H
D
W
H
D
À
H
[
L
E
O
H
H
Q
Y
L
U
R
Q
P
H
Q
W
I
R
U
RX
W
G
R
R
U
S
U
R
J
U
D
P
P
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
H
Y
H
Q
W
V
OL
Q
N
L
Q
J
L
Q
G
R
R
U
D
Q
G
R
X
W
G
R
R
U
3
U
R
Y
L
G
H
P
X
O
W
L
P
R
G
D
O
D
P
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
I
R
U
YL
V
L
W
R
U
V
6
K
L
I
W
P
R
G
D
O
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
V
W
U
H
H
W
VS
D
F
H
W
R
S
U
L
R
U
L
W
L
]
H
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
D
Q
G
EL
F
\
F
O
L
V
W
V
.(
<
0
$
3
23RD STREET
BU
N
D
Y
D
R
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
6
:
A
r
e
a
3
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
S
p
a
c
e
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
H
[
F
H
S
W
LQ
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
8Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
)L
[
E
U
R
N
H
Q
G
L
V
F
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
R
X
V
D
Q
G
I
U
D
J
PH
Q
W
H
G
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
V
Z
L
W
K
Q
H
Z
V
L
G
H
ZD
O
N
S
D
Y
H
U
V
5
H
P
R
Y
H
D
V
S
K
D
O
W
L
Q
W
K
H
SH
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
]
R
Q
H
,
Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
DO
R
Q
J
W
K
H
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
U
L
J
K
W
R
I
Z
D
\
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
)
L
Q
H
1
H
H
G
O
H
&
R
Q
L
I
H
U
7U
H
H
V
6H
S
D
U
D
W
H
V
H
W
E
D
F
N
V
D
U
H
D
I
U
R
P
W
K
H
VL
G
H
Z
D
O
N
F
O
H
D
U
O
\
I
R
U
V
D
I
H
W
\
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
YH
U
W
L
F
D
O
V
H
S
D
U
D
W
L
R
Q
V
X
F
K
D
V
E
R
O
O
D
U
G
V
RU
S
O
D
Q
W
L
Q
J
R
U
Z
L
W
K
D
F
K
D
Q
J
H
L
Q
SD
Y
L
Q
J
$G
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
D
P
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
8Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
1 5 6
5
3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4
4 4
no
t
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
no
t
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
7
:
A
r
e
a
3
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
S
p
a
c
e
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
7
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
Be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
u
r
b
s
,Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
D
³
U
D
L
V
H
G
W
D
E
O
H
´
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
H
J
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
À
X
V
K
Z
L
W
K
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
ZL
W
K
U
H
W
U
D
F
W
D
E
O
H
E
R
O
O
D
U
G
V
R
U
Y
H
U
W
L
F
D
O
WH
P
S
R
U
D
U
\
E
D
U
U
L
H
U
V
D
W
E
R
W
K
H
Q
G
V
WR
F
R
U
G
R
Q
R
I
I
W
K
H
D
U
H
D
I
R
U
R
X
W
G
R
R
U
DF
W
L
Y
L
W
L
H
V
$O
W
H
U
Q
D
W
L
Y
H
O
\
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
S
D
L
Q
W
L
Q
J
FD
Q
E
H
X
V
H
G
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
W
K
H
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
W
R
GH
P
D
U
F
D
W
H
W
K
H
V
K
D
U
H
G
V
S
D
F
H
6
H
H
SU
H
F
H
G
H
Q
W
L
P
D
J
H
V
D
W
W
K
H
H
Q
G
R
I
WK
L
V
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
6W
U
L
Q
J
O
L
J
K
W
V
D
F
U
R
V
V
W
K
H
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
W
R
UH
L
Q
I
R
U
F
H
W
K
H
T
X
D
O
L
W
\
R
I
W
K
H
V
S
D
F
H
DV
D
Q
R
X
W
G
R
R
U
U
R
R
P
D
W
V
X
I
¿
F
L
H
Q
W
KH
L
J
K
W
W
R
D
O
O
R
Z
W
U
X
F
N
V
W
R
S
D
V
V
XQ
G
H
U
Q
H
D
W
K
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
H
[
F
H
S
W
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
O
\
V
S
D
F
H
G
V
K
D
G
H
W
U
H
H
V
8Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
H
[
F
H
S
W
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
O
\
V
S
D
F
H
G
V
K
D
G
H
W
U
H
H
V
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A
A
B C
C C C C C C C C C
3 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
no
t
d e p ic
t
e
d
n o t
d e p ic
t
e
d
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
8
:
A
r
e
a
3
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
S
p
a
c
e
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
8
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
Be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
u
r
b
s
,Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
D
³
U
D
L
V
H
G
W
D
E
O
H
´
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
H
J
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
À
X
V
K
Z
L
W
K
V
L
G
H
Z
D
O
N
ZL
W
K
U
H
W
U
D
F
W
D
E
O
H
E
R
O
O
D
U
G
V
R
U
Y
H
U
W
L
F
D
O
WH
P
S
R
U
D
U
\
E
D
U
U
L
H
U
V
D
W
E
R
W
K
H
Q
G
V
WR
F
R
U
G
R
Q
R
I
I
W
K
H
D
U
H
D
I
R
U
R
X
W
G
R
R
U
DF
W
L
Y
L
W
L
H
V
$O
W
H
U
Q
D
W
L
Y
H
O
\
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
S
D
L
Q
W
L
Q
J
FD
Q
E
H
X
V
H
G
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
W
K
H
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
W
R
GH
P
D
U
F
D
W
H
W
K
H
V
K
D
U
H
G
V
S
D
F
H
6
H
H
SU
H
F
H
G
H
Q
W
L
P
D
J
H
V
D
W
W
K
H
H
Q
G
R
I
WK
L
V
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
6D
P
H
D
V
6
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
K
D
V
H
H
[
F
H
S
W
3O
D
Q
W
U
H
J
X
O
D
U
O
\
V
S
D
F
H
G
V
K
D
G
H
W
U
H
H
V
$G
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
R
U
L
H
Q
W
H
G
G
L
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q
D
O
VL
J
Q
D
J
H
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
$G
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
R
U
L
H
Q
W
H
G
G
L
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q
D
O
VL
J
Q
D
J
H
&R
Q
W
L
Q
X
H
W
R
D
G
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
DP
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
V
X
F
K
D
V
O
L
J
K
W
L
Q
J
E
H
Q
F
K
H
V
WU
D
V
K
F
D
Q
V
H
W
F
8Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A
A
B
5 3
3
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4
4
n ot
d e p ic
t
e
d
n o t
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
3
9
:
A
r
e
a
4
A
c
t
i
v
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
*(
1
(
5
$
/
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
Ph
a
s
e
1
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$
G
G
G
L
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
D
W
H
Q
W
U
D
Q
F
H
GH
V
F
U
L
E
L
Q
J
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
X
V
H
V
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
$L
U
S
R
U
W
F
D
P
S
X
V
%
H
W
W
H
U
O
L
Q
N
W
R
W
K
H
Q
H
L
J
K
E
R
U
K
R
R
G
W
R
WK
H
V
R
X
W
K
3
U
R
Y
L
G
H
D
Q
H
Z
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
DQ
G
E
L
N
H
R
Q
O
\
H
Q
W
U
D
Q
F
H
D
W
6
W
H
Z
D
U
W
6W
U
H
H
W
(
Q
K
D
Q
F
H
H
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
V
W
U
H
H
W
F
U
R
V
V
L
Q
J
V
DQ
G
P
D
U
N
L
Q
J
V
D
V
Q
H
F
H
V
V
D
U
\
Z
L
W
K
¶
&R
Q
W
L
Q
H
Q
W
D
O
F
U
R
V
V
Z
D
O
N
V
8
Q
G
H
U
J
U
R
X
Q
G
W
K
H
X
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
0
D
L
Q
W
D
L
Q
¶
5
2
:
Ph
a
s
e
2
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
(
[
S
D
Q
G
W
K
H
R
S
H
Q
V
S
D
F
H
D
U
H
D
V
S
D
U
N
OD
Q
G
D
U
H
D
V
I
R
U
D
F
W
L
Y
H
D
Q
G
S
D
V
V
L
Y
H
UH
F
U
H
D
W
L
R
Q
VI
S
I
O
N
(
[
W
H
Q
G
3
D
U
N
V
S
D
F
H
D
Q
G
D
P
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
IR
U
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
X
V
H
U
V
&
U
H
D
W
H
D
V
W
U
R
Q
J
O
H
J
L
E
O
H
D
Q
G
V
D
I
H
HQ
W
U
\
W
R
W
K
H
$
L
U
S
R
U
W
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
HQ
F
R
X
U
D
J
L
Q
J
D
F
W
L
Y
H
U
H
F
U
H
D
W
L
R
Q
D
Q
G
FR
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
D
F
F
H
V
V
6
K
L
I
W
P
R
G
D
O
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
V
W
U
H
H
W
VS
D
F
H
W
R
S
U
L
R
U
L
W
L
]
H
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
V
D
Q
G
EL
F
\
F
O
L
V
W
V
.(
<
0
$
3
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
N
E
W
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
AN
D
B
I
K
E
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
T
O
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
,
A
T
E
N
D
O
F
ST
E
W
A
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
23RD STREET
BU
N
D
Y
D
R
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
0
:
A
r
e
a
4
A
c
t
i
v
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
:
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
9
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
$G
G
F
\
F
O
H
W
U
D
F
N
D
Q
G
R
U
U
X
Q
Q
L
Q
J
W
U
D
F
N
DU
R
X
Q
G
H
G
J
H
R
I
S
D
U
N
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
$G
G
E
H
Q
F
K
H
V
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
E
D
F
N
R
I
W
K
H
VL
G
H
Z
D
O
N
H
Y
H
U
\
I
H
H
W
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
&R
Q
V
L
G
H
U
H
[
S
D
Q
G
L
Q
J
R
S
H
Q
V
S
D
F
H
DU
H
D
V
5
H
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
W
L
H
G
R
Z
Q
O
R
W
V
WR
W
K
H
Q
R
U
W
K
R
I
W
K
H
0
X
V
H
X
P
R
I
)O
\
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
R
U
Q
R
U
W
K
R
I
W
K
H
G
R
J
SD
U
N
L
Q
W
R
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
V
H
U
Y
L
Q
J
RX
W
G
R
R
U
U
H
F
U
H
D
W
L
R
Q
H
J
Y
R
O
O
H
\
E
D
O
O
ED
V
N
H
W
E
D
O
O
S
O
D
]
D
J
U
H
H
Q
D
U
H
D
H
W
F
3+
$
6
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
6
Va
r
i
o
u
s
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
ha
v
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
b
e
e
n
m
a
d
e
t
o
t
h
i
s
se
g
m
e
n
t
.
N
e
w
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
c
u
s
on
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
r
a
t
h
e
r
th
e
n
r
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
p
a
c
e
.
No
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
$G
G
E
L
N
H
U
D
F
N
V
D
Q
G
E
L
N
H
X
V
H
U
DP
H
Q
L
W
L
H
V
H
J
E
L
N
H
U
H
S
D
L
U
V
W
D
W
L
R
Q
EL
N
H
V
K
D
U
H
V
W
D
W
L
R
Q
H
W
F
D
U
R
X
Q
G
SD
U
N
D
Q
G
D
O
R
Q
J
V
W
U
H
H
W
V
Q
H
D
U
E
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
HQ
W
U
D
Q
F
H
V
([
W
H
Q
G
H
G
X
F
D
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
UH
J
D
U
G
L
Q
J
W
K
H
D
L
U
S
R
U
W
D
Q
G
L
W
V
VX
V
W
D
L
Q
D
E
O
H
D
Q
G
F
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
V
H
U
Y
L
Q
J
XV
H
V
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
2S
H
Q
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
E
L
N
H
H
Q
W
U
D
Q
F
H
IU
R
P
6
W
H
Z
D
U
W
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
W
R
G
L
U
H
F
W
O
\
FR
Q
Q
H
F
W
W
R
$
L
U
S
R
U
W
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
,Q
W
U
R
G
X
F
H
G
L
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
D
W
W
K
H
6W
H
Z
D
U
W
H
Q
W
U
D
Q
F
H
6
H
H
E
H
O
R
Z
$G
G
E
H
Q
F
K
H
V
D
Q
G
E
L
N
H
U
D
F
N
V
H
Y
H
U
\
I
W
D
O
R
Q
J
$
L
U
S
R
U
W
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
.(
<
0
$
3
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
+
$
6
(
1
A B C
3 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 no
t
d e p ic
t
e
d
no
t
d e p ic
t
e
d
no
t
d e p p ic
t
e
d
n ot
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
n ot
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
n ot
d ep
i
c
t
e
d
23RD STREET
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
V
E
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
St
e
w
a
r
t
¶¶
¶¶
¶¶
¶
¶
¶¶
¶¶
¶
¶
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
1
:
A
r
e
a
A
a
n
d
B
F
u
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
%,
.
(
3
$
7
+
&
2
1
1
(
&
7
6
$
5
2
8
1
'
(
'
*
(
6
2)
$
,
5
3
2
5
7
3
5
2
3
(
5
7
<
$
0
(
$
1
'
(
5
,
1
*
0
8
/
7
,
0
2
'
$
/
3
$
7
+
&/
(
$
5
/
<
0
$
5
.
(
'
$
5
(
$
6
)
2
5
%
,
.
(
6
$1
'
3
(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
6
6
+
$
'
(
'
)
2
5
&2
0
)
2
5
7
$
7
:
2
:
$
<
)
$
&
,
/
,
7
<
GE
N
E
R
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
Fu
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
•
E
x
t
e
n
d
a
t
w
o
-
w
a
y
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
k
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
l
o
o
p
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
e
a
c
h
e
n
d
of
t
h
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
c
a
m
p
u
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
s
to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
o
f
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
o
C
l
o
v
e
r
Pa
r
k
.
•
P
a
t
h
t
o
b
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
at
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
re
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
a
t
e
d
g
e
.
VI
S
I
O
N
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
•
J
o
i
n
t
h
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
c
a
m
p
u
s
w
i
t
h
a
gr
e
e
n
-
l
o
o
p
.
A
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
v
e
l
(
e
.
g
.
a
l
o
n
g
23
r
d
a
n
d
B
r
a
n
d
y
)
KE
Y
M
A
P
23RD S T REE T
BUNDY DR
AI
R
P
O
R
T AVE
CL
O
V
E
R
PA
R
K
Area B
Ar
e
a
A
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
2
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
P
h
a
s
e
1
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
(
1
+
$
1
&
(
0
(
1
7
6
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
3
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
A
l
l
A
r
e
a
s
,
P
h
a
s
e
1
3/
$
1
7
,
1
*
$
6
%
8
)
)
(
5
7
2
6
2
)
7
(
1
ED
G
E
S
62
/
$
5
3
$
1
(
/
6
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
6
+
$
'
(
29
(
5
:
$
/
.
:
$
<
6
$
1
'
3
$
5
.
,
1
*
38
%
/
,
&
$
5
7
$
/
2
1
*
5
(
7
$
,
1
,
1
*
:
$
/
/
6
$
1
'
%
/
$
1
.
)
$
&
$
'
(
6
3/
$
1
7
,
1
*
$
5
(
$
6
7
+
$
7
$
5
(
%
,
2
6
:
$
/
(
6
&
$
3
7
8
5
(
67
2
5
0
:
$
7
(
5
$
1
'
5
8
1
2
)
)
9(
+
,
&
8
/
$
5
*
5
$
'
(
3
$
9
(
5
6
,
1
6
+
$
5
(
'
8
6
(
6
3
$
&
(
6
86
(
$
6
2
8
7
'
2
2
5
(
9
(
1
7
6
3
$
&
(
3(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
$
0
(
1
,
7
,
(
6
6
8
&
+
$
6
%
(
1
&
+
(
6
$
1
'
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
4
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
A
l
l
A
r
e
a
s
,
P
h
a
s
e
1
'(
&
2
5
$
7
,
9
(
$
5
7
,
6
7
,
&
)
(
1
&
,
1
*
5
$
7
+
(
5
7
+
$
1
6
,
0
3
/
(
&
+
$
,
1
/
,
1
.
$
%
2
9
(
/
(
)
7
$
1
'
5
,
*
+
7
&/
(
$
5
:
(
/
/
0
$
5
.
(
'
&
5
2
6
6
,
1
*
6
8
6
(
&
2
1
7
,
1
(
1
7
$
/
&
5
2
6
6
:
$
/
.
6
2
5
$
5
7
,
6
7
,
&
6
7
5
(
(
7
3
5
,
1
7
3(
5
0
(
$
%
/
(
3
$
9
(
5
6
,
1
3
$
5
.
,
1
*
/
2
7
6
GR
E
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
S
A
L
O
N
G
W
A
L
L
S
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
5
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
A
l
l
A
r
e
a
s
,
P
h
a
s
e
2
&<
&
/
(
7
5
$
&
.
:
(
/
/
0
$
5
.
(
'
$
1
'
6
(
3
$
5
$
7
(
'
5$
,
6
(
'
6
7
5
(
(
7
7
+
$
7
,
6
/
(
9
(
/
:
,
7
+
6
,
'
(
:
$
/
.
6
+
$
5
(
'
6
3
$
&
(
6
7
5
(
(
7
3
$
,
1
7
7
2
(
6
7
$
%
/
,
6
+
$
6
+
$
5
(
'
6
3
$
&
(
:
,
7
+
2
8
7
5
2
$
'
:
$
<
02
'
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
&<
&
/
(
7
5
$
&
.
$
6
$
)
(
5
,
'
,
1
*
(
1
9
,
5
2
1
0
(
1
7
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
6
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
A
l
l
A
r
e
a
s
,
P
h
a
s
e
2
ED
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
/,
*
+
7
,
1
*
2
9
(
5
7
+
(
5
2
$
'
:
$
<
,
1
.
(
<
NO
D
E
S
5(
$
3
3
5
2
3
5
,
$
7
,
1
*
8
1
'
(
5
8
7
,
/
,
=
(
'
6
3
$
&
(
)
2
5
7
(
0
3
2
5
$
5
<
&2
0
0
8
1
,
7
<
8
6
(
5(
$
3
3
5
2
3
5
,
$
7
,
1
*
8
1
'
(
5
8
7
,
/
,
=
(
'
6
3
$
&
(
)
2
5
&
2
0
0
8
1
,
7
<
8
6
(
80
Recommendations: Parking
The deteriorated parking lots on Airport Avenue are in need of redesign and repaving. The lots
directly adjacent to the Barker Hanger, the Santa Monica Art Studio and the Ruskin Group
Theatre do not have clearly designated striped parking stalls. Cost estimates for both of these lots
are shown in the appendix. The Barker Hanger parking lot redesign is estimated to cost about
$81,300 for asphalt repaving, parking lot restriping and landscaping. The Santa Monica Art Studio
and the Ruskin Group Theatre parking lot are estimated to cost about $93,300. Costs include
asphalt repaving, parking lot restriping and landscaping. It is recommended that these lots be
redone to maximize the number of vehicle parking spaces, while also incorporating landscaping
features.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
I
E
R
A
N
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
EN
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
March 2013 IBI Group
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
4
7
:
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
–
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
43 60
16
17
13
1
63
10
2
12
7
14
0
16
117 60
59
85
25
`
26
Santa Monica Airport Park (60 Spaces)Car Lot (60 Spaces)Small Business Center (43 Spaces)Spitfire Grill (16 Spaces)General Aviation (59 Spaces)General Parking (117 Spaces)Museum of Flying (17 Spaces)Santa Monica Airport Antique (131 Spaces)Proteus Air Services (16 Spaces)Barker Hanger/Santa Monica Air Center (120 Spaces)Art Studios (79 Spaces)Ruskin Group Theatre Co (29 Spaces)Airport Arts Campus (102 Spaces)Kim Davidson Aviation (25 Spaces)Western Triangle (85 Spaces)Action Air Express (26 Spaces)Angle Parking off Street Parking / Parking Lot Entrance and Exit Points
82
Uses, Alignment, and Design
Task Description
The Uses, Alignment, and Design feasibility study of the Airport‘s Enhancement Planning Project
requests the consultant team to:
“Analyze and identify the current mix of uses and provide options and scenarios regarding the
mix of recreational (active and passive), entertainment, and commercial uses.”
Specifically for the Airport, it also adds a particular emphasis of the types of land uses that should
be evaluated:
“Community priorities expressed in Phase II of the Airport visioning process include
evaluating mixed-use options such as expanding or enhancing outdoor recreational space
and facilities, light community-serving retail, and arts and education facilities.”2
In fact, the Rand Corporation‘s report that was part of Phase I of the Visioning Process had
already identified potential land-use ―the mes‖ f or the non-aviation lands of SMO Airport, including
recreation, local retail, and arts/culture/education:
“The success of these recreational facilities [sports fields, dog park, and playground] is an
indication that expansion and upgrading would be valued by the citizens .”
“Retail development at a modest scale, which would likely have less impact on the
surrounding neighborhoods than a larger retail or commercial development, could be
considered as a means of meeting the interest of local residents and employees for local
services.”
“[T]he artistic community is generally satisfied with current arrangements and is anxious to
continue its presence at the airport. Many members of the artistic community advocate the
expansion of artistic activities there.” 3
Phase II of the Visioning Process reinforced these initial conceptions. Although most public
comments were related to the aviation activities, there were some pointed comments related to
the uses in the non-aviation lands:
2 Source: Santa Monica Pier and Airport Enhancement Planning Project RFP 3 Source: Rand Corporation, ―Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Options for the Future,‖ 2012
83
“A large number of participants advocated for the City to expand open space amenities (e.g.,
Clover Park) on the airport campus… 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… Overall, participants would
like a better understanding of which land use scenarios would provide the most benefit to the
broader Santa Monica community.”
This notwithstanding, the Santa Monica community also highlighted that the potential
consequences from new land uses should also be taken into account:
“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… Participants
suggested that the City allow limited development of n on ‐aviation related activities to limit
further quality of life deterioration and excessive vehicular traffic.”4
Taking these precedents as a point of departure, the IBI Group-led planning team set out to
analyze existing conditions and opportunities that the site offered, and propose a set of
alternatives of which one was chosen as the recommended course of action.
Analysis
Existing Conditions
The non-aviation lands comprise 38.8 acres of land, of which the majority is devoted to vehicular
circulation or vehicular/airplane parking (Figure 3.1 ). A sizeable amount of the total area – 14% –
is dedicated to open recreational space, which is Airport Park that opened in 2007. Only 12% of
the total surface is occupied by buildings, which makes the non-aviation lands a low-density
urban area, in contrast to the relatively higher density residential areas. Even with exclusively
non -residential uses on the Airport Campus, it produces fewer trips per day than if the area was
built up with single family residential use similar to that of the surrounding communities (Table 3.2
shows hypothetical trip generation estimations for different land uses, supposing that the totality
of the area would be built up completely with the indicated use).
4 Source: MIG, ―Santa Monica Municipal Airport Community Visioning Process ,‖ 2012 .
84
3.1
85
3.2
Land use trip generation and parking demand
Land use and i ntensity 5
Traffic generation Parking
demand ADT AM Peak PM Peak
Current land use mix (see table 3.3 below) 1,946 209 420 297
Single -family homes (8 units/acre)6 2,297 180 242 439
Multifamily homes (20 units/acre)7 3,990 306 372 738
Office low -rise (2 -3 stories) 3,597 507 486 807
Commercial (2 story) 14,028 327 1,218 1,229
Within the area of study there are ten major buildings and, depending on how they are counted,
about the same number of accessory buildings. Many of the buildings have had uses associated
with air traffic operations (hangars, administrative buildings) and have been repurposed in terms
of use, although some, like the Barker Hangar, still continue to have some airport-related
activities. Over time, activities in the buildings of the land-side of the Airport have shifted from a
more industrial focus (welding, manufacturing, etc.) to alternative uses with lower impact to the
community (art production, administrative uses, warehousing, etc.).
The activities that take place in the buildings can be classified into three major areas or groups:
Office related. Some buildings on the non-aviation lands are used for office or
administrative purposes, particularly those on the eastern side of Airport Avenue. Being
located in buildings that were not originally conceived as offices or being built a long time
ago, these offices do not command high-end rents and cater to small businesses or
creative professionals with the need to combine administrative activities with
manufacturing of individualized products or services.
Art / Culture related . In many instances linked to the previous category, there is a
community of artists and culture-related venues that has begun to give a special
5 Supposes 25% of the total area for circulation and the rest (75%) totally occupied by the indicated land uses and
densities / intensities. Source: IBI Group. Intensity is measure on how much human activity is generated in an area; it is a
function of both land use and building area within a piece of land. 6 Average density of the SMO Airport surrounding residential neighborhoods. 7 Apartment buildings about 3-4 stories high.
86
character to the area. These activities primarily revolve around the approximately 80
artist studios contained in the buildings of 2900 and 3026 Airport Avenue, and are
complemented by the Museum of Flying, the Ruskin Theater, the event venue of Barker
Hangar, and the Spitfire Grill, one of two restaurants in the area.
Education related . Two buildings, 2800 and 3400 Airport Avenue, house programs from
the Santa Monica College, the Art Department and the Small Business Development
Center, respectively. The former dovetails with the art/cultural uses and the latter with the
office functions found in the area. Although the College‘s main satellite campus is located
in the vicinity on Bundy Drive, these two facilities ensure student and faculty presence on
the Airport Campus.
Together, these three activity groups that blend together well in terms of compatibility, give the
area its alternative and unconventional character. Table 3.3 below summarizes the uses, areas,
and primary tenants of the principal structures currently contained in the lands defined as ―non-
aviat ion.‖ Figure 3.4 shows images of the principal structures contained in the table. Additional
information on the buildings themselves is contained in the Facilities, Design, and Engineering
chapter of the report.
87
3.3
Airport Avenue building address, size and type
Building Name/Tenant Area Land use/Activity
2800 Airport Avenue Airport Arts Campus – Santa Monica College 12,200 SF Higher Education / Art
Studios
2900 Airport Avenue Artist Studios 8,000 SF Art Studios
3000 Airport Avenue Ruskin Theater 6,000 SF Cultural performances
3021 Airport Avenue Barker Hangar / Santa Monica Air Center 62,000 SF Cultural E vents
3026 Airport Avenue Santa Monica Art Studios 22,000 SF Art Studios
3050 Airport Avenue Santa Monica Airport Antique and Other Offices 5,970 SF Creative Office / Industrial
3100 Airport Avenue Museum of Flying 22,000 SF Exhibitions
3200 Airport Avenue Offices 11,577 SF Creative O ffice
3300 Airport Avenue Spitfire Grill and Other Offices 4,883 SF Restaurant / Creative
Office
3400 Airport Avenue Santa Monica College Small Business Center
and Other Offices
26,893 SF Higher Education /
Creative Office
Total 181,523 SF
88
3.4
89
Opportunities
Community sentiment during Phase II of the Visioning process expressed general satisfaction
with the current low-intensive nature of uses on non-aviation lands, but that the area could benefit
from specific community-oriented enhancements. This presented the consulting team with a study
area that has many inherent strengths and opportunities that the site and the conditions
governing its future provide, namely (Figure 3.5 ):
Land ownership and expiring leases. Since all land and buildings in the study area are
owned by the City of Santa Monica and all leases will expire by 2015, it opens up the
opportunity of a major refocus of the land use strategy. This presents the City with much
more control over future development of the non-aviation lands, including structures,
facilities, tenants, and street alignment.
Substantial un-built areas. Together, parking, circulation, and green spaces, i.e., un-
built surfaces, make up the majority of the non-aviation lands of SMO. Moreover, as the
Access and Parking analysis showed, parking supply exceeds demand in relation to
existing land uses. These conditions provide the opportunity to dedicate the underutilized
areas for other uses that would benefit the Santa Monica community in a more direct and
meaningful way.
Possibility of integration with neighborhoods. In contrast to other municipal airports,
SMO is located amidst a very dense residential fabric, which allows meaningful
connections between the activities occurring in the Airport Campus and the neighboring
Seminal presence of art/cultural activities. This area is already recognized as an
established, alternative and independent, art and culture hub within the Santa Monica
opportunities to further enhance the quality of life for the community through arts and
cultural enhancements.
Successful new community green spaces. The sports fields, playground, community
outdoor areas, and dog park constitute an important asset for the adjacent
neighborhoods, especially because it has been so well received and is so popular with
the residents and visitors. The opportunity lays in building upon this success and
connecting these public open spaces with future enhancements.
90
3.5
91
Future Land Use Scenarios
The consultant team analyzed three land use development scenarios. Rather than deciding on
the typical, real estate market-driven approach of highest and best use, the selection of
alternatives was based on the viable range of alternatives contained in the final report of MIG,
which summarizes the community‘s perspectives on the future on the non-aviation lands (Phase
II of the Airport Visioning Process). In other words, the planning team was keenly aware that this
project was to achieve much more than just financial sustainability, but moreover had to
contribute to the quality of life for Santa Monica citizens along multiple dimensions.
There are four primary reasons for taking an incremental approach to enhancement planning on
the non-aviation land on the Airport Campus:
First, the traffic impact calculations (already presented in the Access and Parking
section of this report) showed early on that vehicular capacity on Airport Avenue was
limited, which effectively ―cappe d‖ the amount of development that could occur on the
non -aviation lands.
Second, the fact that the fate of the Airport itself would likely not be defined by 2015,
when the leases expire, making large capital expenditures associated with a major
building program imprudent and potentially untenable.
Third, during Phase II of the Visioning Process there was strong sentiment to improve
the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhoods, minimizing the negative effects of
intensified urban development: ―Participants suggested that the City allow limited
development of non ‐aviation related activities to limit further quality of life deterioration
and excessive vehicular traff ic.‖8
And fourth, the conversations with City and Airport Staff quickly confirmed that an
incremental strategy was preferred over a large ―master planning ‖ e ffort, which only
would need to take place once the future over aviation operations at SMO was more
clearly defined.
The consultant team‘s approach to this incremental enhancement planning effort was to articulate
a strategy as a starting point for the City to consider, rather than picking a specific group or ―mix ‖
of particular uses and analyzing their impact. The team then focused on strategic questions.
Would it make sense to change current land uses in the City-owned buildings? Would it make
sense to retrofit/enhance current structures or construct new, complementary buildings? Would it
make sense to expand/enhance current outdoor recreation facilities?
8 Source: MIG, ―Santa Monica Municipal Airport Community Visioning Process ,‖ 2012 .
92
Possible answers to these questions provided the input to develop three alternative analysis
scenarios in addition to the current, baseline, scenario. They are summarized in the paragraphs
below.
Baseline scenario: Keep current land uses and buildings. The baseline scenario implies
keeping the buildings and the land uses as they are currently, with adequate maintenance, but
without any major retrofits or changes. This scenario provides a baseline comparison with other
alternatives and, depending on the conditions, may happen to be better than any intervention,
considering that the Visioning Process did not identify grave shortcomings with the current
situation of the non-aviation lands.
Scenario 1: Substitution of land uses within retrofitted buildings. This scenario presupposes
that a major shift in land use policy takes place within existing and substantially retrofitted
buildings that increase the quality of the building environment, and, consequently the rents and
the financial sustainability of the Airport. Although at this point the planning team did not analyze
specific land uses, it is conceivable that a major shift in tenant composition may take place. In
short, this is the introverted, ―change-and-reposition ‖ stra tegy.
Scenario 2: Conversion of underutilized land for sizeable open space enhancements. In
contrast to the previous alternative, this scenario would solely concentrate on the exterior public
spaces, leaving the buildings and their existing uses as is. The objective is to convert
underutilized, un-built surfaces such as circulation, parking, and aviation-related areas into public
recreational open spaces, continuing the trend set by the opening of Airport Park. In short, this is
the extroverted, ―open-space-only ‖ stra tegy.
Scenario 3: Complementary community-supporting land uses and key open space
enhancements. This scenario lays between the previous two, as it aims for a balance between
indoor and outdoor uses in a tactical way. The objective is to keep land uses consistent to what
they are today, both inside buildings and regarding parkland, and complement them with key
enhancements that are, primarily, community-oriented. This may mean key physical
enhancements such as small infill buildings with community-oriented uses and pocket parks and
―community activity spots‖ that target the highest return for investment and connect the different
pieces of the area together. In short, this is the balanced, ―strategic approa ch‖ str ategy.
93
3.6
Evaluation of Alternatives
The three scenario alternatives were evaluated against the 14 evaluation criteria outlined in th e
Project Approach section of this report and also compared to the baseline scenario. The
summarized, graphic assessment is contained in Table 3.6 below:
Evaluation Criteria Matrix of Land Uses
Evaluation Criteria
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
:
Ke
e
p
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
an
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
OP
T
I
O
N
1 :
Su
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
a
n
d
us
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
t
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
OP
T
I
O
N
2 :
Co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
si
z
e
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
OP
T
I
O
N
3 :
Co
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
-su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
la
n
d
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
k
e
y
o
p
e
n
sp
a
c
e
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life
2 Increase community open space
3 Improve accessibility and reduce
traffic impacts
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -aviation
lands
7 Include green building practices and
sustainability initiatives
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 People -oriented rather than car -
oriented
9 Local scale rather than city or regional
scale
10 Integration with the context rather than
introverted and standalone
11 Incremental actions rather than large
unitary projects
12 Flexible and adaptable rather than
inflexible and uncompromising
13 Energy -efficient rather than resource
consuming
14 Financial sustainability rather than
subsidy -dependent
= supports the guiding principle = does not support the guiding principle = neutral / not applicable
94
Three things are evident, at first glance, when looking at the evaluation table. First, the ―baseline ‖
scenario doesn‘t advance community goals nor meets with the project-defined criteria (with the
exception of maintaining the local scale).
Second, producing a major land use shift and retrofitting existing buildings, although having very
specific positive outcomes, notably in terms of environmental and financial sustainability, does not
advance all community and project-specific goals. In particular, it only focuses on internal
improvements, forgetting the exterior, keeping the area vehicle-oriented and, depending on the
mix of land uses chosen, potentially increasing traffic impacts to the community.
Third, it is evident that options #2 and #3 have many more positive outcomes when measured
against the fourteen criteria than option #1. Depending on the weighing of the community‘s
preferences – more greenspace or an overall better environment – either of these may be equally
beneficial. However, the consultant team prefers the balanced approach of Scenario #3, because
it addresses in a strategic way both what happens within buildings and outside of them, targeting
resources more effectively across the board. Moreover, this option, although not as financially
efficient as #1, may slightly increase revenue for the City, in contrast to option #2, which would
leave income streams unchanged and, additionally, require substantial implementation capital
expenditures. In short, Scenario #3 is the best overall option.
Therefore, the consultant team is confident is recommending Scenario #4, which will be further
detailed in the next section.
95
3.7
Recommendations
This sections sums up the recommendations of the IBI Group-led consultant team regarding
Uses, Alignment, and Design. The expiration of the existing leases, on one hand, opens up the
opportunity to reorient the future of the activities that happen around the Santa Monica Airport,
but, on the other, the impending situation on the continuation of airport operations may change
the fundamentals of the approach to the aviation lands. With this as background, the planning
team recommends cautious but strategic land use changes that minimize municipal expenditures
but improve the quality of life of tenants and residents, while ensuring enough flexibility to adapt
to the post-2015 conditions.
Recommended Land Use Approach
A balanced/strategic land use approach, namely the one outlined in Scenario #3 ―complementary
community-supporting land uses and key open space enhanceme nts.‖ W e envision that as part of
this approach the non-aviation lands are upgraded and improved by a series of small and specific
objective of improving the conditions for tenants, residents, and visitors alike.
Existing land uses in this scenario should be maintained as they currently are, focusing on office,
education, and art/culture, but would be complemented by a series of specific sub-categories
within these land uses that would ―round up‖ t he character, desirability, and quality of the area.
This could be done by either (1) defining new leasing criteria that would give priority of certain
land uses over others as leases begin to expire, and/or (2) building small flex-use infill buildings –
accommodate these specifically targeted land uses. The extent of new construction would be
small and not exceed the scale of the art studio warehouse or the Museum.
But what would these strategic land uses be? The consultant team believes that they should not
be circumscribed to general categories such as ―offic e‖ or ―retail ‖ o r ―cultural,‖ b ut should rather
be selected according to their contribution to the airport land‘s intended character or ―them e.‖
Building off from what is already there contributing to a discernible atmosphere, and already is
recommends establishing the area around SMO as a ―Creative Innovation Distri ct,‖ cate ring to
local artists, artisans, and hand crafters, and complemented by business incubation services.
96
3.8
The Creative Innovation District, which needs to be branded with a name that the public easily
associates with the concept, should be an inventive enclave focused on promoting, nurturing,
supporting, and cultivating the artists, artisans, designers, and creators of Santa Monica – both
established and startup ventures. It should bring together multiple creative disciplines such as
sculptors, bike fabricators, painters, web designers, culinary artisans, industrial designers, and
other creative efforts in a synergistic environment (see Figure 3.7 for example studios/practices
/businesses). The DNA for this already exists in the area: artists and artisanal product fabrication
networks, although germinal, are already in place, e.g., Santa Monica Art Studios, an influential
art collective, and RealRyder, a high-quality, state-of -the art indoor bike manufacturer (Figure
3.8 ). It would not be an uphill battle; rather it would be more like ―nu rturing‖ an ex isting condition.
As a complement of the arts and crafts concentration of the District, business incubation activities
would also be included in the mix. The Incubator section of this report goes deeper into the
industry concentration and types of tenants that should be sought to add, supplement, and round
off the activities in the new District.
The Creative Innovation District should stand at the intersection of art, innovation, technology,
and local commerce, a gathering place for a community of diverse individuals unified by a desire
to create, observe and promote art and design. The guiding mission of the District would be to
create an environment that ignites the creative forces of makers, craftspeople and artists and also
provides a venue for showcasing this work to the public. The eclectic mix of the airport buildings
complemented by a walkable environment can create creative grounds to house a wide variety of
disciplines.
These ―cor e‖ strategic land uses – artisans and incubation activities – should be complemented
by limited retail, which would either be directed towards products / services that cater to the prime
tenant‘s activities (e.g., supply stores, galleries, membership production facilities, etc.) or as
amenities for tenants, neighbors and visitors (e.g., cafes, libraries, exposition areas, etc.). In this,
the control of the scale of retail (in terms of dimensions and number of businesses) and the scope
of it (in terms of target population) should be a central concern for the City of Santa Monica to
minimize the negative effects of a metropolitan destination (Figure 3.9 shows visual examples of
the type of complementary retail envisioned).
This new urban enclave, combined with an active programming calendar of local, high-quality
cultural events will help establish the District as a resource that supports local artists, designers
and makers. This function would be bolstered by the decentralized incubation activities
mentioned earlier. By gathering these uses in a setting where the community can witness the
97
process of creation, innovation, and fabrication, the project will become more than a specialized,
walkable arts, or retail district. It will be a gallery of makers and innovators that provides cultural
content, education, and inspiration for the community.
98
3.9
Next Steps
To make this idea a reality, the consulting team recommends that the City of Santa Monica
engage in the following activities and strategic enhancements to the non-aviation lands, pre- and
post-2015:
Before 2015:
Select and adopt officially Scenario #3, Complementary community-supporting land uses
and key open space enhancements, as the concept to guide the short- and medium-term
future of the Airport non-aviation lands.
Contract out a detailed study on the types of core and complementary land uses and
activities that would be attracted to the Creative Innovation District, which lays out a
detailed timeline for implementation.
Based on the study, develop new leasing criteria and guidelines.
For leases that begin to expire, release to current tenants (if they meet new criteria) o r
otherwise lease to new tenants (if they don‘t).
Conduct basic but thorough sidewalk maintenance and upgrading to make the District
more walkable and ADA compliant.
Implement enhanced walkability and bike measures, such as restriping Airport Avenue,
reducing the width of travel lanes, painting crosswalks, marking bicycle sharrows, and
experimenting with planters and movable furniture to minimize traffic effects.
Plan and conduct a calendar of programmed events (e.g., food truck days, pop-up parks
car-free days, community parties, open air museums or expositions, etc.) to raise
awareness of the District and increase ownership by the community.
After 2015:
Plan and implement inexpensive visual enhancements to Airport Avenue‘s central section
(e.g., application of color pavements to sidewalks and roadways, imaginative, artistic
reinterpretations of crosswalks, banners and other vertical visual eye catchers, low-cost
art interventions, such as overhead canopies, etc.).
Incrementally and according to demand (but only if airport operations are to continue in
the medium term) build a series of infill buildings along the central section of Airport
Avenue that would house additional core and supplementary land uses.
99
Implement physical improvements to Airport Avenue and other important pedestrian
connections to formally improve the streetscape (e.g., tree planting, widened sidewalks,
formal bike path, traffic calming devices, integrated textures, street furniture, etc.).
Implement activity spots for the community (e.g., pocket parks, community gardens,
outdoor athletic parks, etc.) in underutilized parking, circulation, or aviation surfaces.
Once the future of the aviation activities is defined, contract out a master plan for the
entire Airport Campus to determine long-term enhancements and investments required
for the area.
100
Facilities Design and Engineering
Task Description
The Facilities Design and Engineering Chapter is an analysis of existing conditions of facilities,
open space and parks, and infrastructure at the Santa Monica Airport. The Project Team
assessed the spatial and capacity constraints and opportunities of on-site facilities to determine
their capabilities and limitations. Opportunities for improvements, extensions, and new facilities
are identified, along with the mitigation of constraints through the application of sustainable
strategies, both conventional and experimental, to improve on-site conditions. An on-site
philosophy to enhance the Airport‘s environmental sustainability is guided by the Santa Monica
Airport Sustainability Plan, which was adopted by City Council in May 2009, and other existing
Santa Monica plans such as the Sustainable City Plan.
This section is divided by Facilities, Open Space – Parks and Infrastructures. Each section
describes the existing Conditions and Assessment then explores potential Opportunities. This is
followed by Next Steps Before and after 2015.
Facilities: Existing Conditions and Assessment
There were 16 buildings (including one building, park restrooms, in the Open Space/Parks
section) reviewed as part of this study. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the facility information
available. It is composed of visual evaluations of property conditions, and a summary of existing
conditions reports 9 ; and an appraisal of each building to determine its rental value on condition
and type of space (industrial, creative, office, etc.)10 . An assessment of the facility, from Project
Team meetings and discussions is also included. Any incremental modifications recommended in
this section should comply with the sustainable measures and be in keeping with the existing
character of the Airport. Structural elements identified by the Project Team are based on site
visits and observations as no structural drawings were available at the time of this review ;
structural elements with assumed conditions (construction year, site conditions, and professional
experience) are italicized .
9 Report of Facility Condition Assessment, Faithful + Gould, Inc., September 2010
10 Rental Valuation Study, Buss-Shelger Associates, January 2011
101
4.1
*Buildings built more than 50
years ago, or with architectural
and structural character may be
deemed ―historical ‖, and not be
registered historical landmarks.
**Additional features specific to
the theater.
***Additional features specific to
the restaurant.
****The roof continues to leak in
several of the units due to the
landscaped space on the roof of
this building.
Material Key: (For specific construction details see building description)
C.slab= concrete slab
W.frame = wood frame
W.panel = wood panel
M.wall = metal wall
S.truss= steel truss
M.panel= metal panel
S.truss = steel truss
W.comp = wood composite
M.beam= metal beam
C.block= cement block
W.truss= wood truss
M.panel = metal panel
P.concrete= poured in place concrete
Condition Key:
Good- In a new or well maintained condition, with no visual evidence of wear, soiling or other deficiencies
Fair- Subject to wear, and soiling but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition
Poor- Subjected to hard or long-term wear, nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Address /
Description
2800 29 00 2946 3000 3021 3025 -302 3026 3050 3100 3200 3300 3400 B D E
Current Use
Art School
Art School
Art Studios
Office
Special
Events
Office, Flying
School
Art Studios
Office
Museum
Offices
Restaurant,
Office
Offices
Industrial
Shop
Office,
Recreational
Office
Year Built 1950‘s 1950‘s 1950 1940 1950‘s 1950‘s 1960 1940 2012 1950 1940 1940 1980 1980 1950
Historic* Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y
Number of
Stories
2
1
1
1
1.5
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
Gross Sq. Ft. 8068 6400 35,000 23,140 6,340 22,000 16,230 5,340 27,700 1405 2440 1,890
Rentable Sq.
Ft.
8,000
6,000
6,000
22,000
5,970
11,577
8,556
26,893
2367
2367
1,690
Foundation C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab C.slab
Construction P.concrete
S.frame
M.panel
P.concrete
S.frame
M.panel
W.frame
W.panel
M.wall
W.frame
Stucco
M.wall
S.truss
W.frame
W.frame
Prefab
M.panel
S.frame
M.wall
W.frame
M.wall
Stucco
Prefab
M.panel
S.frame
W.frame
Stucco
W.frame
Stucco
W.frame
Stucco
M.beam
W.panel
W.frame
Stucco
W.frame,
Metal, Stucco
C.block
Roof
W.frame
W.frame
M.panel
M.panel
W.panel
M.panel W.frame
M.panel
M.girders
M.panel
M.panel
W.panel
M.panel
W.frame
W.comp
Solar Panels
W.panel
W.truss
Ply.Panel
Flat Wood
W.truss,
Ply.Panel
Flat Wood
Interior Finish Exposed
Concrete,
Gypsum,
Carpet
Exposed
Concrete,
Gypsum,
Carpet
Exposed
Concrete
Exposed
Concrete,
Drywall
**Raised
Wood Floor
Exposed
Concrete,
Exposed
Steel Frame,
Drywall, Tile
Drywall,
Exposed
Metal,
Exposed
Concrete
Exposed
Concrete,
Drywall,
Carpet,
Paint
Exposed
Metal,
Exposed
Concrete
Drywall,
Plaster,
Carpet,
Wood, Vinyl
Drywall,
Wood,
Carpet,
Acoustic Tile,
Plaster
****Vinyl,
Ceramic Tile
Carpet, Wood,
Vinyl, Plaster,
Acoustic Tile
Exposed
Construction
Drywall,
Acoustic Tile
Exposed
Concrete,
Wood,
Drywall
Occupancy
Status
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Part -Time
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Space Type Office,
Classroom
Office,
Classroom
Industrial Industrial,
Creative
Office
Industrial
Warehouse,
Creative
Office
Office Space,
Hangers
Industrial,
Warehouse
Industrial,
Creative
Office
Creative
Office,
Warehouse
Creative
Office Space
Restaurant,
Creative
Office
Creative
Office, Loft
Space
Industrial
Shop
Creative Office Creative
Office
Replacement
Value
$792,431
$610,000
$1,644,131
$594,430
$1,904,986
$1,860,320
$4,345,878
$229,360
$99,640
$177,660
Condition
Interior
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Poor -Good
Fair
Fair -Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Condition
Exterior
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor -Fair
Poor
Good
Fair
Poor -Good
Poor -Fair
Poor -Fair
Poor -Fair
Fair
102
4.2
103
4.4
4.3 2800 Airport Avenue (1)
The Ceramics building; a part of Santa Monica Arts College extension (Figure 4.3 ), includes shop
space in the rear, under a metal canopy roof, enclosed in a steel cage (Figure 4.4 ).
Arts Campus Building 1: Classrooms
Foundation: The foundation is assumed to be reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings; size
and depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors: The floors are concrete, covered with carpet. In the rear there is a hanger space with
exposed concrete floors.
Roof: The roof is a flat, wood framed roof and wood plank sheathing.
Walls: The interior walls are exposed concrete, with paint finishes in some locations, and gypsum
board display areas on some portions in the corridors.
Enclosure: The enclosure is poured in place concrete, with metal framed doors. The exterior
walls are not insulated. In the rear there is a hanger space with steel frame and metal panels.
Stairs: There are concrete stairs leading to the basement, with steel hand railings.
Windows: The windows are aluminum casement in a later addition, with metal framed windows
and operable steel framed casement windows in some places. At the rear there is a hanger with
crank operated operable clear story windows.
MEP: Electrical service assumed to be provided by a main transformer, distributed by electric
panel boards within the facility.
Accessibility: Building has partial accessibility upgrades (not at the front entrance), and parking.
2946 Airport Avenue (2)
The Arts Campus Building, a part of Santa Monica Arts College extension (Figure 4.3 ), is divided
into classroom units (Figure 4.5 ), and has a full basement.
Arts Campus Building 2: Ceramics Studio
Foundation: The foundation is assumed to be reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings; size
and depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors: The floors are exposed concrete.
Roof: The main building has a metal and wood roof, along with the metal canopy on the back of
th e building.
Walls: The walls are exposed concrete block, and wood frame partitions.
Enclosure: The enclosure is poured in place concrete.
104
4.5
4.6
Windows: The windows are steel framed, with no insulation. There are several skylights
throughout.
MEP : Electrical service assumed to be provided by a main transformer, distributed by electric
panel boards within the facility.
Accessibility: This building has been upgraded to be more accessible at the entry and parking.
Restrooms are non-compliant.
Assessment
Both existing structures are suited for the current educational use and the overall conditions of
the buildings are fair. Modification to the interior of the building would be difficult due to the
interior concrete walls so the ability for larger open space may be limiting other than the existing
high volume space at the south side of the building. Existing steel framed operable windows
should be cleaned and renovated. Investigation of changing to dual/high performance glazing
should be done. Exterior walls are currently not insulated and when modernization is considered
this should be done.
2900 Airport Avenue Offices (3)
This building houses the Airport‘s Artist Program and is designated for artist use only (Figure
4.6 ). A converted aircraft hanger built in 1950; the interior has been subdivided into multiple
industrial units with exterior entrances and no interior hallways; some units have tenant installed
wood mezzanine space and range from 441 to 1,021 square feet in size. Restrooms that service
this building are located in a separate structure, attached to the main building.
Foundation : The building‘s foundation is a series of reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings;
size and depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings. Load-bearing walls are
anticipated to be founded on a series of reinforced cast-in -place concrete spread and continuous
footings, based on age and type of anticipated loads, and geotechnical conditions. The
foundation is in good condition, based on finding no evidence of overloading or failure.
Floors : The floors are cast-in -place concrete slab-on -grade.
Roof : The roof is wood joist low-sloped flat roof construction, assumed 2”x8” joists (spaced at 16”
on center), and wood plank sheathing at the roof surface below the membrane. Areas of pitched
roof consist of structural wood beams and rafters which support the primary roof system.
Walls : The interior dividing walls are wood construction, some with gypsum wallboard.
Enclosure : The structure is enclosed with wood stud wall constructions covered with corrugated
metal with large metal sliding hanger door.
Stairs : N/A
105
4.7
4.8
Windows and Doors : Windows are steel framed, single pane and operable.
MEP : There is no HVAC, fire alarm, or wet-pipe sprinkler system. The electrical includes a 150-
amp service from a utility provided main transformer. Electrical distribution is provided by a 100-
amp panel board located in the building‘s interior.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
Assessment
The interior and exterior conditions of the existing 8,000 square foot facility are fair (Figure 4.7 ).
A similar space under 1,000 square feet per unit indicates a rental range from $0.80 to $1.01 per
square foot a month on an adjusted net basis; the older age, fair condition, and metal
construction, places the facility at the bottom of the rental spectrum. However, the Santa Monica
location warrants a small rental premium and a net rental rate of $1.00 11 per square foot is
appropriate for the facility ―as i s‖. The planning team‘s assessment of the facility is that the
building will require renovations or modifications; improvements in excess of $396,216 (50% of
the replacement value) which will require a full analysis for compliance to current code
requirements for both structural and mechanical (mechanical compliance would dictate envelope
upgrades). If the use remains the same, no improvements should be made in the short term.
Demolition should be considered if a new use is planned.
3000 Airport Avenue Ruskin Theater (4)
This former aircraft hanger/office, built in the 1940‘s, has been subdivided into industrial/artist rear
of the hanger houses the industrial space which a portion of has been converted to a small, 49-
seat theatre, black-box spaces, leased to eight artists (Figure 4.8 ).
Foundation : The building‘s foundation on reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings; the size and
depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings. Load-bearing walls are anticipated
to be founded on a series of reinforced cast-in -place concrete continuous spread footings, based
on age and type of anticipated loads, and geotechnical conditions. The foundation is in good
condition, based on finding no evidence of overloading or failure.
Floors : The floors are cast-in -place concrete slab-on -grade, reinforced with welded wire fabric
which is placed over a vapor barrier and compacted gravel fill.
11 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
106
4 .9
4.10
Roof : The roof is wood joist low-sloped flat roof construction, assumed 2”x8” joists (spaced at 16”
on center), and wood plank sheathing at the roof surface below the membrane.
Walls : The inner sides of walls typically contain gypsum wall board.
Enclosure : The structure is enclosed with wood stud wall constructions consisting of 2 ‖x4‖ w ood
studs at 16‖ centers.
Windows : The windows are wood and aluminum framed windows with single pane glass panels.
MEP : There is no HVAC, fire alarm, or wet-pipe sprinkler system. The electrical system includes
a 150-amp service provided from a utility provided main transformer. Electrical distribution is
provided by several panel boards in the common corridor electrical closet.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
Assessment
The exterior of this 6,000 square foot facility is in fair to poor condition, with the creative office and
Ruskin Groups Theatre Co. are in average condition; the remaining industrial units are in fair
condition (Figure 4.9 ). Available data pertaining to this type of space has been leasing for
monthly rates ranging from $0.80 to $1.10 per square foot on a net basis. Given that most of the
units are toward the rear of the structure and the building‘s condition is considered fair at best, a
net rental rate of $0.95 per square foot monthly is considered appropriate. The net rental rates for
consummated leases involving creative office space varies from $1.20 to $1.50 per square foot
monthly. Given the condition of the building ―as is ‖, a lower net rate of $1.20 12 per square foot has
been applied. The planning team‘s assessment of the facility is that the building will require major
renovations; therefore, demolition is recommended because costs would like exceed 50% of the
replacement value. A similar type of facility should be considered within the Non Aviation portion
of the Airport to maintain a theater type use.
3021 Santa Monica Air Center (5)
Originally built by the Lear Corporation as an aircraft maintenance and overhaul facility, it
contains a large historic hangar known as the Barker Hangar, built in the early 1950s, that is
currently used for corporate and private events and other office & aviation uses for aircraft tie
downs and hangar space (Figure 4.10 ). The large main hangar ceiling vaults to 43-feet at the
center. It is 150‘ across, and 254‘ from the loft space to the hanger doors (Figure 4.11 ). There is
an additional 6,000 square feet of creative warehouse space (dressing, production, and
12 Rental Valuation Study – Sa nta Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
107
4.11
4.12
conference rooms, and 85,000 square feet of support facilities such as exterior tenting areas and
parking. There are restrooms that service employees; however, additional facilities have to be
provided for events/large groups.
Foundation: The foundation is assumed to be reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings; size
and depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors: The exposed (with some painted areas) concrete floor is 6 feet in depth. The restrooms
are tiled floor, and the loft space is carpeted.
Roof : Segmented web steel trusses with metal clad roofing; there are original skylights that have
been covered with green metal panels. Lights and set designs are often hung from the trusses,
using a conservative 1100 lbs/point, but it is approximated to have a 2100 lbs/point capacity.
Walls: The wall partitions for the restrooms and office/tenant spaces, as well as the loft space,
are wood.
Enclosure: The structure is a steel frame, enclosed with corrugated metal panels. The main door
is a metal sliding hanger door, and all the doors/panels open individually to create multiple access
points. The tenant spaces (―win gs‖) a re comprised of wood frames with metal cladding.
Stairs: There are wood stairs from the main hanger area up to the loft space.
Windows : The windows are steel framed.
MEP: Barker Hanger is fully sprinkled and upgraded for fire codes. There are electric distribution
panel boards within the facility. To be more sustainable, the lights are a mixture of energy efficient
bulbs and regular bulbs.
Accessibility: The entrances to the building have ramps that meet ADA requirements; however,
the restrooms have not been upgraded for ADA compliance.
Assessment
The exterior of the facility has an original metal sliding door and corrugated metal enclosure
which are part of t he ―feel/era‖ and should be maintained. The facility is in good condition and
should be used as an example for future cladding/metal hanger style buildings on-site; the
building also provides natural ventilation. The planning team‘s assessment of the Santa Monica
Air Center is to maintain the existing use of the facility, but renovate the interior of the building to
provide additional amenities for programmed events and large groups.
3025 -3027 Airport Avenue (6)
The building is part of the Santa Monica Air Center site and houses several subtenants. It was
built in the early 1950s, and is comprised of two buildings, that are connected on the exterior with
108
4.13
4.14
chain link fencing; however, there is no internal access between the two (Figure 4.12 and Figure
4.13 ). In addition to the main buildings, there are several green corrugated metal airplane storage
facilities.
Foundation : The foundation is assumed to be a series of mild-steel reinforced cast-in -place
concrete footings; size and depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors : The floors are assumed to be concrete covered with carpet and paint finishes.
Roof : The flat roof is wood joist construction, and the low-slope section is metal panel roofing.
Walls : The walls are assumed to typically contain gypsum wall board.
Enclosure : The enclosure is a wood frame with stucco at one of the buildings, and a prefab
metal panel at the other.
Stairs : N/A
Windows : Windows are steel framed, single pane and operable.
MEP : The building is assumed to be serviced by a utility provided main transformer, distributed by
electric panel boards within the facility.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
Assessment
The planning team‘s assessment of this building is that if current multitenant use of the facility
that includes a flying school with rental, and storage facilities for aircraft remain, no renovations
should be made if the use remains the same in the short term. Demolition should be considered
if a new use is planned.
3026 Airport Avenue Artist Studios (7 )
This large former aircraft hanger, built in the 1950‘s, was converted to industrial warehouse
space, leased as a bulk artist space, which the lessee has subdivided into studios, as well as
allotting exhibition areas for art shows (Figure 4.14 ). This building includes restrooms and a
kitchenette at the central portion of the building, accessed by the common hallways and exhibition
area. The studios are currently rented to roughly 30 artists.
Foundation : The foundation is assumed to be reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings ; size
and depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors : Individual reinforced slab-on -grade concrete slabs throughout appeared to be in good
condition, with no signs of failure evident throughout the floor slabs.
Roof : The roof is open webbed steel trusses with metal cladding. The roof has multiple
polycarbonate skylights at the upper portion.
109
4.15
4.16
Walls : The inner sides of walls typically contain gypsum wall board, with track lighting spanning
between the partitions.
Enclosure : This building is a structural steel frame covered with corrugated metal panels. There
are fixed in place metal hanger doors.
Stairs : N/A
Windows : The windows are single pane aluminum framed operable units, with one steel framed
fixed unit.
MEP : The building contains a wet-pipe sprinkler system. The electrical system includes a 150-
amp service provided from a utility provided main transformer.
Accessibility: This building has been upgraded with accessible parking, entry, and restroom
facilities.
Assessment
This 22,000 square foot, 1950s facility is in average condition; the interior finishes are new and in
good condition (Figure 4.15 ) with ADA upgrades as of December 31, 2010. Rental rates for
larger industrial space in Santa Monica, Marina del Rey and Culver City areas, indicate rates
ranging from $0.93 to $1.41 per square foot. For this property, a rental rate between $0.50 and
$1.00 per square foot is reasonable. Recognizing the age and metal construction of the building
which is partially offset by its Santa Monica location and some of the interior upgrades made by
the tenant, a rental rate of $0.80 13 per square foot has been recommended. The existing
character and aviation history are very relevant to the makeup of the Non-Aviation Land and
should be retained. The planning team‘s assessment of the facility and its upgraded interior,
recommends minimal improvement in the short term if there is no change in use. Full renovation
or demolition and replacement should be considered if a new use is planned.
3050 Airport Avenue (8)
This former aircraft hanger was constructed in the 1940‘s, and has been subdivided into five
small industrial units with two creative office units toward the front of the structure, and a small
narrow hallway that provides limited access (Figure 4.16 ).
Foundation: Founded on a series of reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings. Size and depth
are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings. Load-bearing walls are anticipated to be
13 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
110
4.17
founded on a series of reinforced cast-in -place concrete spread and continuous footings, based
on age and type of anticipated loads, and geotechnical conditions.
Floors : The floors are cast-in -place concrete slab-on -grade, reinforced with welded wire fabric
which is placed over a vapor barrier and compacted gravel fill. The foundation is in good
condition, based on finding no evidence of overloading or failure.
Roof : The roof is wood joist low-sloped flat roof construction, with assumed 2x8 inch joists
(spaced at 16 inches on center) and wood plank sheathing at the roof surface below the
membrane. Areas of pitched roof consist of wood trusses with wood roofing.
Walls : The inner sides of walls typically contain gypsum wall board, while exterior wall surfaces
contain plaster over metal lath and two layers of moisture barrier with plywood.
Enclosure : The structure is enclosed with wood stud wall construction covered with metal
panels; there is an added portion that is stucco on wood.
Stairs : N/A
Windows : The windows are steel casements.
MEP : The building is not provided with HVAC, fire alarm, or wet-pipe sprinkler system equipment.
The electrical system includes a 100-amp service provided from a utility provided main
transformer. Electrical distribution is provided by several panel boards in the electrical closet in
the common corridor.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
Assessment
The exterior of this facility is in poor to fair condition (Figure 4.17 ), with the interior office space in
average condition; the interiors of the industrial units are in fair condition. Industrial leases most
comparable indicate net rates ranging from $0.80 to $1.10 per square foot monthly. Given the
poor to fair condition of the facilities metal structure as well as the awkward access to the
individual units, a net monthly rate of $0.95 per square foot has been recommended. The office
space in the front of this building is in better condition than the industrial portion of the structure.
Creative office rental comparables similar to the facility exhibited monthly lease rates which vary
from $1.20 to $1.50 per square foot on an adjusted net basis; a creative office rate most
applicable is $1.35 14 per square foot on a net monthly basis. The planning team‘s assessment of
this approximately 6,000 square foot facility is that the building will require extensive renovations
or modifications to the exterior of the facility. Remodels and renovations to the building‘s façade
should use materials with a similar visual esthetic, but consist of more sustainable materials and
14 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
111
4.18
4.19
4.20
modern facility enhancements such as windows, insulation, and re-cladding. If improvements in
excess of $297,215 (50% of the replacement value) are needed, it will require a full analysis for
compliance to current code requirements for both structural and mechanical (mechanical
compliance would dictate envelope upgrades). If the use remains the same no improvements
should be made in the short term. Demolition should be considered if a new use is planned.
3100 Airport Avenue (9)
The Museum of Flying is a new facility; and a remodel and expansion of 8,000 square feet of a
previous structure at 3100 Airport Avenue; the building features a display and exhibit areas of
nearly 22,000 square feet (Figure 4.18 ). The non-pr ofit executed a lease agreement with the City
of Santa Monica in 2012. The building was completed in 2012.
Foundation: The foundation is assumed to reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings; size and
depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors: The floors are exposed concrete. The mezzanine level is a wood frame construction.
Roof: The roof on the prefab portion of the building is sloped and flat metal panel roofing. The
original portion has wood joist roof. The ceiling is exposed metal prefab.
Walls: The walls are exposed metal prefab.
Enclosure: Prefabricated steel, tilt-up.
Stairs: There are wood frame stairs leading up to the mezzanine.
Windows: There are steel framed and aluminum cased windows.
MEP: The museum has a fully installed sprinkler system. The building is assumed to be serviced
by a utility provided main transformer, distributed by electric panel boards within the facility.
Accessibility : Yes, this building has been upgrade with access and parking improvements.
Assessment
This facility was recently constructed in March 2012 and demonstrates an example of a new
construction onsite which replicates the quality and architecture style of historic structures, but
incorporates modern sustainable principles such as pre-fabricated paneling (Figure 4.19 ).
3200 Airport Avenue Offices (10)
This building (Figure 4.20 ) contains multiple offices, and was constructed in the 1940‘s. The
offices are partitioned, and accessed via central hallways; there is a conference room available to
all tenants. The office space in this building is considered a hybrid of traditional and creative office
space, based on the unique character of the structure and its surroundings.
112
4.21
Foundation : The foundation is assumed to be cast-in -place concrete footings; size and depth are
unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors : The floors are concrete slab, with wood finish in the corridor, and in new condition.
Roof : The roof is wood joist low-sloped flat roof construction. Areas of pitched roof consist of a
network of structural steel beams and rafters which support the primary roof system. The south
elevation of the roof is provided with photovoltaic panels that generate 25% of the buildings
electricity. There are acoustic tiles glued to the ceiling.
Walls : The inner sides of walls typically contain gypsum wall board.
Enclosure : The structure is enclosed with wood stud wall constructions consisting of assumed
2x4 inch wood studs at 16 inches centers, supported on the thickened edge concrete slab.
Stairs : N/A
Windows : The windows are wood frame, and large bay windows run the length of the building
MEP : The building does not have HVAC, fire alarm, or wet-pipe sprinkler system equipment, but
is equipped with fire hose cabinets. The main service entrance electrical equipment is located at
the exterior of the building at the west elevation. It supplies the entire building via the main 1200-
amp distribution panel and two transformers. Branch panels are located throughout the building
and serve all electrical needs.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
Assessment
The existing building possesses the qualities of scale and character that is an example of its
period architecture and does not have alterations that are inconsistent with this period (Figure
4.21 ). The structure of the facility is in fair condition with original common area finishes; the facility
is in need of some upgrades. The units vary in quality from those with extensive upgrades to
others in need of renovation. Historic preservation guidelines for renovations should be
considered for all improvements to maintain the on-site sustainability goals set; updates in excess
of $952,493 (50% of the replacement value) will require a full analysis for compliance to current
code requirements for both structural and mechanical (mechanical compliance would dictate
envelope upgrades).Recognizing the deferred maintenance for the facility, a rent of $1.70 per
square foot has been adopted for the upgraded units with a lower rent of $1.55 15 per square foot
for the space in need of upgrades (as is); both rental rates are per month on a net basis.
15 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Bu ss -Shelger Associates 2010
113
4.22
4.23
3300 Airport Avenue Offices (1 1)
The Spitfire Grill restaurant (Figure 4.22 ) is located on the first floor, while the second floor is
partitioned into numerous creative offices with a shared break room. A variety of office tenants
occupy the office spaces, which are accessed through narrow hallways; the shared break room
and restrooms, along with the location and surroundings qualify this office space as creative use.
Foundation : Founded on a series of reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings. Size and depth
are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings. Load-bearing walls are anticipated to be
founded on a series of reinforced cast-in -place concrete continuous spread footings, based on
age and type of anticipated loads, and geotechnical conditions. The foundation is in good
condition, based on finding no evidence of overloading or failure.
Floors : The floors are cast-in -place concrete slab-on -grade, reinforced with welded wire fabric
which is placed over a vapor barrier and compacted gravel fill.
Roof : The roof is wood joist low-sloped flat roof construction, with 2‖x8‖ joi sts (spaced at 16‖ on
center) and wood plank sheathing at the roof surface below the membrane. Areas of pitched roof
consist of a network of structural steel beams and rafters which support the primary roof system.
Walls : The inner sides of walls typically contain gypsum wall board, while exterior wall surfaces
contain plaster over metal lath and two layers of moisture barrier with plywood.
Enclosure : The structure is enclosed with wood stud wall constructions consisting of 2‖x4‖ wood
studs at 16‖ centers, supported on the thickened edge concrete slab.
Stairs : The stair is located in the rear of the building, and is open air, with open treads on a steal
stringer.
Windows : The windows are single pane aluminum framed operable unit s.
MEP : The first floor restaurant has fire hose cabinets. The second floor has no HVAC, fire alarm,
or wet-pipe sprinkler system equipment; window air conditioning units provide cooling. The
electrical system includes distribution panels consisting of various by 100-amp panel boards
located in the building interior.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance .
Assessment
The exterior of this facility is in fair to average condition (Figure 4.23 ), with the restaurant space
and a portion of the upstairs office in good condition; the remaining office space is in poor
condition. Recently consummated leases for units involving creative office space vary from $1.20
114
4.25
4.24
to $1.50 per square foot. Since some of the space varies from renovated units to those in poor
condition, different rental values have been adopted based on use and condition of
improvements. The restaurant area involves office space that has been converted for the use as
a restaurant. A rent of $1.30 16 per square foot monthly on a net basis is warranted with the
recently renovated restrooms and newly installed air conditioning system. The renovated second
floor office space for the facility has been estimated at a monthly rental rate of $1.45 per square
foot on a net basis; however a lower rent of $1.15 per square foot has been recommended to the
units in need of upgrades. This facility has been a long-term revenue generator and should
remain ―a s is‖ as a placeholder for future development opportunities. Minor updates and
renovations to office space in poor condition should not exceed $930,160 (50% of the
replacement value).
3400 Airport Avenue Offices (Main) (1 2)
Built in the 1940‘s, this structure is subdivided for multi-tenant use, and the Bundy Campus for
Santa Monica College (Figure 4.24 ). The building includes some loft office and storage areas on
the east end, along with creative office spaces. This large building has a maze of interior
hallways, providing access to the creative office suites and a series of interior courtyards. This
building is in a three way lease agreement involving the City, Metro, and Santa Monica College
that will go into effect in 2015.
Foundation : Founded on reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings. Size and depth are unknown
due to unavailability of structural drawings. Load-bearing walls are anticipated to be founded
reinforced cast-in -place concrete spread and continuous footings, based on age and type of
anticipated loads, and geotechnical conditions. The foundation is in good condition, based on
finding no evidence of overloading or failure.
Floors : The floors are cast-in -place concrete slab-on -grade, reinforced with welded wire fabric
which is placed over a vapor barrier and compacted gravel fill.
Roof : The roof is wood joist l ow -sloped flat roof construction, with assumed 2”x8” joists (spaced
at 16” on center) and wood plank sheathing at the roof surface below the membrane . Areas of
pitched roof consist of a network of structural steel beams and rafters which support the primar y
roof system. The low-slope roof is assumed to be constructed with light-gauge steel joists,
supported by the masonry perimeter walls; the steel joists support the corrugated metal rood deck
system. There is a drop acoustic tile ceiling.
16 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
115
Walls : The inner sides of walls typically contain gypsum wall board, while exterior wall surfaces
are stucco.
Enclosure : The structure is enclosed with wood stud wall construction.
Stairs : N/A
Windows : Windows are standard wood framed windows with single pane glass panels and
aluminum framed insulated units.
MEP : The HVAC is provided through 14 package rooftop units and four split systems installed in
2007 . There is a sprinkler system. The electrical system includes a 600-amp service provided
from a utility provided main transformer. Electrical distribution is provided by circuit panels
throughout the building.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance.
Assessment
The structure of the facility is in average condition with some recent updates to common areas, a
new HVAC system, and roof replacement (Figure 4.25 ). The interior of office spaces range from
newly renovated to those in fair condition. The rental survey for creative office space indicates
monthly rates from $1.20 to $1.50 per square foot on a net basis. With the new roof and common
area upgrades, as well as the fact that air conditioning is provided in this structure, this building
has some elements of the more traditional low-rise office and business park space; the rents
pertinent to the facility in this category vary from $1.65 to $2.02 per square foot on an adjusted
net basis. A rate of $2.00 per square foot has been recommended for the renovated units with a
lower rate of $1.70 per square foot for the space in need of rehabilitation. The loft area is more of
an attic space since it has a low ―A‖ shaped ceiling which minimizes the usable area; the finished
portion only includes paint on the exposed construction elements. The survey of secondary
office/loft space indicates rental rates from $0.81 to $1.01 per square foot on a net basis; a
monthly rental rate of $1.00 per square foot is considered reasonable for usable space in Santa
Monica. Given the low ceiling which limits the usable area, a 40% discount has been taken
resulting in a monthly net rental rate of $0.60 17 per square foot. The adaptive reuse of this facility
is recommended through 2015 when SMC will use the facility; and renovations to insulate the
facility with new sides and windows, while maintain the steel framed window style to reflect the
quality of the site.
17 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
116
4.27
4.26 3400 Airport Avenue Bldg. BC (1 3)
Constructed in the 1980‘s, this building is used as an industrial shop space. It is relatively small,
for single tenant rental with small shop needs, and is located to the rear of the property (Figure
4.26 ).
Foundation : Founded on reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings. Size and depth are unknown
due to unavailability of structural drawings. Load-bearing walls are anticipated to be founded
reinforced cast-in -place concrete spread and continuous footings, based on age and type of
anticipated loads, and geotechnical conditions. The foundation is in good condition, based on
finding no evidence of overloading or failure.
Floors : The floors are cast-in -place concrete slab-on -grade, reinforced with welded wire fabric
which is placed over a vapor barrier and compacted gravel fill.
Roof : The roof is wood joist low-sloped flat roof construction, with assumed 2”x8” joists (spaced
at 16” on center) and wood plank sheathing at the roof surface below the membrane. Areas of
pitched roof consist of a network of structural steel beams and rafters which support the primary
roof system. The two low sloped roof elements were replaced in 2012.
Walls : The inner sides of walls typically contain gypsum wall board, while exterior wall surfaces
contain plaster over metal lath and two layers of moisture barrier with plywood.
Enclosure : The structure is enclosed with wood stud wall .
Stairs : N/A
Windows : The windows are standard wood framed with single pane glass panels and aluminum
framed insulated units.
MEP : The electrical system includes a 150-amp service provided from a utility provided main
transformer. Electrical distribution is provided by on 70-amp panel board located in the building
interior. The building is not provided with HVAC or fire alarm system equipment. The building has
a sprinkler system.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
Assessment
The existing facility is in average condition. Net rental rates for industrial facilities with less than
5,000 square feet range from $1.08 to $1.51 per square foot monthly; with older structures and
limited upgrades the recommended rates are at the bottom of this spectrum at $1.08 and $1.10
per square foot monthly. Given the location of this structure to the rear of property, as well as its
limited loading capacity, a lower rental rate is considered appropriate and has been applied at
117
4.28
$1.20 18 per square foot. The facility is to remain ―a s is‖ in the short term as the facility is in
average condition (Figure 4.27 ). Recommendations after 2015 include minor renovations to the
facility not in excess of $114,680 (50% of the facility‘s replacement value).
3400 Airport Avenue Building D (1 4)
This building, constructed in the 1980‘s, has been finished as creative office space with a small
screening room considered to be a flex space (Figure 4.28 ). This building contains multiple
offices and covered exterior recreational areas. Set back from the street, it has limited visibility,
and is a self contained space with a fenced yard area.
Foundation : Founded on reinforced cast-in -place concrete footings. Size and depth are unknown
due to unavailability of structural drawings. Load-bearing walls are anticipated to be founded
reinforced cast-in -place concrete spread and continuous footings, based on age and type of
anticipated loads, and geotechnical conditions. The foundation is in good condition, based on
finding no evidence of overloading or failure.
Floors : The floors are cast-in -place concrete slab-on -grade, reinforced with welded wire fabric
which is placed over a vapor barrier and compacted gravel fill.
Roof : The roof is wood joist low-sloped flat roof construction, with 2‖x8‖ joi sts (spaced at 16‖ on
center) and wood plank sheathing at the roof surface below the membrane. Areas of pitched roof
consist of a network of structural steel beams and rafters which support the primary roof system.
The roof consists of a series of 1.5‖x12‖ wo od roof joists which are supported on the exterior
walls.
Walls : The walls are concrete block, exposed in some areas and painted in others.
Enclosure : The frame at the structure is assumed to be 2”x4” wood studs which support the
exterior stucco panels and the interior drywall systems.
Stairs : There are wood, concrete and composite constructed stairs.
Windows : Windows are a combination of aluminum and wood framed operable units.
MEP : There is no water, HVAC, fire alarm, or wet-pipe sprinkler system equipment. There are
packaged ac units in several of the spaces.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
18 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
118
4.29
4.30
Assessment
The facility‘s exterior structure has been partially renovated including a covered patio area and is
in average condition (Figure 4.29 ). This unfinished water feature is an issue that will need to be
addressed either by the Airport or a future tenant. The interior of the facility is in good condition.
The survey of creative office rents varies from $1.20 to $1.50 per square foot on an adjusted net
basis. Despite the unfinished exterior site improvements, the good condition of the interior
warrants a rental rate at the upper end of the spectrum; additionally, the building benefits from
being a self contained space with a fenced yard area. Accordingly, a monthly rental rate of
$1.45 19 per square foot on a net basis has been adopted for the facility. The facility should
remain ―as is ‖ in the short term as the facility is in average condition. Renovations to the
unfinished water feature are recommended after 2015 by either a future tenant or the Airport. If
improvements to the facility will exceed $49,820 (50% of the facility‘s replacement value); new
construction should comply with sustainable measures and reflect t the existing architectural style
and character of the site.
3400 Airport Avenue Building E (1 5)
Since construction in 1950, this building has been improved as creative office space with multiple
building, and has limited street visibility. Additionally, the entrance is from the rear side of the
building (Figure 4.30 ).
Foundation : The foundation is assumed to be a series of mild-steel reinforced cast-in -place
concrete footings; size and depth are unknown due to unavailability of structural drawings.
Floors : There is cast in place exposed concrete floors.
Roof : The roof construction consists of wood joists supported by the perimeter wall system.
Walls : The walls are a mixture of masonry and concrete walls.
Enclosure : There is clay brick exterior wall construction with painted finishes.
Stairs : N/A
Windows : The windows are standard aluminum framed windows with single pane glass panels.
MEP : There is no water supply, HVAC, fire alarm, or wet-pipe sprinkler system. The electrical
system includes a 150-amp service provided by a utility provided main transformer. Electrical
distribution is provided by one 70-amp panel board located in the building interior.
Accessibility: Not upgraded for ADA compliance
19 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
119
4.31
Assessment
The interior of the facility is in average condition having been upgraded; however the ceilings are
very low in the office space. Rental comparables for creative office space indicates rates from
$1.20 to $1.50 per square foot monthly on an adjusted net basis. Recognizing the lack of street
exposure, industrial façade and minimal, relatively standard interior upgrades, a net monthly
rental rate of $1.20 20 per square foot, at the lower end of the spectrum, has been utilized for this
building. The facility is to remain “as is” in the short term as the facility is in average condition.
Renovations to this facility are recommended after 2015, and are not likely to exceed $88,830
(50% of the facility’s replacement value).
General Aviation Specialty Hanger
This building is comprised of hanger areas, multiple individual offices, and a restroom facility,
constructed in 1989. The ground floor is used as creative office space, with aviation tenants
preferred, and some business park office spaces. The General Aviation Specialty Hanger is not a
characteristic of the overall vision. The building is primarily concrete and corrugated metal.
3223 Donald Douglas Loop Airp or t Administration Building
Built in 1989, this building houses the airport administration offices, the operations department,
leased office spaces, and a restaurant facility. The courtyard offices, facing outdoor, are part of
the larger administration building. The restaurant includes a view of the airport runway. The
Administration Building is not a part of the visioning site; however, it is adjacent to the site and
contributes to the quality and characteristic of the overall vision. This facility employs sustainable
roofing and the electric vehicle parking spaces provided. The restaurant provides a viewing area
to the airport runway.
Facilities: Future Opportunities
The utilization of existing facilities at Santa Monica Airport and maintaining the current low-
intensity uses of buildings is the most sustainable option for the site before 2015 and possibly
beyond. The existing mixture of early aviation structures and early 50’s/60’s architecture has set a
unique scale and character that should be maintained and enhanced to preserve Airport history.
These facilities can be adaptively reused, progressively renovated based on an on-site standard
for sustainability, retaining the current Airport architectural vehicular.
20 Rental Valuation Study – Santa Monica Airport. Buss-Shelger Associates 2010
120
4.32
4.33
New construction, remodels and renovations of buildings will use similar materials visually, but
consist of more sustainable materials and modern facility enhancements such as windows,
insulation, and re-cladding. When renovations are considered, the cost of renovations should be
evaluated .
If the renovation or modifications exceed 50% of the replacement value of the building a
full analysis for compliance to current code requirements is required. This would be for
both Structural and Mechanical (mechanical compliance would dictate envelope
up grades).
All new construction within the limits of an existing non conforming structure would
require meeting current codes and regulations. In the case of Accessibility, the area or
limits would be required to be in full compliance.
For construction up to approximately $139,000 a hardship can be claimed and the
maximum expenditures can be limited to 20%.
When a building is being considered for adaptive reuse (change of use) a detailed review of the
structure should be conducted by professional engineers of individual disciplines that affect the
overall performance of the building to determine the feasibility of modernization. In addition a
Historic Preservation Architect should evaluate the historical significance of the building. For the
purposes of this project and enhancing on-site sustainability, demolition and new construction is
not ideal and is considered as a last alternative.
When a building is being renovated or replaced, the opportunity for new sustainability measures
to be implemented though out each building should be addressed. Using USGBC and the City of
Santa Monica Standards should be the base but higher aspirations and innovations should be
strived for. In an effort to make the area a sustainable laboratory the City should continue to be
open to innovative options that might be developed in the future that takes the total integrated
design approach to Facility, Open Space and Infrastructure.
Open Space/Parks: Existing Conditions and Assessment
The Open Space and Parks are an integral part of the Airport non aviation lands (Figure 4.33 ). It
is the connection fabric that links all of the facilities. The existing Parks at the Airport have been
designed with the Airport sustainability principles in mind, and have taken opportunities to
enhance the overall sustainability of the site. The existing conditions are, in many cases,
innovative solutions that should be utilized in the next phase of open space and park design at
121
4.34
4.35
4.36
the Airport Campus. Existing constraints can also be mitigated in future opportunities by the
application of sustainable strategies.
Airport Park
Designed by Ah‘be Landscape Architects, Culver City, CA, the Santa Monica Airport Park was
the first new park built in Santa Monica in 28 years. It is located adjacent to the municipal airport
lands, and its addition addresses Santa Monica‘s long term need for more open and green
spaces. The design incorporates environmentally conscious practices with sustainable plantings,
storm-water management techniques, and lighting (Figure 4.34 ). Along with the environmental
improvements, the Park enhances the adjacent Santa Monica community providing new green
space and amenities as well as a visual buffer between the airport and residential neighborhoods.
The informal plaza area contains 17 picnic tables and 6 BBQ grills for public gatherings, and
additional seating with plantings for shade. There is a running track (.6 miles) that weaves
through the Park; it is made of stabilized decomposed granite to offer durability, and is the only
non -porous surface in the Park. The parking is paved with permeable asphalt for better storm-
water retention; however, an area drain was added post-construction to accommodate additional
runoff. The play area utilized sand as the base material, to further contribute to the overall
permeability of the site. The Airport Park includes soccer fields, a dog park, restroom (Figure
4.35 ) and concession facilities, a playground, passive open space, picnic areas, and permeable
pavement parking. The design incorporates plantings into the residual space between parking
and sidewalks to serve as pocket parks and landscaped swales; they interrupt the hard-scape,
which is found throughout the Airport site and adjacent parcels. The overall aesthetic of the
Airport Park takes the aeronautic history of the site into consideration; the play area, fencing, and
light posts utilize galvanized steel to achieve a post-industrial look and Ah‘be used the placement
of windsocks to mark the Airport as the gateway to Santa Monica. Airport Park is open to all
Santa Monica and Los Angeles residents. (Figure 4.36 21 )
Park Restrooms
The restrooms at Airport Park are an open air, concrete block structure; the inclusion of
galvanized steel and durable materials is consistent with both the post-industrial look of the Park
and the sustainable principles for construction and longevity of the project. The building has a
wood framed roof, and fully tiled interior, and includes storage and a concessions area. The
facility is fully compliant with disabled access requirements, including the drinking fountain and
21 Photo credit: Ah‟be Landscape Architects
122
4.37
4.38
telephone heights and clearances. The park restrooms are centrally located to be easily
accessed by the soccer field, dog park, and playground spaces; the parking is shared with the
Airport and Park facilities. The restrooms are open to all Santa Monica and Los Angeles
residents .
Soccer Fields
The soccer field makes up a large portion of the Airport Park (Figure 4.37 22 ). It is surrounded by
high chain link fence and concrete block wall on the northern side, as it is only open to use by
designated local teams. The field is fully covered with synthetic turf, with infiltration beds
underneath that retain storm water from portions of the Airport lands and the Airport Park,
improving the City‘s overall storm water management system. The field can accommodate three
games, as small segmented fields, and can be used as a single large soccer or football field if
needed; it provides adequate pre-game congregating and warm up spaces adjacent to the
playing fields and close proximity to the restrooms, water fountains, and playgrounds. The large
green turf area contributes to the overall interruption of hard-scape on the site, removing a large
area of paving from between Airport lands and Airport Avenue. The soccer field has 80-foot-tall
lighting standards with shielded lamps to reduce glare in the surrounding park and pedestrian
areas; the posts are galvanized steel to contribute to post-industrial look of Airport Park.
Dog Park
The dog park, which contains two off leash areas (OLAs), is built at the east end of Airport Par k
on the existing slope (upwards towards Bundy Drive). The park is designed as a series of three
terraces, which utilize the natural topography to drain back into the slope and capture all of the
water runoff for the area (Figure 4.38 23 ). Ah‘be utilized a French drainage system made up of a
network of filters to prevent overflow or runoff from entering the City‘s storm drains. The dog park
surfaces are fully permeable, made up of wood chips and dirt fill. It is fully enclosed in chain link
fencing, with small wood fences and enclosed plantings on the interior. Benches within the dog
park OLAs are provided with galvanized steel poles and coverings for shade, and contribute to
the overall post-industrial design of Airport Park. The running track (.6 miles) that weaves through
the Park runs around the perimeter of the dog park and has a pedestrian ramp from the corner of
Bundy Drive and Airport Avenue that leads down to the restrooms and parking lot areas. The dog
22 Photo credit: Ah‟be Landscape Architects 23 Photo credit: Ah‟be Landscape Architects
123
4.39
4.40
4.41
park is bordered on one side by the City of Los Angeles, but Los Angeles residents are only
allowed use with the purchase of a pass .
Pervious and Impervious Surfaces
Airport Avenue extends from Bundy Drive to 23 rd Street; the two-lane road is approximately 4,500
feet or .85 mile in length and runs in an east-west direction. Existing sidewalk and road conditions
are in need of replacement and/or repair as the sidewalks are uneven, with cracked pavement
from tree roots and information parking uses. The plethora of impervious surfaces on -site creates
problems. The asphalt parking lots at and around the Santa Monica Arts College and Ceramics
building are notably large, and do not provide landscaping, or pedestrian friendly access to the
surrounding areas of the site. The project teams‘ visual assessment found that plant life and trees
along Airport Avenue are deteriorating and diseased; the new plantings running parallel to the
dog park, and around the Airport Park seating areas are well maintained and provide refuge from
the hard surfaces on the majority of the Airport. The 3400 Airport Avenue main office building has
an old tree on its front lawn, as well as the well-kept demonstration garden with meandering
pedestrian paths (Figure 4.39 ).
Perimeter Fence
There is a perimeter fence that runs along the southern edge of the Airport Campus, providing
some visual and noise protection to the adjacent residencies. It begins at Bundy as a concrete
block wall, and runs the full length of the south side of the Airport property, changing materials
several times, with one section that runs perpendicular, behind Santa Monica College. When it
reaches the Museum of Flying, the concrete block continues flush to the residents, while a chain
link fence covered in greenery begins on the Airport side. As it passes behind the Santa Monica
Arts College and Ceramics buildings, there is a long section of wood, which then transitions into a
concrete berm which terminates with the site. The inconsistency and condition of these barrie rs
warrant a further study to develop options of screening, sound and visual, and security. A
noticeable feature along this barrier, beginning near the chain link fence, is a wide (approximately
3 feet) storm drainage channel along the southern most edge of the project site and the adjacent
neighbors (Figure 4.40 ). The open channel is an integral part of the storm drainage system and
should be studied as part of the storm drainage system and screening opportunities.
124
4.42
4.43
4.44
Open Space/Parks: Future Opportunities
There is an opportunity to enhance the overall sustainability of the site by improving existing air
quality, noise, open space, urban runoff, hazardous waste, construction, traffic, and solid waste
management onsite. Existing site constraints can also be mitigated by the application of
sustainable strategies and demonstration projects. The Project Team has investigated the
following opportunities to achieve the Airport‘s sustainability goals through sustainable solutions
(both conventional and experimental), applicable to the site.
Air Quality and Noise
Airport Avenue is envisioned as a pedestrian and bicycle friendly corridor, with shifting allocation
of the street space over time from vehicular to multi-modal. Contiguous sidewalks, inviting
streetscapes, safe and well-marked crossings, and improved signage can improve pedestrian
mobility; likewise bicyclists would benefit from enhanced signage and over time an increase
allocation of street space. Multi-modal trips to project site will increase the shifting modal
allocation of the streetscape to prioritize the pedestrian and bicyclist. Regular and consistent
sidewalks with street trees and planting zones along Airport Avenue will also serve as living air
filters and noise abatement.
Green screens, green walls, and landscaped ‗berms‘ capture airborne pollutant and filter noxious
gases and particulate matter while reducing the ambient temperature in urban areas. Green walls
can be integrated throughout the project site, specifically at the Neighborhood Gateway and along
the perimeter fence as a buffer to the adjacent neighborhood, and utilize multiple systems and
forms; the multiple benefits include security, privacy screening, shade, biodiversity, habitat, and
urban agriculture. Green walls can also contribute to securing up to 18 credits under the LEED for
new buildings (Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Innovation in Design
credits).
Open Space
As prioritized in the Access and Existing Conditions section of this report (Figure 4.43 ), there are
opportunities along Airport Avenue to re-purpose underutilized spaces for community activity and
create flexible environments for outdoor programming and events; these opportunity locations are
identified as Focus Area 2: Community-Oriented Space and Focus Area 3: Flexible Outdoor
Space. In Focus Area 2, the triangle parcel (now used for parking) on the south side of Airport
Avenue is currently underutilized and can be re-appropriated as ‗being-space‘ for community-
125
4.45
4.46
4.47
oriented uses and functions. Community participation in the design and identification of this use is
recommended. For Focus Area 3, vehicle grade pavers should be used to delineate shared-use
areas (vehicles and pedestrians) to accommodate outdoor programming and flexible space.
Alternatively or in the interim, pavement painting can be used within the roadway to demarcate
the shared space. Existing open space areas and park land areas, including Airport Community
Park, can be expanded for active and passive recreation by re-purposing tie down lots to the
north of the Museum of Flying and/or north of the dog park into community serving outdoor
recreation.
Urban agriculture is an umbrella term referring to a range of activities related to shared garden
plots and community farming, that are part of the city‘s open space network (Figure 4.44 ).
Shared garden plots and community farming are most appropriate where resident uses are
proposed in multiple dwelling developments, but could also be used for herb gardens associated
with restaurants and in common outdoor amenity spaces for other uses such as offices, schools,
and community areas (Figure 4.45 and Figure 4.46 ). Opportunities for shared garden plots and
community farming within the project site include the small spaces (at least 250 square feet)
adjacent to Airport Community Park or in flexible spaces and community oriented spaces
throughout the project site; they must be placed in locations with adequate sun exposure. The
benefits of urban farming can reduce a city‘s ecological footprint by reducing ―distance to f ork‖
through encouraging more locally grown produce and encouraging an environmentally and
socially sustainable activity.
Stormwater Runoff
As previously identified in the Access and Circulation section, permeable paving such as vehicle
grade pavers should be used to delineate shared-use areas in Focus Area 3; permeable paving
includes a range of sustainable materials, with a base and sub base that will allow the movement
of storm water through the surface and filter pollutants and debris from the water. In addition to
applying permeable paving to shared-use areas, parking lots, cycle paths, and road and airport
shoulders are also important locations for permeable paving.
Planting zones along Airport Avenue should incorporate bioswales to remove pollution and debris
from surface runoff water. Bioswales include a drainage course with gently sloped slides (less
than six percent) and are filled with vegetation, compost or rock rubble to filter pollutants from
storm water.
126
4.48
*The storm drainage channel along the southern most edge of the project site and the adjacent
neighbors is an integral part of the storm drainage system and should be studied as part of the
storm drainage system and screening opportunities. S ee : Infrastructure: Future Opportunities
On -site Power Generation
iPavement harnesses pedestrian traffic to generate energy onsite. Made with 100% of recycled
rubber and designed to generate renewable energy by converting the kinetic energy of footsteps
to electric off the grid, iPavement could be implemented as part of larger strategies to reduce
hard-scape and improve the pedestrian experience at the site. The incorporation of iPavement
can delineate pedestrian zones amongst shared vehicle and pedestrian spaces, and provide
ambient lighting, designed to engage the walker. Each tile is capable of generating 4-8 watts of
electricity per footstep. 4% of this is used to power the tile ‘s LED light, and 95% is left over as
usable electricity.
Infrastructure: Existing Conditions and Assessment
This section uses summary analyses from the companies that provide utilities and services to the
project site; and data that was collected during the preparation of the Airport Park Environmental
Impact Report 24 and the Draft Urban Water Management Plan 25 and the Project Teams‘
assessment of City provided GIS maps. Existing Utility Companies that provide service to the
Non Aviation portion of the Airport were contacted to obtain or confirm information related to size,
location, year installed and future capital improvements. Some information was obtained and in
Based on the current information obtained related to sizes and capacities of the existing
infrastructure, if existing or similar uses are maintained, which would not affect the demand, the
on -site infrastructure should be adequate. Changes in use such as the addition of local
restaurants, incubators, or additional uses that require more utility demand may increase the
required utility capacity and should be studied further. The age of some on-site utilities may
warrant replacement and should be coordinated with the improvements suggested in this study;
however, the information related to age of each utility is not available at this time.
24 Rev. July 2002 25 December 2000
127
4.49
4.50
Electricity
On -site electricity is provided by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), through an existing
power line running along Airport Avenue 300 feet west of Bundy Drive; providing 120/240v single-
phase, three-wire, 4kV overhead lines service. Currently the largest main switch that can be
served from the existing single-phase system is 400 amps. Infrastructure updates are required to
bury the above ground power lines.
Natural Gas
Natural gas to the site is provided by the Southern California Gas Company; there is an existing
gas li ne south of Airport Avenue.
Water
The Water Resources Division in the Public Works Department provides for water for the City of
Santa Monica from groundwater basin wells (60%) and imported water (40%) from the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The City contracts with MWD which operates the Arcadia
Water Treatment Plant and Charnock Wellsfield and Pump Station site. There ar e active water
mains, and hydrants along Airport Avenue, Donald Douglas Loop South, and Airport Park. Based
on information obtained from the Water Company a 1 2‖ round water line in Airport Way was
installed in 1977. There have not been any reports of incident related to the water line and there
is no planned capital expenditures for the future. (see Appendix B ).
Sewer
There are active 8 inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) Sewer Mains along Donald Douglas Loop S and
Airport Avenue, lined in 2003. There are sewer maintenance holes at intersections and regular
intervals along the mains. (see Appendix B ).
WiFi Hotspot
Airport Park is an active WiFi Hotspot , and there is Pacific Bell Commercial fiber optic running
along Donald Douglas Loop South and Airport Avenue (see Appendix B ).
Storm Drain and Storm Water Management
A Storm Water Prevention Plan for the region was developed and updated in 2007 (Figure 4.50 )
Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), ranging in size from 24 to 54 inches, but are typically 30 inches
in the project area. Storm Drains run along Donald Douglas Loop South, the Northern side of the
Airport Park and on Airport Avenue between Donald Douglas Loop South and The Airport Arts
128
4.51
Campus, where there is a Storm Transition Box. There are a limited number of outlets, in the
project area, with one located in Airport Park, and another located on Airport Avenue adjacent to
Barker Hanger, along with two storm catch basins. There is a storm maintenance hole located at
the intersection of Donald Douglas Loop S and Airport Avenue; additional storm catch basins are
at all intersections. (see Appendix B ).
Storm Water runoff generally flows from north to south towards the west, surface drained to catch
basins into reinforced concrete pipes which discharge to an open channel at the south end of the
studied site adjacent to the residential development. Based on visual observation of a surface
path of the storm water indicates that the water flow is excessively eroding these surfaces. The
storm drain system should be studied to mitigate the storm water slow in a creative sustainable
approach. (see Appendix B ).
Assessment
Though meetings and discussions with Airport and City Staff, the storm water management on
the Airport and Non Aviation portion of the Airport has been deemed insufficient for the existing
uses and site configurations. Based on a visual inspection of the site the surface flow of water
can be visually seen where the pavement or surfaces have been loosen and eroded. The open
channel is cluttered with water driven debris which can prevent proper drainage.
Infrastructure: Future Opportunities
There is an opportunity to enhance the overall sustainability of the site by improving existing air
quality, noise, open space, urban runoff, hazardous waste, construction, traffic, and solid waste
management onsite. Existing site constraints can also be mitigated by the application of
sustainable strategies and demonstration projects. The Project Team has investigated the
following opportunities to achieve the Airport‘s sustainability goals through sustainable solutions
(both conventional and experimental), applicable to the site. Many of the opportunities related to
the site infrastructure overlap and are implementable through the sustainability efforts related to
Open Space. A sustainable Storm Water Management approach should be reviewed and
implemented as part of the Storm Drain System.
Storm Water Runoff
Storm water currently flows for the north to the south and east to the west through a surface to
underground pipe back to a drainage channel. There is an opportunity to utilize Storm Water
129
4.52
Runoff System as a unifying infrastructure that can tie open space and facilities together.
Defining and regulating the path, either through landscaped dry creeks or diving/parking areas
with pervious materials and strategically placing retentions pocket infill parks can control the
storm water. An example of this an existing condition on the site where a large storm water runoff
ditch (approx 3‘ wide) that runs along the noise and visual barrier could be improved into a
landscaped dry creek could provide additional protection to the residents with the natural sounds
of water, in addition to providing controlled runoff. It would also act as a link between new
landscaping and pedestrian access in areas that currently contain parking, contributing to the
soft/natural features of the site.
On -site Power Generation
Solar energy is one of the best ways to contribute to sustainability. By converting sunlight into
clean, green energy, the Santa Monica Airport can reduce its carbon footprint and lower
dependence on fossil fuels (Figure 4.52 ). 3200 Airport Avenue is currently the only on-site facility
with a solar roof, but there are other possible locations within the project site for solar panels
including existing facilitates with available roof space, parking lots, and walkways.
Next Steps
The Consultant team suggests the City of Santa Monica proceed with the following activities to
pursue for facilities and infrastructure on-site, in the short term and long term.
130
Evaluation Matrix of Facilities and Infrastructure
Evaluation Criteria
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
OP
T
I
O
N
1 :
Up
g
r
a
d
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
OP
T
I
O
N
2 :
Up
g
r
a
d
e
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life
2 Increase community open space
3 Improve accessibility and reduce
traffic impacts
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -aviation
lands
7 Include green building practices and
sustainability initiatives
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 People -oriented rather than car -
oriented
9 Local scale rather than city or regional
scale
10 Integration with the context rather than
introverted and standalone
11 Incremental actions rather than large
unitary projects
12 Flexible and adaptable rather than
inflexible and uncompromising
13 Energy -efficient rather than resource
consuming
14 Financial sustainability rather than
subsidy -dependent
= supports the guiding principle = does not support the guiding principle = neutral / not
applicable
131
Before 2015
Develop architecture standards for all new construction that maintain the historical quality
and low intensity facilities that currently exist onsite; develop renovation standards to
maintain the historical facades of facilities onsite.
Determine facilities that will be re-used, renovated, or demolished and newly constructed
based on their assessment in this study.
Provide new infrastructure to soften existing onsite hard-scape (excessive parking and
pavement) through new greening, alternative storm water management practices, and
integrated active transportation and storm water management solutions.
Meet the demands of all new facilities and uses, through on-site sustainable practices.
After 2015
Identify access strategies between the adjacent neighborhoods and the south edge of the
Airport, without diminishing the efficiency of the noise and pollution barrier.
Create partnerships with other onsite projects, to ensure that all future Airport projects
aim to achieve the Phase 3 goals and visions to align with the direction for the future of
the Airport.
Develop a plan to integrate the future properties, acquired as a result of leases
terminating in 2015.
132
Public Process and Engagement
Task Description
This section of the Enhancement Planning project focuses on public outreach and engagement
events related to the Santa Monica Airport. These activities can be categorized into Internal
Activities, Activities with the Client, and Activities with Other Stakeholders. Each of these activities
is described in terms of the agenda items discussed and the action items to be completed.
Internal Activities
Internal Design Workshop – December 4 th , 2012
On December, 4, 2012, IBI Group held an internal design workshop with the Project Team. A
primary discussion of the workshop assessed Santa Monica Airport investing in an incubator
space with either construction of a new 60,000-100,000 square foot facility, or the conversion of
old hangers with renovations and upgrades. Additional site opportunities such as creating a
community of artisans for a local market, creating a linear park along Airport Avenue, and
implementing active transportation demonstration projects where discussed to identify best
options for further development. The Project Team determined that all recommendations and
further development of ideas (facility design, access and circulation, and land use) will utilize a
small scale ―building blo ck‖ approach .
Activities with Client
Kick-off Meeting - September 14, 2012
On September 14, 2012, IBI Group conducted a kick-off meeting with the Project Team and
Santa Monica City and Airport Staff to discuss the project schedule, upcoming events, pressing
tasks, and key components of the project. The meeting included open discussion of the topics;
community, land, leases and uses, funding and revenue, and access, as well as general
background information provided by Airport Staff. The Project Team identified action items
regarding gathering materials for existing conditions assessments, and an upcoming incubator
workshop.
133
Community Compatibility
The airport is encroached by the neighborhood, making all improvements/changes very
visible and therefore controversial; the study must be transparent.
Facilities on Airport Ave were never upgraded because of public opinion; however, now
contain program in buildings and facilities that need upgrades.
Making the Airport a ―better neighb or‖; use community input (already gathered) about
preferred land uses.
Consider future density, how long term does the study project.
Land, Leases, Uses
Non-aviation lands will not be needed in the future for aviation purposes
The land is owned outright by the City, with leases and subtenants
Use lease renewals to promote sustainability
Use lease renewals to generate new revenue
The Airport is not guaranteed to be an airport forever
Protect the creative public arts and affordable artist studios
Schedule an Airport Context Workshop
Funding, Revenue
The Airport has 13 million dollars in general fund loans for capital projects; they do not
seek Federal grants. The Airport needs to become self sufficient
There is a Fee Study happening concurrently with the Airport Enhancement Project
Review the report on financial advisement for the Airport
For airports in general, properties are the greatest revenue providers
Access
Airport Ave was originally designed only for use as an access road, the width is very
narrow
Deal with lack of major transit nearby, look at Blue Bus analysis (Sunset Ride) and
alternative connections
Kick-off Meeting Action Items
An infrastructure assessment will be necessary; fiber connections, sewer, water, etc
Review existing physical survey/GIS data/etc
Provide incremental changes with the proposal:
Short term ―Building Blo cks‖ that can be presented to council for implementation
Long term ―Next S teps‖
134
5.1
5.2
Airport Existing Conditions and Document Review– September 28, 2012
On September 28, 2012, the IBI Group Project Team conducted an internal meeting with Santa
Monica staff to discuss the existing conditions of the Airport project site. The meeting included a
historical presentation on the Airport‘s significant in aviation history and a site walk to discuss
connectivity, building conditions, site opportunities, locations and areas of focus, and potential
adjacent projects; both the historical presentation and Airport project site walk were led by Bob
Trimborn, Airport Manager. Santa Monica staff also provided the Project Team with a building
assessment of each facility, focused on lease agreements, current tenants, and any
improvements that will need to be made to these facilities once existing lease agreements expire.
Santa Monica Staff discussed sustainability for the project site including the 2009 Santa Monica
Airport Sustainability Plan and the goal to implement cutting edge sustainability efforts, beyond
storm water management best practices. Sustainability as an overarching vision for the project
site will also be reflected in the transportation incubator concept, which may focus on alternative
transportation research for electric and hybrid planes.
Airport Incubator Workshop – October 18, 2012
On October 18, 2012, IBI Group conducted an internal workshop meeting together with Santa
Monica staff to begin the conversation with the City regarding Task 9 of the project, ―Sustainable
Transportation Incubator Feasibility Stu dy‖.
Incubators 101, presented by Oliver Hartleben, defined in practical terms the concept of an
incubator, the potential benefits it could provide for a community, and outlined key components of
an incubator model (sector focus, sponsors/partners, programs/services offered, organizational
and legal structure, and human capital). It also presented the basic steps for the implementation
and consolidation of an incubator (public relations, funding, expenses and revenues, facility
design and size, staffing and compensation, and client recruitment and selection). The
presentation also contained nine successful incubator case studies that were not examined in full
during the meeting due to time constraints.
The second presentation, ―Building and Managing Your ‗Technoplex,‘‖ inclu ded four case studies
of ―Technople xes‖ or technology industry clusters in the LA area (Pasadena, San Gabriel Valley,
La Verne, and Los Angeles Ports). Bill Lyte presented basic descriptive information and figures,
135
the roles of the different stakeholders, the process each project underwent until it was
implemented, and crucial insights about these processes. The second portion of the presentation
contained specific recommendations to successfully implement a technology cluster in a
community, stressing in particular the commitment required by the sponsoring institution, the
involvement of public and private stakeholders, and the orchestration of the process itself –
suggesting at the end that a ―sticks and bric ks‖ p roject (e.g., an incubator) is only a component of
the whole endeavor.
The purpose for the development of the non-aviation airport lands is not yet clearly defined,
although some general ideas exist. Among the alternatives tabled at this meeting were (a)
preserving / enhancing (not transforming) the character of the airport and the community, (b)
using the site for a more productive use, (c) ensuring adequate financial / social returns to the
City and its citizens, (d) positioning the airport as a technology hub for the 21 st century, and (e)
providing a regional example for green and livable development. It may well be that the project
can address many – if not all – of these purposes.
Incubator Workshop Action Items
Investigate fiscal impact and value of the site. IBI Group will work with team partner
RCLCO to investigate a financial mechanism by which the market for an incubator
concept can be determined, cost estimated and funded.
Estimate the costs of upgrading the site and the buildings. IBI Group proposes to do a
high level estimate of what it would take to (a) bring up to code the existing buildings, (b)
upgrade the existing site infrastructure, and (c) and construct a new purpose built
incubator facility.
Understand the existing strengths. There is need to understand the existing assets in the
Santa Monica area regarding start-ups and other entities related to enabling the creation
of new companies. To this end, IBI Group will map and tabulate a list of all related
stakeholders, indicating their sector focus, products or services offered, size, and
proximity to the airport site.
Identify potential partners. Independently if the proposed development strategy is at the
city, site, or building scale, it will be important to uncover potential partners in the
endeavor. IBI Group will begin to identify areas of research and strength of local
educational institutions (e.g., Santa Monica College, the VW/Audi Design Center) that
may have the potential to produce synergies with the preliminary list of ―themes‖
indicated above.
136
Land Use and Circulation Workshop I – October 26, 2012
On October 26, 2012, the IBI Group Project Team conducted the Land Use and Circulation
Workshop I with Santa Monica staff to discuss existing pedestrian access, bicycle facilities,
vehicle circulation conditions and land uses of the Airport project site. The Land Use and
Circulation Workshop II will be the visioning workshop and held on November 8, 2012.
Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Facilitates
Roundabout concept to create more of a pedestrian activity space for event days. The
pedestrian activity space would be maintained/ recognized with bollards. Use two
roundabouts on Airport Avenue to create a performance space.
If this is a hard area to get to by car, then maybe you need to get to it by another mode.
Can we look at this as big problems that cannot be solved, don't try to solve auto but
focus on the alternative modes of transportation.
Need to look at Airport Avenue and is this a thorough fare or an event arrival spot.
Need to look at funding mechanism for how transit shuttles are funded as part of this
given specific head ways.
23rd street is dangerous to walk into the site. Pedestrian access in via Stewart Street
would be acceptable but they would not want to be able to go from site into the
neighborhoods.
Bike technology and bike sharing is real and no one has started incorporating this.
Bike based goods movement - Paris and Copenhagen, electric assist bike cargo - call for
projects. Bike and Roll does bike rental and interested in moving into goods movement
SM will have bike share, 30 stations and 250 bikes, honing in on locations will put out
RFP on operations and maintenance.
If doing widening, can do a cycle track and have bike side and led side. Want to move
from sparrows to dedicated buffered lanes. Maybe bike on south side because park built
new sidewalk side. Grade separate the auto, bike and pedestrians
Land Uses
In 2015 every lease is up for the site so there are a couple of things that can happen -
Reevaluate the tenants and uses both on land and air side, take over buildings. Options
to consider:
Stay in its current configuration.
137
Potential of west end of runway going away to make a smaller runway so jets
cannot land here
Or council directs closure of airport.
FAA thinks grants end 2023 and that could mean same place until then.
North end can be the revenue generators to fund the south end incubator. They are not
bound by streets. They can help pay for the incubator and roadway improvements.
Highest and best use being made
Base line is what we have with the incremental improvements.
Want a sense of market viability of a sustainable transportation incubator.
Is the viability of the urban research lab has some market viability?
Our strongest themes for incubator could be green transportation as a portion of
it can be aviation.
Is there market viability? What would be the next steps, who would we connect
with - VW, Audi, etc.
Outline and itemize amount of commitments and city staff would convene a
working group to move the project forward.
Land assets, big blue bus yard is last valuable piece of land immediately
adjacent to expo and use this land as augment to their facility.
Is there a possibility to include the taxi tie down area in north - must maintain
certain number of tie down spac e.
Look at what event that could generate enough activity for a gathering plaza.
Sustainability Workshop – November 1, 2012
On November 1, 2012, the IBI Group Project Team conducted a Sustainability Workshop Santa
Monica staff to discuss sustainable opportunities for Santa Monica Airport, using the Santa
Monica Airport Sustainability Plan as a baseline. The Santa Monica Airport Sustainability Plan
addresses air quality, noise mitigation, open space preservation and expansion, water and urban
runoff best management practices (BMPs), hazardous waste elimination, LEED Certified
construction, traffic mitigation through the use of public transportation, and solid waste reduction.
Outreach through public participation, community involvement, and advocacy are also
incorporated in the Santa Monica Airport Sustainability Plan.
The Project Team and Santa Monica staff identified opportunities to mitigate existing site
constraints through the application of sustainable strategies and investigated new sustainable
138
solutions to achieve the Airport‘s vision through the application of demonstration projects. The
following is a list of sustainable solutions (both conventional and experimental) applicable to the
site.
Air Quality – Explore alternative transportation, aviation and ground, through an onsite
incubator.
Noise – Reduce on-site noise pollution by the greening of retaining walls and adding
more urban greening to the site. Green walls – SMART sustainable works (local
company).
Open Space – Investigate the concept of urban farming for small spaces; the Spit Fire
Grill can benefit from the locally grown produce. Maintain existing open space and
emphasize the pedestrian linkages.
Water – SMURF, explore how storm water retention can be improved onsite;
opportunities for percolation zones in turf areas.
Urban Runoff – Investigate best practices from Westchester Airport and Charlotte
Airport.
Construction Practices – Adaptive reuse of existing buildings, when possible, including
Barker Hanger, The Museum of Flying, and 3200 Airport Avenue (Spitfire). All new
construction projects must obtain at least a LEED Silver rating. Opportunity for gr een
pop -up restaurants or structures.
Transportation – Existing traffic congestion on Airport Avenue to be mitigated by a
―pedestrian zone‖ o r shared space demarcated by bollards and artist pavement design,
similar to the Renewable Times Square and the Green Light of Midtown projects.
Reconfigure the intersection at 23 rd Street to provide safe bicycle access to the site and
investigate the slope on Bundy Drive to allow for a bicycle path.
SOLAR farming (i.e. Fresno Airport and Denver Airport).
Land Use and Circulation Workshop II – November 8, 2012
On November 8, 2012, IBI Group conducted a Land Use and Circulation Workshop II with Santa
Monica staff to discuss proposed facilities, active transportation opportunities, and project site
improvements.
139
Proposed Facilities
Santa Monica Airport site will focus of active (alternative) transportation and green aviation
themes. It should be programmed for the community and have a local authenticity, as opposed to
a regional focus. The anchor could be art and the art of food. The total built form proposed on the
site is 400,000 sq ft. 200,000 sq ft serving as classrooms above two levels of parking will at the
northeast end of the site adjacent to Bundy. This will confine traffic on the periphery of the site.
The City intended to expand parkland across Douglas Loop. Residents may not support
this concept adjacent to the existing park. Can this park space be allocated elsewhere?
There needs to be intensification on the site to energize the area.
Intensification of the site is an issue, it may destroy the site‘s tranquility.
Concerned about the traffic circles serving as the anchors for the site. Is it a place where
we want to go? How can it enhance Barker Hanger and make it an asset, as opposed to
an improved pass through?
The proposed incubator is 60,000 sq ft, similar in size to the Los Angeles incubator. It can be a
two story building with a 30,000 sq ft footprint. Calypso style buildings are proposed along Airport
Avenue, in front of the existing buildings, to serve as ―pop-up ‖ reta il spaces. Calypso buildings
could be artist galleries and create a gallery row. This would integrate existing buildings to
provide community supporting retail. The Copenhagen example of linear parks and hardscape
themes to create reasonable connections from a shared street notion can be applied to Airport
Avenue as a ―green street ‖ (pervious paving, street trees, stormwater management, etc). Airport
Avenue can provide community greenspace.
Traffic Circles and Active Transportation
The notion of access and through traffic is an asset, not a liability. Traffic circles can provide
community space while mitigating traffic onsite. A large traffic circle will be located west of Barker
Hanger and a smaller traffic circle is proposed adjacent to the Museum of Flying. A pedestrian
zone can be created between the two traffic circles with temporary bollards. An iconic
statute/monument will be part of the traffic circle and serve as a gateway to draw you to the
space.
The Project Team proposed three active transportation concepts for Airport Avenue that included
pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the existing 26‘ curb to curb.
140
Option 1 included bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the north and south sides of Airport
Avenue. The City of Santa Monica prohibits bicycling on sidewalks so the bicycle facility
will need to be three inches below the sidewalk to differentiate the two modes; it can also
be delineated by different paving or color.
Option 2 included bicycle facilities on the north and south sides of Airport Avenue with
pedestrian paths only on the north side of Airport Avenue.
Option 3 included standard bicycle lanes within the site.
Incremental Site Improvements
Improve streetscape along Airport Avenue to make it an urban street park that accommodates
bicycle facilities and pedestrians through a meandering path.
The Project Team must zoom out the connectivity map to see connections to the Expo
Line then zoom in to see pinch points with the blast wall, noise, and pollutants. The
biggest concern will be incorporating bicycle and pedestrian paths next to the blast wall.
Don‘t shy away from surgery problems to fix the slope issues in the south side or north
side (reference AHBE work). The City would like to explore what the issues and costs
would be to fix these issues . If the solution crosses jurisdictional boundaries, it will spur a
discussion with City of Los Angeles.
What is the infrastructure solution for the south end of the site? Curb cuts, enhanced
crossings, bicycle facilities (bike stations, water), active space (fitness concept with
stormwater management and permeable spaces)?
A fitness concept can include an active loop, fitness space, workout stations.
This cannot be used to offset the open space requirement of sports fields.
The bicycle path should meander through temporary art installations or a
sculpture garden. This will create visitor draw and the City can issue an RFP until
something sticks.
Create an event lawn to serve as open and green space. Spitfire is the long-term revenue
generator; it is a placeholder and an opportunity (pad for long term). Identify a location for
the incubator.
Expand the connectivity map to include the surrounding bicycle network and connections
to the Expo Line station. Centinela could be an Expo Line bike path.
141
Activities with Other Stakeholders
Airport Open House – September 22, 2012
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 Santa Monica Airport hosted its second annual Open House,
for visitors to explore the Airport‘s campus, including the Museum of Flying, observation decks
behind the administrative building, Santa Monica Art Studios, the Airport Park, and on-site
restaurants. Special events for the day included 15 minute guided mini-bus tours of the active air
field perimeter, a display of vintage and contemporary aircraft, and mural painting by aviation
artist Mike Machat.
Santa Monica Airport Commission Meeting – November 26, 2012
On Monday, November 26, 2012, IBI Group and Santa Monica staff made presentations to the
public and SMO Airport Commission as part of the SMO Visioning Process Phase III Workshop.
The SMO Airport Commission meeting included an introduction and overview of the Phase III
Airport Visioning Workshop, a discussion of the Santa Monica Airport Visioning process from the
Assistant Director of Public Works Susan Cline. Additionally a presentation of the various
concepts currently being explored to enhance the non-aviation areas located on the south-side of
the Airport was presented and a presentation and discussion on the status of various Phase III
initiatives and studies designed to reduce the impacts of aircraft operations of the surrounding
community.
142
Su stainable Transportation Incubator
Task Description
Task 9 of the Enhancement Planning Project is the most specific of all the activities assigned to
the consultant team, as it has to do with a feasibility study to include a business in the Santa
Monica Airport non-aviation lands. The text of the Request for Proposal (RFP) defined the task as
follows:
“The possibility of establishing a Sustainability Transportation Incubator (STI) at the Santa
Monica Airport was a consistent theme that emerged from the Phase II visioning process.
Additionally, the City has long contemplated instituting a Sustainability Center that could be
incorporated into the creation of the STI…This feasibility study should lay the ground work for
the City to ultimately develop a business plan for implementation of an incubator that can
either stand on its own with discrete programs or as an integral part of a larger cohesive
network.”26
The idea of including a business incubator as an activity ―ancho r‖ on the non-aviation lands,
although articulated in phase II of the Airport Visioning Process, had actually began to take shape
in Phase I, when the Rand Corporation‘s report suggested that:
“The community may consider creating at the airport a unique economic incubator that could
nurture and hatch new creative enterprises that will draw on surrounding businesses and
universities to create new products and services that link the region‟s high technology,
electronics and communications, and entertainment industries.”27
With these precedents in mind, the planning team led by IBI Group set out to analyze the
strengths and weaknesses of the incubator model, its requirements for implementation, the
market assessment for the Santa Monica context, and the recommended next steps for City
Council and City staff to consider.
26 Source: Santa Monica Pier and Airport Enhancement Planning Project RFP 27 Source: Rand Corporation, ―Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Options for the Future,‖ 2012
143
The Incubator Model
Definition and Opportunities
A business incubator, according to the National Business Incubation Association (NBIA), an
organization that represents about 2,200 individual incubators nationwide, is a…
“…business support process that accelerates the successful development of start-up and
fledgling companies by providing entrepreneurs with an array of targeted resources and
services: Tailored management guidance, technical assistance and consulting… Incubators
usually also provide clients access to appropriate rental space and flexible leases, shared
basic business services and equipment, technology support services and assistance in
obtaining the financing necessary.”28
Note the stress NBIA places on the word process , which separates the business incubator model
from being merely a place renting space for startup businesses. Rather, it includes key resources
and services for startup companies that make it more likely for those to succeed in the business
environment once they mature and develop a sustainable business – be it a new product or an
improved service.
Business incubation has been around for half a century in the United States. The first business
incubator (which incidentally is still in business), the Batavia Industrial Center in Batavia, NY
(Figure 6 .1 ), was opened in 1950, and since then the number of incubators have skyrocketed,
particularly in the last decades. In 2012, almost one third of all incubators opened since 2007
(Figure 6.2 ), which shows how this approach to economic development is gaining momentum
and how the need for business incubation is strong, also during economic downturns.
According to different sources,29 there are many benefits that accrue from implementing a
bus iness incubator approach:
Increased local tax revenue: $1 spent in business incubation= $32 in additional tax
revenue.
28 Source: www.nbia.org 29 Sources: Business Incubation Works, University of Michigan, NBIA, Ohio University and Southern Technology Council,
1997; ―Cost Per Job Associated with EDA Investments in Urban and Rural Areas ‖, Amy K.. Glasmeier, The Pennsylvania
State University, 2002; 2006 State of the Business Incubation Industry, NBIA.
6.2
6.1
144
Local economic development: 84% of graduating firms stay in same community where
they were ―hatched .‖
High survival rate: 87% of businesses stay in business after 3 years.
More efficient job creation: Publicly-funded incubator jobs cost $1,100, while other
publicly-created jobs cost $4,570.
However positive these outcomes may sound, they have to be contrasted with the effort,
resources, and time required getting an incubator fully operational, which are outlined in the
section ―Requirements for the Implementation of a Formal Incubato r,‖ belo w.
Goals and Objectives
The understanding of the incubator model gives a clue to its goals, which are both community
and business-oriented. NBIA states that…
“[a] business incubator‟s main goal is to produce successful firms that will leave the program
financially viable and freestanding [in order] to create jobs, revitalize neighborhoods,
commercialize new technologies, and strengthen local and national economies.”30
In a sense, a business incubator lays at the intersection between community, government,
academia, and private business. This explains why so many business incubators are sponsored
by multiple organizations, each of which brings to the table their area of expertise, and why
strategic alliances between entities are a must for a successful incubator. (Figure 6 .3 shows the
range of potential sponsoring entities and Figure 6 .4 the breakdown of sponsoring entities for
incubators in 2006 and 2012.)
The objectives of incubators are more specific and correspond to the particular phases a startup
business goes through, namely assistance with:
Research, creation, and development of the product or service;
Conception of a business plan for the product /service;
Bolstering the entrepreneurial skills of the executive team of the startup;
Analysis of the market and the market niche for the product /service;
Information and access to various funding sources;
Commercialization of the product/service;
Provision of inexpensive physical space and common office services.
30 Source: www.nbia.org
6.3
6.4
145
6.7
Incubator Industry Key Facts
The incubator industry has undergone several changes during the last six years. Incubators still
predominantly continue to be mixed-use, meaning no specific focus as to the products or services
the ―clients ‖ they receive will produce (Figure 6 .5 ). That said, the NBIA stresses that new
incubators are more and more specialized, targeting a specific slice of the startup market. Most of
this specialized market – over a third of the total market – is dominated by technology-oriented
incubators, focusing, for example information, energy, and health technology. An increasing, but
small portion of the incubator market is focused on services and specialty products (cultural/social
and agro-industrial), including mobile applications, arts, and food. The smallest segment, 3%, is
dedicated purely to manufacturing of products.
Regarding the market served by incubators, there has been a slight shift towards more local and
regional consumption markets (Figure 6 .6 ), but all in all, the split remains pretty even among the
different-scaled markets, and is very much dependent on the incubator sponsors‘ goals and
priorities.
In addition, two emerging trends in the incubation business have begun to show: Incubators are
becoming bigger (Figure 6 .7 ), are more decentralized, and are becoming more efficient in
―gradu ating‖ clients. The statistics shown in the table below illustrates these trends.31
Indicator 2006 2012
Clients per incubator 25 startups 35 startups
Anchor tenants 3 startups 4 startups
Percent of non -resident clients 54% 60%
Incubation period 33 months 28 months
31 Source: 2006 and 2012 State of the Business Incubation Industry Report
6.6
6.5
146
Market Assessment for Santa Monica
Land Use and Incubator Decisions
This section, prepared primarily by consulting team member RCLCO, evaluates the decision to
proceed with an incubator at the SMO Airport site from the perspective of opportunity cost, as
well as provide broader awareness of the investments of political, human and financial capital that
would be required to successfully launch an incubator at this site.
If the City of Santa Monica were to elect to implement an incubator at the Santa Monica Airport,
the driving motivation would not be financial. Instead, given that an incubator is not the use that
would generate the highest amount of sale or lease revenue to the city on a purely monetary
basis, the motivating factor would be to advance some other public policy objective, such as job
growth, fostering innovation, or enhancing the brand of the City.
Were this a typical real estate development site, commercial, office, and multi-family residential
(apartments) would be the land uses that would generate the highest economic benefit to the City
of Santa Monica at this site.32 Yet it is clear to the consultant team that this is not the way to go,
given the task stated by the City Council, in itself a result of the community‘s desire to improve
the quality of life and reduce – not increase – the impacts associated with land uses in the area,
such as traffic.
The general topic of land use has been analyzed in detail in the Uses, Design, and Alignment
chapter of the report. In this chapter, the emphasis is on the incubator use expressed through the
Airport Visioning Process. In order to pursue this use, the City would need to generate financial
and political support to see it through. The City would need to ensure that internally among staff,
and leadership, as well as to some degree, among the community, there is widespread support
for this initiative and the likelihood to garner a long-term commitment for the idea by key
individuals and groups to ensure this is successful.
32 Based on RCLCO‘s extensive local real estate market knowledge, gained from having studied residential, retail and
office markets in West Los Angeles over the past year, and from RCLCO‘s knowledge of the site and surrounding land
uses.
147
6.8
6.9
Implementation Process
Implementing a full-fledged incubator takes time, commitment, and resources by the sponsoring
entities. It is not (or at least not initially) a ―bricks-and-st icks‖ project. It actually consists of a
process that needs to be championed within the sponsoring entities, even when it does not
involve the building of a new facility. Although every incubator is different, it is nonetheless
possible to provide a very general schedule of activities for incubator implementation (Figure
6.8 ).33 It usually takes a total of three years before an incubator is operational, during which many
―soft ‖ a ctivities need to take place, which are explained in detail in the next sections. (It may be
possible, however, to implement a temporary, ―stepping-stone ‖ incu bator by year two by using a
temporary structure, just as LACI did, which would allow more time for financing and building the
final facility.) It is during these three years that stakeholders are identified, partnerships are
forged, teams are formed, resources are marshaled, the incubator is promoted, and facilities are
built.
Marketing and Funding
The first activity in the process to make an incubator operational begins with publicity, because it
needs to build a reputation and differentiate itself from organizations working in the same field
and attract the interests of sponsors, allies, investors, the media, and the public alike. To this end,
a public relations plan must be developed, which should include traditional and new media
channels and the organization of specific events to increase the profile of the endeavor. Personal
networking is extremely important, particularly during the first year, because it is here where key
members of the advisory board will be selected, and it is their personal reputation that will enable
the incubator endeavor to move forward and obtain the necessary funding.
In terms of investment, the implementation of an incubator is a costly endeavor. Once
operational, on average, an incubator requires revenue sources of the order of $500,000 per
annum, which mainly is covered by rents and program fees (Figure 6.9 ).34 Since for the first
three years the incubator will not produce any revenues, covering costs for this period of time will
run in the order of $1 million dollars,35 which usually are covered by the sponsors. In addition, if a
new building is being constructed, another $4-5 million should be added to the list,36 plus the cost
33 Unless otherwise noted, the information in this section comes from Business Cluster Development, Los Angeles Clean
Tech Incubator Business Plan, 2010. 34 Source: 2012 State of the Business Incubation Industry Report. 35 Supposing two years of expenses during the three-year pre-operation period. 36 Supposing a 30,000 SF incubator with construction costs of $150-180 per SF.
148
6.11
6.12
6.10
of land (not an issue in the SMO n on -aviation lands, as the land is owned by the City.) All in all,
the upfront costs could top $6 million before the incubator even starts operation.
When operational, however, the typical condition for incubators, as shown in Figure 6.9 , is not
one of financial sustainability. More often than not, incubators are subsidized by grants or
operating subsidies from public entities, foundations, or business sponsors, given the public
policy objectives associated with this type of endeavor. To cover the gap, incubators must either
(1) discriminate the businesses they accept, even when this does not advance public policy
goals, which is the way most for-profits take, (2) reduce operating costs, e.g., by ramping up the
non -resident client base, or (3) increase the (usually) public operating subsidy they receive.
These aspects need to be taken into account when considering or planning an incubator.
Facility Design
Incubator facilities vary in size and spatial design and distribution considerably, depending
primarily on the scope of the market served and on the industry focus. Although experts used to
say that 30,000 SF was the minimum size to operate a financially efficient incubator, over 60% of
all incubators in 2012 were smaller than this size (Figure 6.10 ). Moreover, the median gross
square footage of incubator facilities has been going down , from 37,086 SF (2006) to 32,319
(2012). If broken down by sector focus, average incubator sizes are pretty dissimilar: Technology-
oriented facilities require most space, particularly because of prototyping and testing areas, while
service or specialty incubators require the least space, about a third of the former, albeit with
better amenities and finishes (Figure 6.11 ).
The layout of a typical, mixed-use incubator dedicates about three quarters of the total gross built
surface to rentable space for clients, about a fifth of which would correspond to anchor tenants,
i.e., those clients who reside in the incubator but do not receive incubator services (Figure 6.12 ).
This is, as already explained, only a broad approximation; technology incubators focused on
product development may include much more common areas for manufacturing, for example,
while specialty incubators such as the Rutgers Food Innovation Center include extensive cold
storage areas for food.
Staffing and Recruitment
Formal staffing of a new incubator usually consists of three persons, usually hired through a
private management contract for accountability and efficiency:
149
6.13
A Directo r, who should (a) have experience in company formation, (b) be dynamic and
have strong interpersonal skills, and (c) be talented in multiple fields, with strong
managing, networking, and marketing capacity
An Assistant Director , who should have many of the traits of the director in order to
step in if needed, probably contracted for half time only at the start of operations
An Office Manager , who would be in charge of administrative support, daily office
operation, and reception / telephone duties
This small team of formal incubator professional personnel basically runs the facility day-to -day,
costing in the order of $300,000 per annum in California.37 They should have the capacity to do
multiple tasks, from business counseling to client recruitment, and from managing business
resources and networks to fundraising and accounting. Figure 6.13 shows the many tasks an
incubator director needs to perform and the time that, on average, he/she spends on them. The
staff should, nonetheless, be assisted by a series of other stakeholders, who shore up the human
capital side of the incubator, including the incubator advisory board , u niversity faculty and
students, business executives and sponsors, and volunteers.
Once the professional staff of the incubator is hired, incubators can begin the process of client
recruitment and selection. Client recruitment is the process of getting the right ―mix ‖ of startup
firms. This usually means (1) achieving a combination of firms within the focus sector that allows
for synergies (not competition) between the clients, and (2) a mix of companies at different growth
stages, in order to ensure that the incubator is always at an acceptable occupation rate. (Experts
usually plan for an 80% occupancy rate throughout.)38
Alternative Land Use / Incubator Scenarios
Informed by the City‘s priorities and objectives, expressed through the RFP and stemming from
citizen involvement, the consultant team developed three distinct scenarios of implementation for
an incubator initiative in the SMO Airport Campus. These scenarios define specific execution
strategies given the existing resources, i.e., how the City would approach the implementation of
an incubator in the area. This question should come before the question of the segment that the
incubator should target, because this is not a blank-slate project: it needs to be incorporated
within an existing urban context, with the citizen‘s opinions in mind.
37 Source: Business Cluster Development, Los Angeles Clean Tech Incubator Business Plan, 2010. 38 Source: 2012 State of the Business Incubation Industry Report.
150
The three scenarios, in addition to the current, baseline, scenario, are summarized in the
paragraphs below:
Baseline scenario: Do not include incubation activities .
The baseline implies a ―do nothing ‖ app roach, in which no incubation-related activities, land uses,
or facilities are considered for the Airport Campus. This scenario is included in the analysis only
as a baseline comparison with other enhancement alternatives.
Option 1: Build new Facility
This effort would involve the construction of a new, formal, facility to house the incubator activities
with a citywide or even regional scope. This approach would be the most costly to the City, as it
would require a tremendous investment in time and energy to generate the interest and activity
that would occupy the incubator space. Further, the financial cost of this option, estimated at $4.5
to 5.5 million 39 would be the highest among the three options, because it would involve building
all aspects of a new facility
Option 2: Reconfigured Airport Facility
This option, which is very similar to Option 1 in terms of the City taking the lead in pushing
forward the incubator idea, involves the complete renovation of an existing facility to
accommodate the activities of an incubator. The advantage of this option, in comparison to
building a new facility, is that it involves a significantly lower financial investment in the actual
facility. Our analysis suggests that this approach would require a capital investment of
approximately $1.5 million , or $3 to 4 million less than the Option 1.
Option 3: Decentralized Incubation District
This option, in contrast to the other two, would not depend on a physical facility built and operated
(or substantially funded) by the City, but would rather be a collection of buildings in a district
rented out to specific private, public, or non-profit tenants that, collectively, perform the functions
of a concentrated facility. The primary advantage to this option is that it would require a
significantly reduced investment of time and capital.
39 Supposing a 30,000 SF incubator with construction costs of $150 – 180 PSF (excluding land).
151
6.14
Opportunities and Themes
Should the city decide to build or sponsor an incubator, be it in centralized or decentralized
model, the next step in this discussion revolves around the issue of ―theme ‖ or in dustry
concentrations . In terms of selecting the optimal industry to target to generate the intended
benefits of an incubator, the consultant team understands the RFP‘s stress on sustainable
transportation. While this may, very well, be a growth industry in the coming years, and could
leverage the unique advantage of proximity to an existing airport, some challenges appear. It is ,
for one, not clear that there is currently an existing cluster of activity based around transportation /
green technology in or around Santa Monica, and, for the other, that the airport will stay in
operation in the long run. Hence, to successfully launch an incubator effort that revolves around
this niche industry would require tremendous initial effort and investment in order to attract the
seed participants, be it start-up companies, investors, or research institutions.
During the Incubator Workshop held with City and Airport Staff in October 2012, several industry
areas of foc us were discussed, including technology-oriented uses like alternative aviation
technology, alternative transportation technology, sustainable technology, alternative building
technology, and computer gaming, but also more unconventional uses, like healthy communities,
ar ts & culture, food production, transit-oriented development retail, social entrepreneurship, and
new consumer products. The Rand Report of the Phase I Airport Visioning Process, in fact, had
already suggested some of these ―themes ‖ fo r the incubator:
“Santa Monica‟s existing business mix suggests some possible themes: biotechnology in
relation to the growing concentration of health care providers in Santa Monica; electronics,
telecommunications, and computer graphics in relation to the burgeoning computer gaming
industry and other advanced telecommunications and entertainment firms near the site;
„green technology‟—including green aviation technology—in relation to the accomplishments
and efforts of the airport itself. A unique theme that may be appropriate at this site is
innovative and environmentally sensitive aircraft design and operations, though it is not at all
certain that a single theme of this type is sufficient to generate a successful incubator.”40
Regarding the last comment, external consultant Bill Lyte stressed during the Incubator
Workshop that, although it is true that incubating activities have become more specialized over
time (see Figure 6.14 ), the sole focus on a very specific industry not only limits the flexibility of
the endeavor, but also puts it at the economic whims affecting this specific product/service niche.
40 Rand Corporation, ―Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Options for the Future,‖ 2 012
152
6.15
Rather, the approach should be to lay the foundation for the incubator to support multiple types of
technologies or industries within a broad cluster, independently if the target is the development of
a single building or a complete district. Moreover, centering on a broader array of options within a
specific sector or cluster 41 would minimize the risk of competition and market saturation, because
the incubator or the district could easily adapt to changing economic, market, and technology
development situations.
An important condition regarding sector focus is centering on those activities that are already
existing and growing in the locality. The rationale behind this is to play to your strengths instead
of fighting an uphill battle, i.e., to bolster the existing innovation sectors in Santa Monica, rather
existing information on the startup community in Santa Monica using an online mapping
application where incubators, investors, and startup businesses advertise themselves (Figure
6.16 ).42 Although not necessarily comprehensive because of its self-reported nature, this
database nonetheless allows taking a snapshot of the innovation landscape in the Los Angeles
region. (Other industry-based databases do not provide the breakdown by maturity of firm, nor
give a clue as to the cluster / sub-cluster they belong to.)
The map (Figure 6.16 ) shows a concentration of the startup community on the Westside; a more
precise analysis showed that a full 27% of the 797 firms and organizations related to the
incubation business stage in the Los Angeles region are located in Santa Monica. (In contrast,
Santa Monica represents only 0.9% of Los Angeles County population.) IBI Group then
proceeded to go to the 213 individual websites of the companies/entities to gain an insight on
their location, their industry focus, their distance to SMO, and the type of organization. The result
is a database of Santa Monica startups that is contained in Appendix C of this report.
As expected, most of the entities present in the Santa Monica area are startup companies
themselves (Figure 6.15 ). But it is also interesting that other organizations linked to these firms
are also present in the City, notably 9 for-profit incubators / business accelerators. In addition,
there are 5 private startup consulting firms, 4 co-working facilities for short-term rent, and, more
importantly, 14 venture capital investment groups, which give financial support to the business
ecosystem. Investors are invaluable resources, not only because they provide the means to
finance fledgling startup companies, but because they are local, they understand the business
41 A cluster is ―a geographic concentration of interconnected companies, suppliers, service providers and others in a
particular industry or sub-segment of that industry.‖ Some e merging clusters, however, like Clean Tech, actually span
many industry segments, which again talks to the need for flexibility. 42 http://represent.la
153
6.17
6.16
innovation landscape very well, and can become important allies in the process of implementing
an incubator.
In terms of focus, the general perception of Santa Monica being at the forefront of innovation in
digital media, gaming, and other technology industries, which has been considered as a part of
Silicon Beach, holds up (Figure 6.17 ).43 More than three quarters of the business incubation
enterprises are either web-based or computer technology-based; and most of the companies
providing professional or other services do so via an online platform. Industry sectors that may be
strong in other locations, e.g., bioscience, energy, healthcare, clean technology, electronics, etc.,
are not or only barely present in Santa Monica, which would make them not the ideal candidates
for an incubator ―the me‖ a round the airport – even though it may have sounded ideal at first.
Instead, the City could elect to build upon the growing activity in and around Santa Monica that
43 The categories used for the classification of the industry sector are the ones used by NBIA for its ―State of the Business
Incubation Industry ‖ report.
154
6.18
centers around digital media, gaming, and other technology and creative industries that have
clustered in this area, for example by targeting related segments that need support. This type of
an effort would require much less initial investment, and would be more of an exercise in
convening current and emerging leaders and launching an effort that would address specific
needs that current players in the industry have identified.
Even though there is a strong presence of IT-linked startups in Santa Monica, most firms and
organizations are located four or more miles away from SMO, usually clustered in and around the
downtown area (Figure 6.18 ). Because these industries rely on physical proximity as an
important ingredient for innovation and knowledge-sharing, it is unlikely that a major group of
them locates in the airport lands unless some conditions are in place: (1) ample, inexpensive
space, (2) urban amenities the creative class looks for (walkable places, cafes, culture, etc.), and,
ideally (3), supplementary business incubation services. Alternatively or complementarily, other
small-scale creative / handcrafted manufacturing activities that do not rely so much on clustering,
for example coffee roasters, bike manufacturing, furniture makers, etc. may be added or allowed.
These could come out from the existing artistic community in the area, bridging the gap between
art and business, i.e., handcrafted fabrication (see Land Use chapter for more detail on artisan-
related businesses). These activities, together with local food and culture, may give the SMO
area its unique character and atmosphere and, at the same time, be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
155
6.19
Case Studies
The IBI Group planning team looked at different incubator projects across North America as a
way to show the variety of approaches to the incubation business that exist and get some insights
as to which practices have been successful. The selection of the case studies, in order to
effectively be able to inform the Santa Monica project through lessons learned, included (a)
incubators in the Los Angeles area, (b) a wide variety of scales, target markets, and industry
sector foci, and (c) successful incubation examples, selected from the yearly ―Incubation A ward‖
by the NBIA. Three of the relevant incubator case studies are the following:
Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator
http://laincubator.org/
The LA Cleantech Incubator (LACI, Figure 6.19 ) may be, in terms of location, industry focus, and
sponsor structure, the most similar to the ideas the City of Santa Monica has entertained for the
incubator in the SMO Airport non-aviation lands. LACI was founded in 2011 as a non-profit
organization by the City of Los Angeles, and is directly funded by the former CRA/LA (the
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of LA) and LADWP (the municipal water and
power company). Its focus is on solar, clean transportation, water, and energy efficiency
technology, where presumably LADWP will be the main beneficiary. In addition to the founding
partners, the City of Los Angeles has partnered with a couple of educational and research as well
as with civic and business organizations to accelerate product development and
commercialization.
LACI is temporarily located in a converted 4,000 SF bus repair terminal in the City‘s Arts and
Innovation District. It currently offers flex office space, coaching and mentoring, and access to
experts and capital. For a $300 per month per desktop rent, LACI provides furniture, IT
infrastructure, parking spaces, reception services, printer / copy machines, utilities and
conference rooms. The plans are to move to a new 30,000 SF incubator building, part of the
60,000 SF La Kretz Innovation Campus scheduled for completion in the summer of 2013.
156
6.2 1
6.20
Lessons learned:
Incubators can start up small in existing buildings as an intermediate step before
―growing up ‖ to formal facilities.
Incubators can be a key part of bigger economic development plans or approaches.
Los Angeles Cleantech Corridor
LACI is actually a piece, albeit a strategic one, in the City‘s Cleantech Corridor (Figure 6.20 ), a
four-mile long strip in the eastern part of downtown, between the LA River and Alameda St, that
has as its objective to support the development of a business cluster dedicated to cleantech
manufacturing processes and technologies. Besides the LACI incubator, the other two big
components of the project are the Cleantech Manufacturing Center at the southern end of the
corridor, a full-scale manufacturing facility for cleantech, and the Cornfields-Arroyo Seco Plan, a
LEED-ND certified plan for a mixed-use neighborhood development at the northeastern end of
downtown.
Lessons learned:
Incubators can be part of wider, decentralized schemes to promote industry clusters.
Idealab, Pasadena CA
http://www.idealab.com/
In contrast to LACI, Idealab (Figure 6 .2 1 ) is a private, for-profit incubator founded in 1996, which
participates financially in the development of new firms. Idealab caters to entrepreneurs of
pioneering technology companies; industry focus has expanded from merely web-based services
to actual products in the cleantech, communication technology, internet/mobile media, and
automation/robotics areas. With an aggressive program that includes partnering with venture
capitalists to ensure adequate startup capital and an equally discriminating selection process of
those applicants that have the preconditions to succeed, Idealab has jointly created and operated
75 companies with 30 initial public offerings (IPOs) and acquisitions, including successful firms
such as eToys and Citysearch.
Besides ensuring seed capital and participating financially in the firms, Idealab provides a full
range of resources to start-ups, including office space, office services, product development and
157
6.22
technology, product and graphic design, marketing, financial advice, human resources,
competitive research, legal, accounting and business development support and services, and
advice on strategy, branding and corporate structure.
Lessons learned:
For-profit incubators need to ensure the financial viability of the product or service that is
being developed; thus, a discriminating selection process and close business support are
a must.
Partnerships with venture capitalists to ensure funding for ―hatche d‖ products and
services are essential for the successful ―graduatio n‖ of start-up firms.
PortTech Los Angeles
http://www.porttechla.org/
PortTech (Figure 6.22 ) is a public-private non-profit operated by the City of Los Angeles , the Port
of Los Angeles, and the San Pedro/Wilmington Chambers of Commerce. In contrast to LACI and
Idealab, PortTech is focused on a specific area of expertise, clean technology, which is directly
poised to benefit port activities and related port tenant companies. The incubator is another tool
by the Port of LA to leverage local knowledge and apply emerging technologies to their own
operations, while at the same time striving to meet the strict environmental standards enacted by
the State and the City. In a sense, the port becomes the ―testing gr ound‖ f or incubator products
and services in the specific areas of environment, energy, security, and logistics that then can be
exported to other ports in the world.
In addition to traditional incubator services, PortTech, through the City of Los Angeles‘
CleanTechLA initiative, provides their startup clients with access to research facilities and experts
in the region‘s major universities (USC, UCLA, and CalTech) and networking and funding
opportunities through private and public stakeholders.
Lessons learned:
Major public facilities can provide a reason for a narrow-focus incubator, where both
startup firms and facility operators benefit from a symbiotic relationship; one providing
knowledge and ideas, and the other serving as testing grounds and a sizeable customer
base.
158
Recommendations
This section sums up the recommendations of the IBI Group-led planning team regarding the
feasibility analysis of a Sustainable Transportation Incubator on the Santa Monica Airport
Campus. The non-aviation lands of the Santa Monica Airport, given the expiration of current
leases by 2015, open up a promising opportunity to redirect the relationship between the Airport
and the surrounding neighborhoods towards an increased quality of life. In this effort, the Airport
Visioning Process has included the concept of a technology / sustainability incubator that would
serve as a key component for the area‘s transformation.
Knowing that a combination of objectives has been put forth in the Visioning Process – including
maintaining low density uses, providing community serving retail, supporting existing arts and
recreational uses – and given the analysis of the information contained in the previous sections of
this chapter, IBI Group and its sub-consultants feel confident to put forth a series of
recommendations on the incubator approach for the City Council to consider.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The three scenario alternatives listed previously in this chapter were evaluated against the 14
evaluation criteria outlined in the Project Approach section of this report. They were also
compared to the baseline scenario. The summarized, graphic assessment is contained in Table
6 .2 3 below:
159
6.23
Evaluation Criteria
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
:
No
I
n
c
u
b
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
OP
T
I
O
N
1 :
Bu
i
l
d
N
e
w
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
OP
T
I
O
N
2 :
Re
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
d
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
OP
T
I
O
N
3 :
De
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
In
c
u
b
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Vi
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
-Ba
s
e
d
1 Protect resident‘s quality of life
2 Increase community open space
3 Improve accessibility an d reduce
traffic impacts
4 Add new uses for the benefit of
greater community
5 Invest in the improvement of
infrastructure
6 Improve aesthetics of the non -aviation
lands
7 Include green building practices and
sustainability initiatives
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-Ba
s
e
d
8 People -oriented rather than car -
oriented
9 Local scale rather than city or regional
scale
10 Integration with the context rather than
introverted and standalone
11 Incremental actions rather than large
unitary projects
12 Flexible and adaptable rather than
inflexible and uncompromising
13 Energy -efficient rather than resource
consuming
14 Financial sustainability rather than
subsidy -dependent
= supports the guiding principle = does not support the guiding principle = neutral / not applicable
160
Three things are evident, at first glance, when looking at the evaluation table. First, the baseline,
―do nothing ‖ s cenario doesn‘t advance many of the community goals and is neutral regarding the
project-based criteria.
Second, although a new facility has many advantages over the competing options, it also has
many inherent drawbacks, notably in terms of financial sustainability and size/scope.
Third, both options #2 and #3 have many positive traits, but option #3 has many of these in an
increased form, e.g., it is much more local, much more incremental in nature, and requires less
upfront public capital expenditure. Therefore, the consultant team is confident is recommending
Option #3, which will be further detailed in the next section.
Incubator Approach
The planning team recommends to the City of Santa Monica to pursue the idea of a decentralized
incubator district model, potentially named ―Creative Innovation District ,‖ rather than the
implementation of a singular incubator project per se, be it a new state-of -the-art facility, or a
retrofitted existing structure. The Airport Campus would not revolve around a physical facility run,
sponsored, and financed by the City, but would rather evolve organically through the selection of
strategic tenants that would achieve an occupant mix that (1) fosters innovative and creative
practices consistent with the sustainability practices of the City, (2) integrates in terms of scale
and use with the surrounding residential context, and (3) generates a particular character for the
District, characterized by small-scale businesses and entrepreneurs that informally interact with
the community (see also: Land Use section of the report, which describes complementary uses
and initiatives).
Instead of becoming a developer of a building, the role of the City would be that of ―curator ‖ o f the
activity program, with the lease document as the main policy lever, guided by the master planning
effort of the whole District. In addition, the City would provide strategic infrastructure interventions
that could give (spatial) cohesion to the area, which are the ones contained in the other tasks of
the enhancement planning project. The incubation activities and services would not be
centralized in a public incubator facility, but would be decentralized and evolve through the spatial
clustering of the different private tenants. We envision that some of the tenants should have long-
term leases that would ―ancho r‖ the district, while others should rotate on much shorter terms, not
unlike the resident spaces at an incubator.
161
The planning team believes there are at least four groups of activities or uses that should be
encouraged in regard to this ―decentralized ‖ incubati on concept:
Creative-class tenants. There should be a core group of leases to emerging creative-
class businesses, which would include startups of new media/web-based services which
are already well represented in Santa Monica, but also other young entrepreneurs in
creative professions such as architecture, fashion, entertainment, and art.
Incubation tenants. It is also conceivable that one or more of the tenants in the District
can, in fact, be for-profit incubators, performing the functions that otherwise would be the
responsibility of the public sector. In this endeavor, Santa Monica would provide
incentives through lower or waived land or building leases, instead of operating
subsidies, which would minimize expenditure of public funds. Another alternative to
boost innovative and creative practices by tenants of the District would be the
establishment of an Innovation Sustainability Center (ISC) that could focus on providing
technology and research advice to the core tenants.
Artisan tenants . As a complement for the incubation activities, other leases should go to
local entrepreneur-tenants that are dedicated to handcrafted, manufacturing of unique,
innovative, and/or specialty niche products, ideally coupled with sustainable practices,
such as furniture makers, musical instrument producers, new-technology bicycle
manufacturers, coffee roasters, etc. (the primary activity in the District, as described in
more detail in the Land Use section of the Report).
Quality of life enhancement uses. These three types of occupants should be
complemented with another group of uses that will make the area attractive in terms of
quality of life. Spaces could be rented to local entrepreneurs that would provide venues
for informal interaction between tenants, neighbors, and airport patrons, say
microbreweries, cafes, restaurants, libraries, and other culture-oriented locales that would
make the area attractive as a low-key, alternative culture location to Downtown Santa
Monica, similar to the MarketPlace at Santa Monica Place.
Again, the City could guide the process and subsidize key tenants with low paying capacity
through reduced rents, while keeping overly commercialized and retail-oriented businesses at bay
through higher rents or caps on rental surface. All of these uses would be located primarily in the
existing buildings (warehouses), which would be progressively renovated and brought up to
LEED-EB® standards and complemented with few new, small scale buildings along Airport
Avenue, as described in the Land Uses, Alignment & Design chapter. Some of these could
162
actually be reserved for limited-time rental (2 to 3 years) to ensure a rotation in businesses and
continue to provide opportunities for emerging firms.
The main reasons the consultant team recommends the establishment of a Creative Innovation
District – and not a formal incubation facility – are the following:
Flexibility. It is difficult to foresee the exact direction the evolving technology and
sustainability-oriented market will take, so a main tenet of the incubation strategy should
be to target a slice of the economy in which Santa Monica is strong – innovation and
creative fabrication – without being too specific about the particular industry sector, e.g.,
―sustainable transportation technologies.‖ I n contrast to a formal incubator, a District
actually allows for more market-driven flexibility.
Future of airport activities. Since the future of flight-related airport activities is still
uncertain – the airport may or may not be closed or may be significantly reduced after
2015 – it would not be wise to invest in a formal incubator facility that may be
incompatible with what becomes long-term with the 227 acres of the Airport Campus.
Investment of resources. Although in a different form, the ―Creative Innovation and
Artisan Distri ct,‖ if correctly administered, could provide analogous benefits as a formal
incubator, albeit at a fraction of a cost. Given dwindling municipal financial resources, this
could be a plus. The City would decentralize in private players the executive functions,
while maintaining the guiding and policymaking functions through the management of the
short- and long-term leaseholds.
Context and scale. In contrast to a full-fledged incubator that could become too big for
the area, the development of a small-scale, local entrepreneur district mainly within
retrofitted existing buildings would be compatible with the low-density residential
surroundings of SMO.
Alignment with Visioning Process. Albeit in a different form, the Creative District would
address the need expressed in Phases I and II of the Airport Visioning Process to
develop an incubator for green startup businesses. In addition, this concept also
addresses the community‘s concerns of protecting the resident‘s quality of life and adding
new uses for the benefit of the greater community (arts, culture, education, light retail,
etc.).
Quality of life and local economic development. Further, this option would advance
the public policy objective of enhancing quality of life for local residents and could also
lead to the growth and expansion of small-scale locally-based businesses that are either
163
currently operating in the City, or that would be spurred by this initiative, enhancing City
initiatives like the Buy Local program.
Next Steps
The consultant team suggests the City of Santa Monica proceed with the following activities to
pursue the path for the implementation of the decentralized incubation approach within the
Creative Innovation District:
Before 2015:
Decide on the objective(s) that is/are to be reached through the implementation of an
incubation strategy and adopt these formally as policy.
Conduct a series of workshops with direct stakeholders (venture capitalists, private
incubator operators, startup consultants) already located in Santa Monica in order to
inform the process, and, if necessary redefine the incubation strategy to be pursued.
Contract out a detailed study on the viability of the decentralized incubation approach that
includes, at least (1) the leasing criteria that should govern the mix and duration of
tenants, (2) the legal and functional organization of the entity that will administer the rents
of existing, retrofitted, and new buildings, (3) a detailed timeline for implementation.
Establish formal and informal alliances between key community stakeholders to move
forward the idea of the idea.
Form the municipal or multi-party entity that will administer the incubation initiative.
Contract out and approve a business plan for the administration of the incubation
initiative.
Secure funding for the operation of the decentralized incubation approach and the
Creative Innovation District, plus the modest, but required capital expenditures on public
spaces, existing buildings, and infrastructure (see other sections in this report).
Develop model lease guidelines for the different groups of tenants (innovators,
artists/fabricators, food + culture entrepreneurs)
After 2015:
Develop a communications and marketing plan.
Organize and carry out opening event and other awareness-raising actions
164
Begin leasing out existing buildings to alpha consumers, i.e., those tenants who are
willing to take the risk to try out a new concept before it goes mainstream.
Consider leasing out major existing structures to a for-profit incubator and other
complementary services for startup firms, e.g., co working spaces and
educational/training facilities.
Begin selectively leasing limited retail space once area becomes established.
Contract out a land use plan for the totality of the airport lands, once the future of SMO is
clear, to determine more formally, long-term capital expenditures in the District.
165
A.1
Appendix
A: Cost Estimates 44
Intersection Redesign Cost Estimates
Intersection
Design Item Qty Cost per Unit Cost
Wa
l
g
r
o
v
e
a
n
d
23
r
d
- No
L
e
f
t
Tu
r
n
Curb Ramp 20 $ 450.00
Linear
foot $ 9,000.00
Sidewalk 919.9366 $ 80.00
L inear
foot $ 73,594.93
Curb and Gutter 919.9366 $ 11.10
L inear
foot $ 10,211.30
Concrete Island and Raised Medians 966.9981 $ 37.50
S quare
foot $ 36,262.43
Subtotal
$129,068.65
+10%Contengency
$ 12,906.87
Total
$141,975.52
44 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/awards/2011CCDB/2011ccdb.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/heiferparkingstudy.pdf
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/78293
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/004.cfm
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/cambridge/2011/03/cambridge_installs_free_bike_m.html
http://nctcog.org/trans/committees/bpac/CycleTracksPresentation_2.17.10.pdf
http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_block_retaining_wall.html
166
A.2
A.3
Intersection Design Item Qty Cost per Unit Cost
Signal Signalized Intersection 1
$250,000.00 Intersection
$250,000.00
Ruskin Groups Theathre Co Parking Lot Redesign Cost Estimates
Item Quantity Cost per Unit Total Cost Notes
Ar
t
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
a
n
d
R
u
s
k
i
n
G
r
o
u
p
s
Th
e
a
t
h
r
e
C
o
Paving
Materials Asphalt Surface
67,871.00 $ 1.00
Square
foot $ 67,871.00
Landscaping
Plants, Islands,
Bioswales
6,364.00 $ 1.50
Square
foot $ 9,546.00
Trees 13.00 $ 200.00 Tree $ 2,600.00
Miscellaneous
Pavement Restriping 1.00 $ 200.00
$ 200.00 Work and Paint
Wheel Stops
190.00 $ 20.00 Stop $ 3,800.00 Concrete Parking Blocks
Signs 4.00 $ 200.00 Sign $ 800.00
General Parking Signs and/or
Handicap Signs
Cost Totals
SubTotal
$ 84,817 .00
+10 % Contingency
$ 8,481.7 0
Total
$ 93,298.7 0
167
A.4
A.5
A.5
Barker Hanger Parking Lot Redesign Cost Estimates
Item Quantity Cost per Unit Total Cost Notes
Ba
r
k
e
r
H
a
n
g
e
r
Paving
Materials Asphalt Surface
56,810.00 $ 1.00
Square
foot $ 56,810.00
Landscaping
Plants, Islands,
Bioswales
5,657.00 $ 1.50
Square
foot $ 8,485.50
Trees 24.00 $ 200.00 Tree $ 4,800.00
Miscellaneous
Pavement Paint 1.00 $ 200.00
$ 200.00
Wheel Stops
140.00 $ 20.00 Stop $ 2,800.00 Concrete Blocks
Signs 4.00 $ 200.00 Sign $ 800.00
General Parking Signs and/or Handicap
Signs
Cost Totals
SubTotal
$ 73,895.50
+10 % Contingency
$ 7 ,389.55
Total
$ 81,285.05
Bicycle Improvements Cost Estimates
Item Qty Cost per Unit Cost
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bi
k
e
w
a
y
s
Separated Path with Mixing Zone 0.62 $ 139,000.00 M ile $ 86,180.00
Bike Lanes 1.24 $ 50,000.00 Mile $ 62,000.00
Bike Rack (Inverted U) 16 $ 4 50 .00 R ack $ 7,200 .00
Bike Repair Station 1 $ 1,000.00 S tation $ 1,000.00
Subtotal (Lanes, Racks, Repair Station)
$ 9 4,3 80.00
10% Contingency
$ 9,43 8.00
Total
$ 103,818 .00
Item Qty Cost per Unit Cost
Bi
k
e
P
a
t
h
Ends of Airport Cycle Path Addition 4787.53 $ 100 .00 F oot $ 478,753.00
Subtotal (Cycle Path Additions)
$ 478,753.00
+10% Contingency
$ 47,875.30
Total
$ 526,628.30
168
A.6
Pedestrian Sidewalk, Landscaping and Engineering Cost Estimates
Item Length Cost per Unit Cost Notes
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Sidewalk (7') 6547.2 $ 80.00 Linear Foot $ 523,776.00
Curb and Gutter 6547.2 $ 11.10 Linear Foot $ 72,673.92
New curb ramps 25 $ 450.00 Ramp $ 11,250.00
Crosswalks 14 $ 300.00 Crosswalk $ 4,200.00
Benches 22 $5,000.00 Bench $ 110,000.00 Every 300'
Trash Cans 22 $2,500.00 Trash Can $ 55,000.00 Every 300'
Lighting 20 $5,500.00 fixture $ 110,000.00
Public Art varies allowance
Assume 2% of project budget
Enhanced Signage 10 $ 150.00 Sign $ 1,500.00
Subtotal
$ 888,399.92
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Tree Removal 54 $ 450.00 Tree $ 24,300.00
Street Trees 10 $ 650.00 Tree $ 6,500.00
Street Trees (large) 5 $1,200.00 Tree $ 6,000.00
Bushes and Shrubs 6312.844 $ 82.50 Square Foot $ 520,809.63
Assumes 4' wide planter where
fence is removed and 8x8
square planter box around trees
Subtotal
$ 526,809.63
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Install Retaining Wall 13320.84 $ 8.96 Square Foot $ 119,354.73 Assuming 8ft wall
Chain Link Fence Removal 1338.211 $ 7.50 Linear Foot $ 10,036.58
Subtotal
$ 129,391.31
Subtotal
$1,544,600.86
+10% Contingency
$ 154,460.09
Total
$1,699,060.94
169
B: Facilities Design and Engineering
Storm drain map at Santa Monica Airport
170
Water utility map near Santa Monica Airport
171
Sewer utility map near Santa Monica Airport
172
Fiber optic cable near Santa Monica Airport
nta
Monica Airport
173
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
174
C: Startup Companies and Institutions in Santa Monica
Type Institution/ Company Name Webpage General Sector Focus Municipality Address Distance to Airport (mi)
Accelerator MuckerLab muckerlab.com/ N/A Santa Monica 910 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, CA 3.4
Accelerator upStart.LA upstart.la/ N/A Santa Monica 820 Broadway Santa Monica CA 90401 3.5
Accelerator Founder Institute FounderInstitute.com N/A Santa Monica 820 Broadway Santa Monica CA 90401 3.5
Accelerator Cal -X Stars Accelerator calstockexchange.com N/A Santa Monica 1531 6th Street, Unit 401, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.7
Accelerator Launchpad LA launchpad.la/ N/A Santa Monica 1520 2nd St., Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.9
Consulting VOKENT vokent.com N/A Santa Monica 212 Marine Street 100 Santa Monica 2.5
Consulting Cooley LLP cooley.com N/A Santa Monica 2500 Broadway, Suite F -125, Santa Monica, CA 90404 2.8
Consulting Save Business Time espreedevora.com N/A Santa Monica 1526 14th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 3.1
Consulting Dynamic Synergy DynamicSynergy.com N/A Santa Monica 120 Broadway, Santa Monica, 90402 3.9
Consulting ScaleHouse scalehouse.com N/A Santa Monica 3rd St Promenade, Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.1
Coworking Working Village workingvillage.com/ N/A Santa Monica 212 Marine Street 100 Santa Monica 2.5
Coworking Cross Campus crosscamp.us N/A Santa Monica 820 Broadway Santa Monica CA 90401 3.5
Coworking Coloft coloft.com N/A Santa Monica 920 Santa Monica Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Coworking CoWorks Space coworksla.com N/A Santa Monica 1450 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.0
Incubator ecompanies ecompanies.com N/A Santa Monica 2120 Colorado Avenue, 3rd Floor Santa Monica, CA 90404 2.6
Incubator Los Angeles Syndicate of Technology last.vc/ N/A Santa Monica 137 Bay St, Santa Monica, CA 90405 3.3
Incubator Brighthouse, Inc. brighth.com N/A Santa Monica 1417 6th Street, Ste. 302 Santa Monica CA 90401 3.8
Incubator Science science -inc.com/ N/A Santa Monica 1410 2nd Street 2nd Floor Santa Monica, CA, 90401 4.0
Investor Provenance Ventures provenanceventures.com/ N/A Santa Monica 3143 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA, 90405 0.0
Investor Finaventrues finaventures.com/ N/A Santa Monica 3340 Ocean Park Park Boulevard, Suite 1050 Santa Monica, CA, 90405 2.7
Investor AlumniFunder, Inc. alumnifunder.com N/A Santa Monica 2218 1/2 5th ST, Santa Monica, 90405 2.8
Investor ThursdayNights thursdaynights.org N/A Santa Monica 2110 Main St., Santa Monica CA 90405 3.1
Investor MA,LLC N/A N/A Santa Monica 1807 D Montana Ave. Santa Monica CA 90402 3.8
Investor Canyon Creek Capital canyoncreekcapital.com N/A Santa Monica 1134 11th st, suite 101, Santa Monica, Ca, 90403 3.9
Investor Clearstone clearstone.com/ N/A Santa Monica 1351 4th Street, 4th Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.9
Investor LACEOs LACEOs.com N/A Santa Monica 120 Broadway, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.9
175
Investor Anthem Venture Partners anthemvp.com/ N/A Santa Monica 225 Arizona Ave., Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.1
Investor Siemer Ventures siemervc.com/ N/A Santa Monica 1333 Second Street Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA. 90401 4.1
Investor Palomar Ventures palomarventures.com/ N/A Santa Monica 233 Wilshire Blvd Suite 900 Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.2
Investor Rustic Canyon Partners rusticcanyon.com/ N/A Santa Monica 100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.4
Investor Greycroft Partners greycroft.com N/A Santa Monica 100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1830 Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.4
Investor Allegis Capital allegiscapital.com/ N/A Santa Monica 100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1770 Santa Monica, CA, 90401 4.4
Startup Logan Muszynski dreamlogan.com Arts Santa Monica 2020 N. Main St., Santa Monica, CA 3.2
Startup Needly needly.com Computer Software Santa Monica 3100 Donald Douglas Loop, Santa Monica, 90405 1.5
Startup Gamefly gamefly.com Computer Software Santa Monica 3000 Ocean Park Blvd, Santa Monica, 90405 1.7
Startup DDD DDD.com Computer Software Santa Monica 3000 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 1025, Santa Monica, 90405 1.7
Startup Activison Blizzard activision.com Computer Software Santa Monica 3100 Ocean Park Blvd, Santa Monica 90405 1.7
Startup Asset Smart assetsmart.com Computer Software Santa Monica 2800 28th St Ste 109, Santa Monica, 90405 1.8
Startup Riot Games riotgames.com Computer Software Santa Monica 2450 Broadway santa monica ca 2.6
Startup Buffalo Studios buffalo -studios.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1650 19th st, santa monica,ca 2.6
Startup Dash Go dashgo.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1620 Broadway, Ste C, Santa Monica 90404 3.0
Startup Titan Gaming titanplatform.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1351 4th St, 4th Fl, Santa Monica 90401 3.1
Startup Image Metrics image -metrics.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1918 Main St, 2nd Fl, Santa Monica, 90405 3.2
Startup Neodata Intelligence neodatagroup.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1119 Colorado Ave, santa monica, CA 3.2
Startup daqri daqri.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1639 11th St Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90404 3.2
Startup Jetpack jetpack.com Computer Software Santa Monica 806 Broadway, Santa Monica CA 90401 3.5
Startup Sparqlight sparqlight.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1460 4th St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.7
Startup Klicksports klicksports.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1424 4th St, Santa Monica 90401 3.8
Startup Carbon Five carbonfive.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1207 4th St #350 Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.1
Startup Neomed Software neomedsoftware.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1316 3rd St prom, Ste 109, Santa Monica 90401 4.1
Startup Game Factory gamefactorygames.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1337 3rd St Prom, Ste 301, Santa Monica 90401 4.1
Startup Playsino playsino.com Computer Software Santa Monica 310 Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.2
Startup Veric Software vericsoftware.com Computer Software Santa Monica 1112 Montana Ave, Ste 526, Santa Monica 90403 4.3
Startup RoboDynamics robodynamics.com Electronics/Microelectronics Santa Monica 525 Broadway Ave, Ste 250, Santa Monica 90401 3.7
Startup J. Hilburn jhilburn.com Fashion Santa Monica 1408 Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.9
Startup Dakim dakim.com Healthcare Services Santa Monica 2121 Cloverfield Blvd, Ste 205, Santa Monica 90404 1.8
176
Startup SuperTuner supertuner.com Information Technology Santa Monica 2701 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 201 Santa Monica 90405 1.6
Startup Edge Cast edgecast.com Information Technology Santa Monica 2850 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 110, Santa Monica, 90495 1.9
Startup Sanebox sanebox.com Information Technology Santa Monica 920 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Startup JobSync jobsync.com Information Technology Santa Monica 430 Colorado Ave #302, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Startup Convertro Www.convertro.com Information Technology Santa Monica 1453 3rd st promenade 90401 3.8
Startup Ramprate ramprate.com Information Technology Santa Monica 1452 2nd St, Santa Monica 90401 4.0
Startup Demand Media demandmedia.com Information Technology Santa Monica 1333 2nd Street, Ste 100, Santa Monica, 90401 4.1
Startup ServiceMesh, Inc. servicemesh.com Information Technology Santa Monica 233 Wilshire Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.2
Startup Broke Girl's Guide brokegirlsguide.com Internet Santa Monica 3435 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 107 -188, Santa Monica 90405 1.0
Startup Cost Cooperative costcooperative.com Internet Santa Monica 1951 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405 1.4
Startup WonderHowTo wonderhowto.com/ Internet Santa Monica 1832 Franklin St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 2.3
Startup GigaMoves gigamoves.com Internet Santa Monica 2425 Olympic Blvd, Ste 400E, Santa Monica 90404 2.4
Startup bestcovery.com bestcovery.com/ Internet Santa Monica 2043 Colorado Avenue Santa Monica CA 2.5
Startup Bigwords bigwords.com Internet Santa Monica 171 Pier Ave, Unit 141, Santa Monica, 90405 2.6
Startup Business.com business.com Internet Santa Monica 2400 Broadway, Ste 350, Santa Monica 90404 2.6
Startup eHarmony.com eharmony.com Internet Santa Monica 2401 colorado ave Santa monica CA 2.7
Startup Shoe Dazzle, Inc, shoedazzle.com/ Internet Santa Monica 2501 Colorado Ave., Suite 325 Santa Monica, CA 90404 2.7
Startup Game Trailers gametrailers.com Internet Santa Monica 2600 Colorado Ave, Santa Monica, 90404 2.7
Startup OneCubicle onecubicle.com Internet Santa Monica 1616 17th St, Santa Monica, 90404 2.8
Startup Badongo.com badongo.com Internet Santa Monica 1158 26th St, Unit 546, Santa Monica, 90403 2.8
Startup Green Geeks greengeeks.com Internet Santa Monica 1158 26th St, Unit 446, Santa Monica, 90403 2.8
Startup ZexSports zexsports.com Internet Santa Monica 1526 14th St Santa Monica 90404 3.1
Startup Digital Containers digitalcontainers.com Internet Santa Monica 2001 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 501. Santa Monica, 90403 3.1
Startup Veebox veebox.com Internet Santa Monica 2001 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 501. Santa Monica, 90403 3.1
Startup Enthusify enthusify.com Internet Santa Monica 910 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, CA 3.4
Startup Creative Citizen creativecitizen.com Internet Santa Monica 910 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, CA 3.4
Startup Affordit affordit.com Internet Santa Monica 910 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, CA 3.4
Startup Stardoll Media stardoll.com Internet Santa Monica 1546 7th Street, Santa Monica, CA 3.5
Startup Sale Zap, Inc salezap.com Internet Santa Monica 1507 7th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.5
Startup GreenDeals.org greendeals.org Internet Santa Monica 1507 7th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.5
177
Startup LetMeHearYa LetMeHearYa.com Internet Santa Monica 920 Santa Monica Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA 3.6
Startup Excelsix xlsix.com Internet Santa Monica 1223 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 412, Santa Monica, 90401 3.7
Startup Inherited Health inheritedhealth.com Internet Santa Monica 807 21st St, Santa Monica 90403 3.7
Startup Zag Zag.com Internet Santa Monica 525 Broadway, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.7
Startup eForce Media eforcemedia.com Internet Santa Monica 520 Broadway, Ste 230, Santa Monica 90401 3.7
Startup Don't Blink Design dontblinkdesign.com Internet Santa Monica 701 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 250, Santa Monica, 90401 3.8
Startup Brighter.com brighter.com Internet Santa Monica 501 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 403, Santa Monica, 90401 3.8
Startup BlockBeacon blockbeacon.com Internet Santa Monica 501 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 403, Santa Monica 90401 3.8
Startup ZipRecruiter ziprecruiter.com Internet Santa Monica 1453 Third Street Promenade, #335, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.8
Startup This Next thisnext.com Internet Santa Monica 227 Broadway, Ste 200, Santa Monica 90401 3.8
Startup eNotes.com Inc. enotes.com Internet Santa Monica 610 Santa Monica Blvd. 3.9
Startup DocStoc docstoc.com Internet Santa Monica 409 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 2A, Santa Monica, 90401 3.9
Startup CKMG ckmg.com Internet Santa Monica 1409 Third St Promenade, Ste B, Santa Monica, 90401 3.9
Startup Triptrotting triptrotting.com Internet Santa Monica 1520 2nd St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.9
Startup Tuition.io https://tuition.io/ Internet Santa Monica 1520 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.9
Startup Nesting nesting.com Internet Santa Monica 225 Santa Monica Blvd, 6th Fl, Santa Monica 90401 4.0
Startup GIViNGtrax givingtrax.com Internet Santa Monica 1450 2ND ST SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 4.0
Startup Tecca tecca.com Internet Santa Monica 204 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste A, Santa Monica 90401 4.0
Startup Venyooz venyooz.com Internet Santa Monica 233 Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.2
Startup Engrade.com engrade.com Internet Santa Monica 1327 Ocean Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.2
Startup Koders koders.com Internet Santa Monica 831 3rd St, Ste 101 Santa Monica, 90403 4.6
Startup Deal Bird dealbird.com Internet Santa Monica 413 W Channel Rd, Santa Monica, CA 90402 5.8
Startup Adconion Media Group adconion.com Media Santa Monica 3301 Exposition Blvd, Santa Monica, 90404 1.7
Startup Tennis Channel thetennischannel.com Media Santa Monica 2850 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 150, Santa Monica 90405 1.9
Startup Blip blip.com Media Santa Monica 2501 Michigan Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90404 2.3
Startup Ca hōd.tv cathod.tv Medi Santa Monica 2419 Michigan Ave., San a Monic , CA 90404 2.3
Startup Out ast outcast.net Media Santa Monica 3015 Main St, Ste 333, Santa Monica 904 5 2.5
Star up p p n edia spinmedia.com Media Santa Monica 1538 20th St, First Fl, Santa Monica, 90404 2.5
Startup GraphEffect grapheffect.com Media Santa Monica 1447 Cloverfield Blvd, Santa Monica CA 90404 2.5
Startup JuntoBox Films juntoboxfilms.com Media Santa Monica 2043a Colorado Ave, Santa Monica, 90404 2.5
178
Startup Nimble CRM nimble.com Media Santa Monica 2043 Colorado Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90404 2.5
Startup FilmScreenr FilmScreenr.com Media Santa Monica 2727 3rd St., Santa Monica, CA 90405 2.6
Startup Generate generatela.com Media Santa Monica 1545 26th St, Ste 200, Santa Monica, 90404 2.7
Startup Gravity gravity.com Media Santa Monica 2525 Main St, Ste 300, Santa Monica, 90405 2.8
Startup Terra Matrix Media terramatrixmedia.com Media Santa Monica 1610 Colorado Ave, Ste 180, Santa Monica, 90404 2.8
Startup Lifecrowd lifecrowd.com Media Santa Monica 1512 16th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 3.0
Startup My Life reunion.com Media Santa Monica 2118 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1008, Santa Monica, 90403 3.2
Startup Tongal, Inc tongal.com Media Santa Monica 137 Bay St, Santa Monica, 90405 3.3
Startup Giant Media giantmedia.com Media Santa Monica 1559 7th St, Santa Monica 90401 3.4
Startup STATE state.com Media Santa Monica 820 Broadway Santa Monica CA 90401 3.5
Startup HitFix hitfix.com Media Santa Monica 1223 Wilshire Blvd #867 Santa Monica, CA 90403 3.7
Startup Metacritic metacritic.com Media Santa Monica 1223 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1240, Santa Monica 90403 3.7
Startup Vokle vokle.com Media Santa Monica 2006 Montana Ave, Santa Monica 90403 3.7
Startup Serious Business serious.biz. Media Santa Monica 1505 4th St, Ste 200, Santa Monica 90401 3.7
Startup Prolebrities prolebrities Media Santa Monica 416 Broadway, Santa Monica, 90401 3.7
Startup Intent intent.com Media Santa Monica 2487 Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica, 90404 3.8
Startup Social Project socialproject.com Media Santa Monica 227 Broadway, Ste 300, Santa Monica, 90401 3.8
Startup National Banana nationalbanana.com Media Santa Monica 1250 6th St, Ste 201. Santa Monica 90401 3.9
Startup Particle 5 particle5.com Media Santa Monica 1431 Ocean Ave., Suite 909, Santa Monica, CA, 90401 4.0
Startup Federated Media federatedmedia.net Media Santa Monica 1450 2nd St Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.0
Startup GumGum gumgum.com Media Santa Monica 1207 4th St, Ste 400, Santa Monica, 90401 4.1
Startup Donat Wald & Haque dw -h.com/ Media Santa Monica 1316 3rd St Prom, Ste 301, Santa Monica, 90401 4.1
Startup The Wrap thewrap.com Media Santa Monica 1229a, Montana Ave, Santa Monica 90403, Santa Monica 90403 4.2
Startup DECA deca.tv.com Media Santa Monica 1299 Ocean Ave, Ste 410, Santa Monica, 90401 4.3
Startup GoodReads goodreads.com Media Santa Monica 953 4th St, Santa Monica, 90405 4.4
Startup Champion Media & Entertainment championmediaonline.com Media Santa Monica 741 A 10th St, Santa Monica, 90402 4.4
Startup Zillion TV zilliontv.tv.com Media Santa Monica 100 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 750 Santa Monica, 90401 4.4
Startup FAD.IO fad.io Mobile Applications Santa Monica 2615 22nd St, Santa Monica, CA 90405 1.3
Startup Tele Flip teleflip.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 3250 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 200, Santa Monica 90405 1.8
Startup Viddy viddy.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1630 Stewart St #140, Santa Monica, CA 90404 2.4
179
Startup Sidebar, Inc sidebar.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 2890 Colorado Ave, Santa Monica, 90404 2.5
Startup iVisit ivisit.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 2040 Colorado Ave, Ste 4, Santa Monica 90404 2.6
Startup Geodelic Systems geodelic.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 2110 Main St, Ste 304, Santa Monica, 90405 3.1
Startup Somo somoglobal.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1530 7th Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.5
Startup July Systems julysystems.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1530 7th Street, Ste 100, Santa Monica 90401 3.5
Startup Handmade Mobile, LLC handmademobile.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1530 7th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.5
Startup Pogoseat pogoseat.com/ Mobile Applications Santa Monica 920 santa monica blvd, santa monica, ca 90401 3.6
Startup unITy PSA unITyPSA.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 920 Santa Monica Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Startup TestMax Inc. mytestmax.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 920 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Startup VoAudio voaudio.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1438 9TH ST, Santa Monica, CA 3.6
Startup Untappd untappd.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica Santa Monica 3.6
Startup Regard Venture Solutions regard -solutions.com/ Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1640 5th St, Ste 206 Santa Monica 90401 3.6
Startup TuneWiki tunewiki.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 725 Arizona Ave., Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.8
Startup Invested.in invested.in Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1321 7th St Suite 209, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.8
Startup Pose pose.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 227 Broadway #306, santa monica, ca 3.8
Startup Applico applicoinc.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 227 Broadway Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.8
Startup TigerText, Inc tigertext.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1310 Montana Ave, 2nd Fl, Santa Monica 90403 3.9
Startup MoVoxx movoxx.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 710 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 210, Santa Monica, 90401 3.9
Startup Productsy productsy.com/ Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1351 4th Street, 4th floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA 3.9
Startup Moment Feed momentfeed.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 301 Arizona, Ste 200 Santa Monica, 90401 4.0
Startup Fan Appz fanappz.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1419 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.0
Startup Chromatik chromatik.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1410 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.0
Startup Park Me parkme.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1334 Third Street, Santa Monica, CA 4.1
Startup Mobile Deluxe mobiledeluxe.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 1334 Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica, 90401 4.1
Startup Viva Vision vivavision.com Mobile Applications Santa Monica 530 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 100, Santa Monica 90401 4.2
Startup Milken Institute milkeninstitute.org Nonprofit Organizations Santa Monica 1250 4th St, Santa Monica, 90401 4.0
Startup InVenture inventure.org Nonprofit Organizations Santa Monica 1450 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 4.0
Startup The Honest Co. honest.com Other Santa Monica 1550 17th St, Santa Monica 90404 2.9
Startup Task Us taskus.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 3400 Airport Ave, Santa Monica, 90405 0.2
Startup JazzPlanet jazzplanet.net Services/Professional Santa Monica 2801 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 203, Santa Monica 90405 1.5
180
Startup Rent.com rent.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2701 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 140, Santa Monica 90405 1.6
Startup American Golf Corporation americangolf.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2951 28th St, Santa Monica, 90405 1.8
Startup Total Beauty Media totalbeauty.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 3250 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 200, Santa Monica 90405 1.8
Startup Blue Lava Group bluelavegroup.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2121 Cloverfield Blvd, Ste 101, Santa Monica 90404 1.8
Startup Case Stack 2.casestack.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2850 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 100, Santa Monica 90405 1.9
Startup CyberU my.cyberu.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2850 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 225, Santa Monica, 90405 1.9
Startup Campus Explorer campusexplorer.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2850 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 310, Santa Monica 90405 1.9
Startup 61 Holdings 61holdings.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 3420 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 2010, Santa Monica 90405 1.9
Startup Cornerstone on Demand cornerstoneondemand.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1601 Cloverfield Blvd, Ste 620, Santa Monica, 90404 2.3
Startup Enervee enervee.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2715 6th St, Santa Monica, CA 90405 2.4
Startup MusicHype musichype.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1453 Centinela Ave #A, Santa Monica, 90404 2.4
Startup USBX usbx.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2425 Olympic Blvd, Ste 500E, Santa Monica 90404 2.4
Startup Family Finds dailyd.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2919 Main St, Santa Monica 90403 2.6
Startup NeoHire neohire.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1750 14th St, Ste D, Santa Monica, 90404 2.6
Startup MarketPsy Capital marketpsy.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2400 Broadway Ste 220, Santa Monica 90404 2.6
Startup Tradesy recycledmediainc.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2700 Neilson Way, Santa Monica CA 90405 2.8
Startup W4, LLC w4.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2415 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90405 2.9
Startup Double Fusion doublefusion.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 2434 Main St, Santa Monica, Ste 202, Santa Monica 2.9
Startup Digital Imaging Specialists cdrs -la.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 3020 Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 3.0
Startup Vault Street vaultstreet.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1639 11th St, Ste 170, Santa Monica, 90404 3.2
Startup SimplyFinance simplyfinance.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1639 11th st, Santa Monica , ca 90404 3.2
Startup Surf Air surfair.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 910 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, CA 3.4
Startup EventSorbet eventsorbet.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1507 7th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.5
Startup 12Twenty 12twenty.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 920 Santa Monica Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Startup Logic Consulting logicsw.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 921 Santa Monica Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Startup Beachmint, Inc beachmint.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1411 5th street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.8
Startup Interpret interpretllc.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 227 Broadway, Ste 300, Santa Monica, 90401 3.8
Startup Fundable fundable.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 227 Broadway, Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.8
Startup Burstly / TestFlight burstly.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1540 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.8
Startup Segment Interactive segmentinteractive.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 948 14th St., Ste E, Santa Monica, CA 90403 3.9
181
Startup DocRun docrun.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1408 3rd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.9
Startup Onestop Internet onestop.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 301 Arizona Ave., Santa Monica, CA 90401 4.0
Startup Betterworks betterworks.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1337 3rd St, Ste 200, Santa Monica, 90401 4.1
Startup Eventup eventup.com Services/Professional Santa Monica 1334 3rd St., Santa Monica, CA 4.1
Startup Meetrix meetrix.us Telecommunications Santa Monica 920 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 106, Santa Monica, 90401 3.6
Startup Dryad Communications dryadcommunications.com Telecommunications Santa Monica 417 Colorado Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90401 3.6
Startup Userplane userplane.com Telecommunications Santa Monica 225 Santa Monica Blvd, 2nd Fl, Santa Monica, 90401 4.0
25
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
All persons or entities receiving public benefits defined below from the City of Santa Monica shall
provide the names of trustees, directors, partners , and officers , and names of those with more
than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. This information is required by City Charter
Article XXII —Taxpayer Protection.
Name of Entity: ____________________________________________
Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:
Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:
Name(s) of those with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:
Public benefits include:
1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12 -month period;
2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12 -month period;
3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12 -
month period;
4. Non -competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12 -month
period;
5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan,
where th e decision has a value in excess of $25,000;
6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit ” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12 -month period; or
7. Payment of “cash or specie ” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12 -month period.
Prepared by:_________________________
Signature:____________________________________
Date:______________________________ Title:_________________________________
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
Bid/PO/Contract # _________________________ Permit # ___________________________________
1
Leah Kellen
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:12 PM
To:Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davi s; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony
Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich
Cc:councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:FW: Item 3L. Award a Professional Services Agreement for Airport Avenue
Improvements
Council ‐
Please see the email below regarding the Airport Avenue Improvements.
Thanks,
Estefania
From: Michael Brodsky [mailto:mbrodsky@lmu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:45 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Nelson Hernandez <Nelson.Hernandez@SMGOV.NET>; Henry Servin
<Henry.Servin@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Item 3L. Award a Professional Services Agreement for Airport Avenue Improvements
Dear City Council,
I support efforts to improve the current (substandard and nearly non-exis tant) pedestrian sidewalk and to create
a new two-way separated bicycle access along the north side Airport Ave. between 23rd and the SMC Arts
Campus.
This will create an improved safe access route to the Santa Monica Air Studios, SMC campuses and the Airport
Park expansion for those who bike and walk.
It will also provide important multi-modal access to the Great Park when SMO closes at the end of 2028.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
This should be done in conjuncti on with the current s hortening of the runways at SMO to 3.500’.
This will allow the city to create pedestrian and bicycle access by SI MPLY MOVING THE FENCE
This will allow us to REPURPOSE the EXISTING Donald Dou g las Loop for use as a pedestrian and bike
path.
It will provide direct, level and safe access to connect Airport Ave. with Clover Park to the west and Airport
Park and Ceninella to the east.
This will allow a DIRECT connecti on to Airport Ave. improvements.
ADD TO 3-L
July 11, 2017
2
This will support Vision Zero goals, Safe Access to Schools and Parks and the Bicycle Action Plan.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
ADD TO 3-L
July 11, 2017
1
Leah Kellen
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:12 PM
To:Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davi s; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony
Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich
Cc:councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:FW: Item 3L. Award a Professional Services Agreement for Airport Avenue
Improvements
Council ‐
Please see the email below regarding the Airport Avenue Improvements.
Thanks,
Estefania
From: Michael Brodsky [mailto:mbrodsky@lmu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:45 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Nelson Hernandez <Nelson.Hernandez@SMGOV.NET>; Henry Servin
<Henry.Servin@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Item 3L. Award a Professional Services Agreement for Airport Avenue Improvements
Dear City Council,
I support efforts to improve the current (substandard and nearly non-exis tant) pedestrian sidewalk and to create
a new two-way separated bicycle access along the north side Airport Ave. between 23rd and the SMC Arts
Campus.
This will create an improved safe access route to the Santa Monica Air Studios, SMC campuses and the Airport
Park expansion for those who bike and walk.
It will also provide important multi-modal access to the Great Park when SMO closes at the end of 2028.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
This should be done in conjuncti on with the current s hortening of the runways at SMO to 3.500’.
This will allow the city to create pedestrian and bicycle access by SI MPLY MOVING THE FENCE
This will allow us to REPURPOSE the EXISTING Donald Dou g las Loop for use as a pedestrian and bike
path.
It will provide direct, level and safe access to connect Airport Ave. with Clover Park to the west and Airport
Park and Ceninella to the east.
This will allow a DIRECT connecti on to Airport Ave. improvements.
ADD TO 3-L
July 11, 2017
2
This will support Vision Zero goals, Safe Access to Schools and Parks and the Bicycle Action Plan.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
ADD TO 3-L
July 11, 2017
1
Leah Kellen
From:Cathy Larson <fospairport@rocketmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:54 AM
To:Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeow n Fwd; Pam OConnor; councilmtgitems;
Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez
Cc:Rick Cole; Henry Servin
Subject:Item 3-L Airport Ave improvements
Dear Councilmembers and Staff,
A lthough I wholeheartedly support the improvements to Airport Ave., what happened to the promise (Rick Cole
at the FOSP 2016 Annual meeting-a year ago) to address the dangerous intersection of 23 rd /Walgrove and
Airport Ave.
Nothing in the staff report for Item 3-L indicates that the intersection will be addressed.
What good will the pedestrian and bicycle improvements be if there is NO safe way to actually access them???
Sincerely,
Cathy Larson
FOSP Boardmember
Airport 2 Park Boardmember
ADD TO 3-L
July 11, 2017
REFERENCE:
Contract No. 10497
(CCS)