Michael Ferguson Hi Stelios, Susan, Rick, And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Michael Ferguson From: Stelios Makrides Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 8:09 AM To: Michael Ferguson Subject: FW: SMO - Public Works Relocation Project at SMO Attachments: SMO - Public Works at SMO Request to Evaluate Alternatives.pdf From: Ben <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 5:18 PM To: Andrew Wilder <[email protected]>; Geoffrey Neri <[email protected]>; Lael R. Rubin <[email protected]>; Chris Waller <[email protected]>; Joe Schmitz <[email protected]>; Stelios Makrides <[email protected]>; Susan Cline <[email protected]>; Rick Cole <[email protected]> Cc: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>; Lisa Sandbank <[email protected]>; Cindy Bendat <[email protected]>; John Fairweather <[email protected]>; Jonathan Stein <[email protected]>; Mike Salazar <[email protected]>; Jeff Lewis <[email protected]>; Ben W <[email protected]>; Cathy Larson <[email protected]>; Martin Rubin <[email protected]>; Peter Donald <[email protected]>; Zina Josephs <[email protected]>; Daklass1 <[email protected]>; Franne Einberg <[email protected]>; Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>; Joseph Schmitz <j‐[email protected]>; Andrew Gledhill <[email protected]>; Virginia Ernst CRAAP <[email protected]>; Stephen Unger <[email protected]>; Frank Gruber <[email protected]>; Alan Levenson <[email protected]>; Neil Carrey Esq. <[email protected]>; David Kaplan <[email protected]> Subject: SMO ‐ Public Works Relocation Project at SMO Hi Stelios, Susan, Rick, and Airport Commissioners: Please see the attachment. I recently read the article about the plan to relocate Public Works to SMO in the near future. See - - https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2019/October- 2019/10_14_2019_City_to_Temporarily_Relocate_Parks_Maintenance_Staff_to_Airport.html In advance of the October 28, 2019 Airport Commission meeting mentioned in the article, I am politely requesting that the City fully evaluate better alternative locations that are not near homes and children in a residential neighborhood. Attached is one viable location to consider: 1. Site is located in an industrial area within SMO 2. Larger 87,000 sq ft site that can be partially or fully re-purposed for SM Public Works' temporary uses 3. Site is closer to the Santa Monica Airport Park Expansion area where the City will be building more park 4. Access for vehicles and equipment via non-residential streets 5. Parking (onsite and nearby) for Public Works Staff 1 6. Existing hangars that can be adaptively re-used to meet the temporary needs of Staff and/or to store and secure vehicles and equipment 7. All existing hangar leases on the site are month-to-month 8. Only 12 active aircraft are currently on site and can be re-positioned elsewhere at SMO Note: Based on a review of Santa Monica's publicly accessible information, available spaces at SMO are plentiful, with only 242 aircraft onsite. See the summary table below. The FAA also reports only 97 based aircraft at SMO, so the actual numbers are somewhere between 97 and 242. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to public discussion on October 28. Kind regards, Ben ------------------------------- Ben Wang Mobile: 310-663-9264 E-mail: [email protected] ------------------------------- 2 October 16, 2019 Santa Monica Airport Commission u, "C S2 "C c m ;a E ::c0 � cum z ·-u, enJY ¢:!. i ExistingPia/ff�� ITEM 6(1) lilemainTrimmed or be AlowedID Grow t,.i lhe !Fencing ..a• I.... I �-i :'::=:Exi&dng Tn,e "'to - Remain& �i-n Relocat8Sto<age Sean i--Comalnllrs � � I � NewTrash Enc!ooure = l AfBB t� � PoS&lble Ne#Slieet T,ee I PlcJ<�p' Locatlor.In NewBub OIAS Species:TBD Dump rudc:a & -..-1·-- [New Planlngalong Par!< =-= Sideof Fencing ,:...... � .... - � --�---.......:,,..-�--- � ,..,..,.. .,,_ - . ReplantHflside�h :0.--new Landscaphg �� � �een Elllstllg Fence :,;:=-6HWWWW.. -· - � � ------ � � 11'al T l CMU Block -� MalllflalSuage BinAlm � Landscapng PlantingLegend •• Brl5bone Bow: � Pepper- Tree 0 - Po•·•·Ut.l• su.. t Tl:'N I •� CB =· GP - Pol.rt Tree ==- • - Vhl"t• Dt•ard•,- �RMSONS • - Toyon & U,..evll.a TOSff'E f\NI I - Bougolrwlleo �...... (i) AOCII Better Alternative 87,000sq. ft.Site is in an Industrial Area with Parking and Existing Hangarsthat can be Re-purposed ".$ -�. LOWER SOUTH 22-T HANGARS � 'Q\ � ��F E�WJ V �� N ��G ofEu o u�� M �eEH c� p � � L� I B T�� K S� Qt �J A � Notes: • Link to Leases: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vuzgfhvK8xZZaipIRWVvOQViY5JV6alG • Departure Counts are based on Santa Monica Open Data Portal SMO Departure Data. 89 29 70 3 92 13 73 29 103 41 16 41 No Aircraft in Hangar No Departures During 2017-2019 ## Number of Departures 2017-2019 *Sources: (a) 1984 ALP; (b) 1984 Agreement - Sections 5 and 6; (c) 1983 SMO EIR; (d) Page in 1983 SMO EIR; (e) 1983 SMO Master Plan Michael Ferguson From: Stelios Makrides Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 8:10 AM To: Michael Ferguson Subject: FW: Item 6a, Moving City Landscape Department to SMO@Pier/25th St Attachments: 20190923_Airport Current Plan with notes and added buffer.jpg; Proposed Public Works yard next to homes_7524.JPG; City trucks through neighborhood_7528.JPG From: David Kaplan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:04 AM To: Rick Cole <[email protected]>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>; Ana Maria Jara <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Greg Morena <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Terry O’Day <[email protected]>; Ted Winterer <[email protected]>; Susan Cline <[email protected]>; Stelios Makrides <[email protected]>; Katie E. Lichtig <[email protected]>; Matthew Wells <[email protected]>; Sandra Santiago <[email protected]> Cc: Lael R. Rubin <[email protected]>; Geoffrey Neri <[email protected]>; Andrew Wilder <[email protected]>; Chris Waller <[email protected]>; Joe Schmitz <[email protected]>; Airport Mailbox <[email protected]>; Michael Brodsky <[email protected]>; Andrew Gledhill <[email protected]>; Mike Salazar <[email protected]>; [email protected]; John Fairweather <[email protected]>; Frank Gruber <[email protected]>; Neil Carrey Esq. <[email protected]>; Zinajosephs <[email protected]>; Lisa Sandbank <[email protected]>; Peter Donald <[email protected]>; Cindy Bendat <[email protected]>; Rigdon Bob <[email protected]>; Daklass1 <[email protected]>; Franne Einberg <[email protected]>; Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>; Gavin Scott <[email protected]>; Martin Rubin <[email protected]>; Stephen Unger <[email protected]>; Jonathan Stein <[email protected]>; Jeff Lewis <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Adrian Harewood <[email protected]>; Alan Levenson <[email protected]>; Peter Thorson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Item 6a, Moving City Landscape Department to SMO@Pier/25th St Rick and Susan, I was advised of a surfsantamonica article and your Information Item to Council (there has been no notification to neighbors for projects on airport property) and read about possible modifications to the proposed public works yard at the northwest corner of the Airport. While moving a few operations around and diverting trucks across the airport south of the park is appreciated and may alleviate truck traffic concerns, it does not change the arrival and departure of 40 employees daily and more importantly does very little to solve issues of adjacency of the activity and appearance to a residential neighborhood. We know of no other location for active public works yard that is six blocks deep into a residential neighborhood. Although trucks may be leaving by another road and loading moved slightly further east, the activity, visual blight and noise remains and will be further echoed off the surrounding buildings. If you look at comparable buffers for this kind of activity, the landscape buffer for the MTA yard off Stewart Street which ranges from roughly 60' to 100' across provides a comparable example. The proposed single line of a few trees is not a buffer to an active Public Works yard directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The Public Works operation is not like the Fire Station designed as a residence that has a relatively quiet presence and is part of our neighborhood. An appropriately sized buffer between the residents and public works activity should be at least the distance from Clover Street to the back of the Maintenance shed. 1 We greatly appreciate the services and sustainable goals that are provided by Public Works however this project does not reflect community and planning principles that are part of our City's ethic. The appropriate buffer, for this change of use next to our homes is a buffer comparable to the distances of the landscape across from the homes on Exposition. An adequate landscape buffer behind the maintenance shed was previously stymied by the FAA control of the empty property along Clover Street but now that the City has gained access they have an opportunity to provide a long overdue buffer to their increasing activities. When we moved in, this corner of the airport was an unused open area with a Fire Station designed as a residence. The City over the years has added the facilities that are impacting and now degrading our neighborhood and now is the time to provide the appropriate buffer. While this landscaped area reduces some of the previously unused land that is now being claimed by Public Works, adequate area can be found elsewhere. If there is a process to run the trucks through the airport and adjust security and fencing then there is likely other Airport property or nearby sites to locate some of these loading activities. There is never a "temporary" to these projects especially when there remains a ten year period. Should the City choose not to find and fund a better site, this proposed Public Works operation or as much as possible needs to be repositioned and/or relocated so an adequate buffer as shown on the attached drawing can be provided to our neighborhood.