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
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 Dump rudc:a & -..-1·-- [New Planlngalong Par!< =-= Sideof Fencing ,:...... � .... - � --�---...... :,,..-�--- � ,..,.., ...,,_ - . ReplantHflside�h :0.--new Landscaphg �� � �een ElllstllgFence :,;:=-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 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. Thanks, David and Barbara Kaplan 2419 Pier Avenue On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:00 PM Alan Levenson Special thanks to the Airport Commission, as well as the residents who attended the 9/23 meeting which resulted in a motion to City Council to review the move of the City Landscape Department to the airport area located at the end of Pier Avenue. Now it will be up to the City Council and the staff to review alternatives and make public any decisions made over our land. Rightly so there was considerable discussion regarding the lack of public process and lack of transparency over this move of a Public Works Department Facility directly across the street from homes and adjacent to a busy city park complete with playing fields, play structures, tennis courts and picnic areas. Beyond the lack of proper process issue, it is difficult to understand how the city felt justified to reuse this land and take this action with such ease and confidence. We have often heard from the city staff and city attorneys how the city’s hands are tied by the FAA, Consent Decree, etc., when residents request reuse of the land for park purposes, or request the movement and consolidation of tie down aircraft and hangars so that we can decommission land no longer needed for aviation purposes. Let us never forget that the airport land was purchased by the city in 1926 to be used as a park and that residents voted yes on measure LC, and the city has promised a park. Promises made for a park need action in the present, and should not be pushed back for ten more years while other changes in land use for Public Works or other purposes move forward. Let’s look forward to a solution where the city council and staff put residents concerns on the front burner and find a more appropriate place for a city department, especially one that moves materials with heavy equipment 2 on a daily basis. Thank you. Kind regards, Alan Levenson > On Sep 23, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Alan Levenson 3 homes view homes trafficeve ITEM 6( ) Existinl) Plantiiio"can__, RemainTrimmed or be Allowed to Grow up the Fencing ...t;,ll! I ••• " - ExistingTree to Remain& 01 Protectedin Place RelocateI Secure Storage Contain9ls t=-,.,,;i:;__ New Trash Enclosure Area Possille New StreetTree Locations in New Bub OUts Species: TBD � I PIER AVENUE view----1 ...... � ho� ..,---IIJIIU.�CII- -..(1»1- :§§ ...... _(UtJ•- ReplantHilside with new _, ____ _, ___ _ bandscaping Planting Legend l..ilndscllping EquipmentSloroge Alen - Delili • - Brisbone Box 0 - Peppi,r Tree w/ added notes Poaaible Stnlet Tue • • z;;., 0 - & landscape buffer W, • - Poln Tree CB • - VhJte D.ennder PROPOSED AeVISIONS D - Toyon I. Grevftleo TO SITE PLAN SITEPLNI I - Boi,golnvllleo -;;,6;• .,na,, """'------�/":'\ AOOO Michael Ferguson From: Brodsky, Michael < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 11 :23 PM To: Rick Cole Cc: Susan Cline; Stelios Makrides Subject: Public Landscape Division Relocation to Airport Maintenance Facility Dear Rick Cole, I am extremely concerned about the City of Santa Monica Staffs recent decision (without any public input) that has resulted in construction and relocation of a new Public Landscaping Division facility to barely 100' feet away from adjacent Santa Monica residential family homes. Residents adjacent to this location have endured years of pollution and noise from the nearby Santa Monica Airport. The area continues to be plagued with lead pollution, particulate pollution and toxic fumes from jet fuel. Now without any formal community process or input, the city has now located services that will store and process additional materials that contain pesticides and herbicides as well as chemical fertilizers, fuels and other materials. * This will compound the dangers at this location. Not only are families being blasted awake by jets every morning at ?am, they will now be awoken even earlier by a fleet of service trucks at 6:30am. The potential impacts to resident's health and wellbeing are simply too troubling to be ignored. The very close proximity to family homes makes this a poor location for an industrial loading & processing facility which can not be mitigated in the slightest by implementing "rules of operation" or planting of a few trees. In a city that prides itself in transparent community input and celebrates community wellbeing, this project completely contradicts those high aspirations. It also appears to contradict the expressed community aspirations regarding the mandated transition of aviation use to park use, rather than using this land for say a recycling center, bus maintenance yard or for industrial use like this. We must reopen this project up to a fully public process in order to come up with a more equitable and safe solution. Sincerely, Michael Brodsky Sunset Park Resident * I am formally requesting the Material Data Safety Sheets for all stored materials that will be housed or processed at this location. 1 Michael Ferguson From: Asa Greenberg FYI. .. ----- Original message----- From: Asa Greenberg Thank you, Alan, for this excellent summary of how so many of us feel. I appreciate the work of those on the Airport Committee, and I sincerely hope they will do the right thing here. The typical process for this sort of development has been ignored, from what we understand. Many of us live near the site. At the least, why weren't we consulted? The reality is, the taxpayers whose homes are close to the site in question are categorically opposed to the yard. Why put the shed on a spot so close to Clover Park, where many city residents recreate? Why put it in such close proximity to Hill & Dale preschool? Why not relocate it to a spot where trucks, machinery, equipment, pollution, daily activity, or early morning noise already abound -- i.e., someplace industrial or light industrial? If it has to be at the airport, the other side of the runway includes plenty of wide open areas that don't directly abut a residential neighborhood. Why not put the yard over there? If that idea doesn't suit, surely there are other spaces in the city that would be more appropriate. It's temporary, they say? Great, so it won't be a big deal to move it to a more appropriate space, right? I know the concerned citizens on the Airport Commission will do the right thing. I know you will do right by us. Please move this abomination, so we can go back to our quiet, daily routines. Thanks as always for your service to the city. Sincerely, Asa Greenberg Sunset Park Santa Monica 1 ----- Original message----- From: Alan Levenson Dear Airport Commissioners, As you are well aware by now, the City of Santa Monica staff, without any public process or notice to the adjacent neighbors, is attempting to move the Landscape Department across the street from homes. It is hard to believe than within all of Santa Monica and within all 227 acres of our underutilized airport that there is not a better location to put a noisy and by nature messy landscape department; The landscape department begins work at 6:30am and should not be near homes. The south side of the airport comes immediately to mind as an alternative, although there are likely more possibilities within the city. It is highly doubtful anyone reading this would be o.k. with a city yard across the street from their home. Claiming this is temporary is just that, a claim. The city attempting this move without any discussion is patently wrong, irregardless of rules, laws, charters, zoning or whatever else one can think of. It is obvious this is wrong The city got caught in the act by a FOIA request, and now must change course and go back to the drawing board. Time to do the right thing and show some good faith. Those who live near the airport have historically been seen as second class citizens who, because they live by the airport, are supposed to be o.k. being subjected to noise and pollution, jets, flight schools, construction all night long, the possibility of commuter airlines, helicopters, and now this. Many promises have been made over the years that are in the historical records and emails saved by many. Enough with promises of what will happen. Time to show some good faith and stop making promises of what will happen in ten years if we just suffer, put up, and shut up until then. Lets be real. What happens NOW is what matters. The city needs to move the Landsaping Department somewhere more industrial or light industrial, and not near any residential homes. Please advise the council and staff to do the right thing. State in no uncertain terms that this action is not approved by the airport commission. The staff should stop this right now and not cause residents any more dragged on grief to get our city to do what they should have done in the first place. The City Council should put their foot down on this one as well and tell the staff to find another spot. Commissioners, thank you for your continued service to the community. 2 Regards. Alan Levenson Sunset Park P.S. It is just common sense: THE GOLDEN RULE + Do unto others ns you would have them do unto you. Attachments: • PastedGra phic-1.tiff Asa Greenberg Kilogram Entertainment Asa Greenberg Kilogram Entertainment 3 Michael Ferguson From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:05 PM To: Gleam Davis; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; TerryO'Day; Rick Cole; Susan Cline; Stelios Makrides; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Cc: [email protected] Subject: FOSP: Relocating a Public Works industrial use next to homes in Sunset Park Attachments: FOSP letter re Public Landscape relocation to the Airport -- November 2019.docx See the attachment for better formatting. From: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Lael. [email protected], Geoffrey.Neri@SMGOV. NET, stelios. [email protected], [email protected] Sent: 11/18/2019 8:57:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FOSP: Airport Commission 11/19/19 agenda item 5(b) -- Public Landscape Division &SMO No:vember 18, 2019 To: Airport Commission From: Board of Directors, Friends ofSunset Park RE: 11/19/19 agenda item 5(b ): Public Landscape Division Relocation to Airport Maintenance Facility -- Ongoing discussion from September 23, 2019 meeting relating to the process ofrelocating a po1iion of Public Landscape Division's operations from Memorial Park to existing Airport Maintenance Facility located adjacent to Clover Park. Agenda: https://www.smgov.net/departments/airp011/agendas/2019/20191119/a20191119.pdf 1) Oppose - The FOSP Board opposes the relocation ofthis Public Landscape Maintenance Facility to a site on Airpmi prope1iy that is adjacentboth to Sunset Park homes and to Clover Park. 1 2) Faulty public process and failure to inform residents -- The FOSP Board is extremely concerned about the lack of public process that led to moving the facility to this location which, in essence, creates ongoing construction activityadjacent to an RI neighborhood for the foreseeable future. a) Because the Airport prope1ty is not zoned, the project did not have a public hearing at the Planning Commission. b) Because the $800,000 in fundingis coming from the Public Works budget rather than the Capital Improvement Projects budget, there was no hearing at City Council, only a line item buried in a Consent Item on November 27, 2018. In the middle of a 7-page single-space attachment to agenda item 8-B: "FY 2017-18 Year-End Budget Changes; and FY 2018-19 Budget, Position and Compensation Changes" - "Reflectscontr ibution from Public Works Department Expenditure Control budget saving to the Public Landscape Relocation Project (800.0)" -- There is nothing in that agenda item about relocating Public Landscape to the Airport. c) Most egregiously, there was no hearing at the Airp011 Commission before the project commenced. d) For a City that prides itself on transparency, communication, and "wellbeing," there was, amazingly, no notification of either the nearby residents or the city-recognized neighborhood organization (FOSP) whose boundaries include Santa Monica Airpo1t. 3) Staffstonewalling residents' inquiries - Former Airp011 Commissioner David Kaplan's initial questions to staffin the spring of 2019 were ignored. Another resident finally had to file a Public Records Request in order to learn the details of this major relocation of new industrial operations directly adjoining (and negatively impacting) their R-1 prope1ty. Are we supposed to pretend that adding 40 Public Landscape Maintenance staff, along with their supplies, and equipment, to 4 Airport Maintenance staff at that location will have no effect on residents living next door? 4) The "temporary" myth -- For construction activity such as the Public Landscape Maintenance operation on this resident-adjacent site to be characterized by staff as "temporary" seems disingenuous when they plan for it to remain until at least 2029. They've stated neither a time limit, a proposed closure date, nor an alternative future site. In addition, it's difficult for us to believe that a project costing $800,000 in public funding will be only "temporary." 2 While describing the project as temporary, in the staff repo1i they dismiss the NE comer of the airport. "The undeveloped northeast comer of the Airp01i was evaluated as both a permanent and temporary solution. It was deemed unusable for this project due to the high cost of construction for a permanent facility, the lack of an existing building that could be used as an interim solution, inadequate size without considerable earthwork done to the area, and the need to bring new utility services to the area. With respect to an existing building and utilities, the city still had to spend $800,000 on the location near the houses, so that argument seems weak. Plus, we see SMC plunking down construction staff trailers along Pico Blvd. for"temporary" periods of time. Why can't that be done by the City forthis use as well? Finally, the staffreport says they analyzed all unleased airp01i property. That analysis should be made available to the public in some s01i of document. 5) Noise -- Another concern is vehicle and equipment noise, beginning at 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. 40 private vehicles driven by Public Landscape Maintenance staff will arrive at 6:30 AM, and then a similar number of Public Landscape vehicles and pieces of equipment of various types and sizes will apparently start up and head out to the city's 28 parks. 6) Air pollution -- As has been described by fo1mer Airport Commissioner Dr. Suzanne Paulson, professorof atmospheric sciences and director of the Center for Clean Air at UCLA, due to our proximity to the ocean, in the Sunset Park neighborhood there is generally a breeze from the east in the morning hours and an ocean breeze from the west in the afternoon hours. It's our fear that the morning breeze from the east could blow top soil and decomposed granite dust into the adjacent residential neighborhood, and that the afternoon breezefrom the west in the afternoon hours could blow top soil and decomposed granite dust into adjacent Clover Park. (The jet exhaust from takeoffs already sinks into the below-grade Clover Park baseball diamonds, which are just east of the proposed maintenance facility.) 7) What else will be moved to the Airport? - Suggestions seem to abound, such as relocating the City Yards, the Big Blue Bus yards, Santa Monica College, affordablehousing, housing for homeless people currently living on the streets, or additional industrial operations, all without fo1malplanning, public input, or public approval. 3 8) Measure LC - Those of us who worked so hard to get Measure LC passed in 2014 assumed that the City Chaiier language would be honored: "Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have fullauthority, without voter approval, to regulate the use of the Santa Monica Airp011." Measure LC didn't say that the Public Works Department would have the authority to make land use decisions which seem to violate the Measure LC's mandate to develop the Airp011 land only for "the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities;and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses." A maintenance yard does not seem to fit in any of those categories. Our expectation is that the City will fulfill its promise of a Great Park on the Airport property, to be enjoyed by future generations for years to come! Measure LC ballot language: https://2014.smvote.org/BallotMeasures/detail.aspx?id=48691 The Charter of the City of Santa Monica: http ://www.qcode.us/ codes/santamonica/view. php ?version=beta&view=mo bile&topic=the charter of the city of santa monica-vi-640 , .••••••••...... ••••••••...... •••••••.. 640. Regulation, management and closure of Santa Monica Airport and future use of Airport land. Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport, manage Airport leaseholds, condition leases, and permanently close all or pa.ii of the Airport to aviation use. If all or pa11 of the Airport land is pe1manently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open 4 spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses. (Adopted at Municipal Election 11/4/14, certified by Res. No. 10850CCS) ********************************************************** Background: • October 10, 2019 -- InformationItem • September 21, 2019 -- Letter to the Airport fromthe FOSP Board • September 4, 2019 -- Project Overview 'I October 10, 2019 -- Inf01mation Item for City Council (Zina 's bolds and underlines) "Relocation of Park Maintenance from Memorial Park to the Airport" https://www.smgov.net/Work.Area/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=53687106097 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Public Works Director Subject: Relocation of Park Maintenance from Memorial Park to the Airport Introduction -- This report is to update the Council on the temporary relocation of the Public Landscape Division's (PLD) Park Maintenance stafffrom Memorial Park to the Airport Maintenance facility. The PLD is a crucial component of the City's Public Works operations and maintenance. They maintain and enhance Santa Monica's 28 public parks, including sports fields, playgrounds, and water features. They are also responsible for the upkeep of public medians and street trees. The PLD Park Maintenance staff currentlyoperate from a location at Colorado Yards, adjacent to Memorial Park. Plans to expand the park include use of the Colorado Yards, which requires staff and equipment to be temporarily relocated to the Airport until a permanent location is identified. 5 Background -- The process to expand and redefine Memorial Park, a goal established in Santa Monica's 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, began when the City purchased the adjacent Fisher Lumber site in 2004. At the time, the PLD operations were headquartered at the Airport and were being displaced by the construction of Airport Park. On May 10, 2005, the Council directed staff to relocate the Public Landscape operations from the Airp01t on an interim basis to the newly acquired Fisher Lumber site. In FY 2017-18, Council approved fundingto begin planning the expansion of Memorial Park with the intention of starting construction in 2020. As a permanent location for Public Landscape operations has yet to be identified, staffbegan evaluating options for a new interim solution. On November 27, 2018, as pa1t of the Revisions to FY 2018-19 Capital Improvement ProgramBudget, the Council approved allocating $800,000 in funding fromthe Public Works Department Expenditure Control budget savings for the Public Landscape Relocation Proiect. Discussion -- Staffreviewed all Cityproperties and identified the City Yards and the Airp01t as the remaining viable alternatives for the relocation of PLD Park Maintenance operations. Many of the Cityproperties that were previously designated for temporary uses (surfaceparking lot in civic center, Hansen aggregate storage lot at the City Yards, Deauville lot adjacent to Beach Maintenance, Colorado Yards at Memorial Park) have now been, or are being developed for their intended permanent uses. As pa1t of the 2017 master planning process forthe City Yards, staf analyzed the possibility of building a permanent structure that would consolidate all city operations and maintenance activities in one location. This was deemed infeasible at this time due to the high construction cost, the lack of adequate land area without the construction of an onsite parking structure, and the fact that expanding City operations in the Council approved Master Plan at the City Yards would encroach into Gandara Park. Accordingly, the Master Plan moved forward without the inclusion of the PLD operations, and staff began evaluating opp01tunities at the Airp01t. Multiple locations were reviewed forthe possible relocation of PLD Park Maintenance operations back to the Airp01t, including all unleased airport properties. Available prope1ties with existing buildings, such as 2501 and 3011 Airport Ave. were inadequately sized and lacked the necessary infrastructure or site access. Dividing the operations over multiple prope1ties at the Airpo1t was deemed impractical due to the resulting operational inefficiencies. The undeveloped n01theast corner of the Airp01t was evaluated as both a pe1manent and temporary solution. It was deemed unusable for this project due to the high cost of 6 construction fora permanent facility, the lack of an existing building that could be used as an interim solution, inadequate size without considerable earthwork done to the area, and the need to bring new utility services to the area. Ultimately, the existing Airpmi Maintenance building was identified to be suitable and adequately sized to accommodate both the Airpmi Maintenance and Park Maintenance operations with an upgrade of some existing utilities. The space is an existing Public Works operations area, albeit at a far lower intensity use, which PLD will share with the current four Airport Maintenance staffalready housed at this location. PLD staffoperates Monday to Thursday from 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. with light Fridays, 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Due to unavailability of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding, the project was funded by the Public Works Department's operational savings. Given the limited budget, and the temporary nature of the site, the original intent was to limit improvements to the bare minimum necessary. Using existing contracts and on-call vendors, staffbegan the process of designing the necessaryimprovements for building code compliance in the Fall of 2018. Upgrades included fire/life safetysystems such as fire alatm and fire sprinkler, . > Americans with Disabilities Act compliant pathways and restrooms, and increased electrical service to accommodate electrical vehicle charging. The permitting process was completed in the summer of 2019. Community Concerns -- With the sta1i of construction, nearby residents became concerned with the improvements underway and the possibility of ongoing operational impacts to the neighborhood. Through multiple site walks with community members, Airport Commissioners, and public comment at the Airport Commission's meeting on September 23, 2019, residents largely voiced the following concernswith the original design and intended operations: • Disruptive noise from the PLD operations starting at 6:30 a.m.; • The perceived safetyconcern froman increase in vehicle traffic, specifically large trucks, along 25th Street; • Disruption of existing views into the Airport from Clover Street; • Location of bulk material storage bins and equipment storage containers near adjacent residents; • Concern that hazardous and open material storage areas would lead to air pollution; and, • Concern that investing funds into the existing building would mean this proposed interim solution would become permanent. 7 Proposed Solutions -- Staffhave actively listened to these concernsand believe they can be addressed through proposed changes to the construction and future operational procedures. Attachment A lays out the progression of the design from the original intent, to a second iteration presented at the Airport Commission, and finally to a newly revised proposal that staff will present to the Commission on October 28, 2019. Proposed mitigation efforts include: • Loading equipment/materials at the end of each day with vehicles positioned to deploy in the morning. This would greatly limit the amount of early morning noise; • On-site equipment and/or materials storage oppmiunities at other City facilitieswould be established to reduce the amount of equipment and materials staging at the Airport Maintenance facility; • Park Maintenance vehicles and equipment would only enter and exit the site using the 28th Street gate. Personal vehicles and inte1mittent deliveries would use the 25th Street gate; • Planting plans forClover Street, at the Airport Maintenance facility, and in the park have been developed to maximize screening options and provide a more visually appealing site perimeter; • Storage containers, equipment and bulk materials storage have been reananged in response to community concerns about potential noise, sightlines, and dust. Staffis proposing to move the storage area to the east side of the site, which is fuithest from the residential area. Bulk material storage would have a retractable cover to prevent dust and debris from blowing away. Larger vehicles will be parked directly east of the building, to prevent obstruction of residents' views of the airfield. The PLD move is a temporaryrelocation into an existing building that would not require the development of any additional land area at the Airport. The proposed improvements are not intended as a long-term solution to meet future Park Maintenance needs, but rather as an interim solution to keep Park Maintenance services operational. The planning process forthe future of the Airport propertywill proceed with significant communityinput and will not be impacted by this temporary occupancy. Next Steps Staff intend to bring these revised mitigation measures back before the Airpo1i Commission on October 28, 2019 for additional feedback. The PLD relocation to the Airpmt Maintenance facility is now a standing item on the Airport Commission agenda to be discussed monthly until residents' concerns are addressed. Staffalso propose to keep the community informed by: • Offering ongoing tours of the Airport Maintenance facility to community members; • Issuing public notices to community members about any activity in the public right-of-way around the Airport Maintenance facility; 8 • Posting all relevant documents related to the project on the Airport's website; and, • Hosting a community open house event upon completion of construction. Staff anticipate moving PLD Park Maintenance into the new space in January 2020. Immediately after PLD moves out of Colorado Yards, the SWIP project that Council approved on September 10, 2019 will use the Colorado Yards location as a staging site until the start of construction for Memorial Park expansion expected to begin in December of 2020. Prepared By: Christopher Dishlip, Capital Program Manager Attachments: Attachment A: Site Plan Revision ********************************************************** **************************************************** September r21, 2019 To: Santa Monica Airpo1t Commission From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 9/23/19 agenda item 6a -- Public Landscape Division Relocation to Airport Maintenance Facility Presentation and discussion of the proposed relocation of a portion of Public Landscape Division's staff, facilities, equipment, and material storage from Memorial Park to existing Airport Maintenance Facility located adjacent to Clover Park. Agenda: https://www.smgov.net/departments/airport/agendas/2019/20190923/a20190923.pdf 1) Oppose -- A majority of the FOSP Board members oppose the placement of this Public Landscape Maintenance Facility adjacent both to Sunset Park homes and to Clover Park. 2) Process -- The FOSP Board is extremely concerned about the process, or rather the lack of public process, that led to moving the facilityto this location which, in essence, creates ongoing construction activity adjacent to an RI neighborhood for the foreseeable future. -- Because the Airport is not zoned, the project did not have a public hearing at the Planning Commission. 9 -- Because the $800,000 in fundingis coming from the Public Works budget rather than the Capital Improvement Projects budget, there was no hearing at City Council. For reasons we don't understand, there was no hearing at the Airp01i Commission. For reasons we don't understand, there was no notification of either the city recognized neighborhood organization (FOSP) whose boundaries include Santa Monica Airpmi,or of nearby neighbors. 3) Temporary -- It's difficult for us to believe that a project costing $800,000 in public funding will be only "temporary." 4) Noise -- Another concernis vehicle and equipment noise, beginning at 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. Thi1iy-five private vehicles driven by Public Landscape staff will a1Tive at 6:30 AM, and then approximately 35 Public Landscape vehicles and pieces of equipment of various types and sizes will apparently staii up, load up with gravel, decomposed granite, soil and/or organic fe1iilizer,and be driven nmih on 25th Street past homes, Clover Park, and Hill & Dale preschool/daycare at 2801 25th Street, which serves children as young at 3 months old, from 7:30 AM to 6 PM. https://winnie.com/place/hill-dale-family-leaming-center-santa-monica 5) Air pollution -- Yet another concernis air pollution. As has been described by former Airpmi Commissioner Dr. Suzanne Paulson, professorof atmospheric sciences and director of the Center for Clean Air at UCLA, due to our proximity to the ocean, in the Sunset Park neighborhood there is generally a breeze from the east in the morning hours and an ocean breeze fromthe west in the afternoon hours. It's our fear that the morning breeze from the east could blow soil, decomposed granite dust, and odiferous fertilizer into the adjacent residential neighborhood, and that the afternoonbreeze from the west in the afternoonhours could blow soil, decomposed granite dust, and odiferousfe1iilizer into adjacent Clover Park. (The jet exhaust from takeoffs already sinks into the below-grade baseball diamonds, which are just east of the proposed maintenance facility.) As a reminder, organic fertilizers ai·e derived from animal matter, animal excreta (manure), human excreta, and vegetable matter (e.g., compost and crop residues). Naturally occurring organic fe1iilizers include animal waste. 6) What else will be moved to the Airport? - Suggestions seem to abound, such as moving the City Yards to the Airpmi, the Big Blue Bus yards, Santa Monica College, affordablehousing, and/or homeless people currently living on the streets. Meanwhile, we are still hoping forthe Great Park! 10 7) Measure LC - Those of us who worked so hard to get Measure LC passed in 2014 assumed that, "Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have fullauthority, without voter approval, to regulate the use of the Santa Monica Airport." Measure LC didn't say that the Public Works Department would have that authority. ************************************************************* September 4, 2019 -- From Susan Cline, Public Works Director Project overview: • This project is happening to facilitate the move of a portion of the Public Landscape Division, , from Memorial Park to the Airport Maintenance facility due to the Memorial Park expansion. • Field staffwill report to this location in the morning, deploy to their fieldlocations for the day, and returnto wash-up before leaving for the day. • Hours are from 6:30am-4pm, Monday thru Thursday and light Fridays. Lunches are in the field. • Airport maintenance staff will remain at the facility. • The building improvements are interior upgrades; the building footprint remains unchanged with no additional buildings constructed. • Utility work for electricity (EV charging) and water (fire sprinklers) that are cunently open trenches are anticipated to be completed by early October. • The PLD team is cunently scheduled to start reporting to this location in early 2020. • Documents related to the project are under City Attorney review pursuant to a Public Record request. As soon as they are made available, they will be distributed. ************************************************* 11 ATTACHMENT November 18, 2019 To: Airport Commission From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 11/19/19 agenda item 5(b): Public Landscape Division Relocation to Airport Maintenance Facility -- Ongoing discussion from September 23, 2019 meeting relating to the process of relocating a portion of Public Landscape Division's operations from Memorial Park to existing Airport Maintenance Facility located adjacent to Clover Park. Agenda: https://www.smgov.net/departments/airpo,t/agendas/2019/2019 l l l 9/a20191119.pdf l) Oppose - The FOSP Board opposes the relocation of this Public Landscape Maintenance Facility to a site on Airport property that is adjacent both to Sunset Park homes and to Clover Park. 2) Faulty public process and failure to inform residents -- The FOSP Board is extremely concerned about the lack of public process that led to moving the facilityto this location which, in essence, creates ongoing construction activity adjacent to an Rl neighborhood forthe foreseeable future. a) Because the Airport property is not zoned, the project did not have a public hearing at the Planning Commission. b) Because the $800,000 in fundingis coming fromthe Public Works budget rather than the Capital Improvement Projects budget, there was no hearing at City Council, only a line item buried in a Consent Item on November 27, 2018. In the middle of a 7-page single-space attachment to agenda item 8-B: "FY 2017-18 Year-End Budget Changes; and FY 2018-19 Budget, Position and Compensation Changes" - "Reflectscontribution fromPublic Works Department Expenditure Control budget saving to the Public Landscape Relocation Project (800.0)" -- There is nothing in that agenda item about relocating Public Landscape to the Airport. c) Most egregiously, there was no hearing at the Airport Commission beforethe project commenced. d) For a City that prides itself on transparency, communication, and "wellbeing," there was, amazingly, no notificationof either the nearby residents or the city-recognized neighborhood organization (FOSP) whose boundaries include Santa Monica Airport. 1 3) Staff stonewalling residents' inquiries - Former Airport Commissioner David Kaplan's initial questions to staffin the spring of 2019 were ignored. Another resident finally had to file a Public Records Request in order to learn the details of this major relocation of new industrial operations directly adjoining (and negatively impacting) their R-1 property. Are we supposed to pretend that adding 40 Public Landscape Maintenance staff,along with their supplies, and equipment, to 4 Ai.rp01i Maintenancestaff at that location will have no effecton residents living next door? 4) The "temporary" myth -- For constrnction activity such as the Public Landscape Maintenance operation on this resident-adjacent site to be characterized by staff as "temporary" seems disingenuous when they plan for it to remain until at least 2029. They've stated neither a time limit, a proposed closme date, nor an alternativefutme site. In addition, it's difficult for us to believe that a project costing $800,000 in public fundingwill be only "temporary." While describing the project as temporary, in the staff repo1i they dismiss the NE comer of the airpo1i. "The undeveloped northeast cornerof the Airport was evaluated as both a pe1manent and temporary solution. It was deemed unusable for this project due to the high cost of construction fora permanent facility, the lack of an existing building that could be used as an interim solution, inadequate size without considerable earthwork done to the area, and the need to bring new utility services to the area. With respect to an existing building and utilities, the city still had to spend $800,000 on the location near the houses, so that argument seems weak. Plus, we see SMC plunking down constrnction staff trailers along Pico Blvd. for"temporary" periods of time. Why can't that be done by the City for this use as well? Finally, the staff report says they analyzed all unleased airport property. That analysis should be made available to the public in some sort of document. 5) Noise -- Another concern is vehicle and equipment noise, beginning at 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. 40 private vehicles driven by Public Landscape Maintenance staffwill arrive at 6:30 AM, and then a similar number of Public Landscape vehicles and pieces of equipment of various types and sizes will apparently start up and head out to the city's 28 parks. 6) Air pollution -- As has been described by former Airport Commissioner Dr. Suzanne Paulson, professor of atmospheric sciences and director of the Center for Clean Air at UCLA, due to our proximity to the ocean, in the Sunset Park neighborhood there is generally a breeze from the east in the morning hours and an ocean breeze from the west in the afternoon hours. It's our fear that the morning breeze fromthe east could blow top soil and decomposed granite dust into the adjacent residential neighborhood, and that the afternoon breeze fromthe west in the afternoon hours could blowtop soil and decomposed granite dust into adjacent Clover Park. 2 (The jet exhaust fromtakeoffs already sinlcsinto the below-grade Clover Park baseball diamonds, which are just east of the proposed maintenance facility.) 7) What else will be moved to the Airport? - Suggestions seem to abound, such as relocating the City Yards, the Big Blue Bus yards, Santa Monica College, affordable housing, housing for homeless people currently living on the sh·eets, or additional industrial operations, all without formal planning, public input, or public approval. 8) Measure LC - Those of us who worked so hard to get Measme LC passed in 2014 assumed that the City Charter language would be honored: "Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate the use of the Santa Monica Airport." Measure LC didn't say that the Public Works Department would have the authority to make land use decisions which seem to violate the Measure LC's mandate to develop the Airport land only for "the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses." A maintenance yard does not seem to fit in any of those categories. Our expectation is that the City will fulfillits promise of a Great Park on the Airport property, to be enjoyed by futuregenerations for years to come! Measure LC ballot language: https://2014.smvote.org/BallotMeasures/detail.aspx?id=4869 l The Charter of the City of Santa Monica: http://www.qcode.us/codes/santamonica/view.php?version=beta&view=mobile&topic=the chart er of the city of santa monica-vi-640 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 640. Regulation, management and closure of Santa Monica Airport and future use of Airport land. Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport, manage Airport leaseholds, condition leases, and permanently close all or pa1t of the Airpmt to aviation use. If all or pa1t of the Airport land is pe1manently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council fromapprov ing the following on Airport land that has been pe1manently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses. (Adopted at Municipal Election 11/4/14, certified by Res. No. 10850CCS) 3 **************************************************************** Background: • October 10, 2019 -- Information Item • September 21, 2019 -- Letter to the Airport from the FOSP Board • September 4, 2019 -- Project Overview October 10, 2019 -- Information Item for City Council (Zina 's bolds and underlines) "Relocation of Park Maintenance fromMemorial Park to the Airport" https ://www.smgov.net/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id= 53 687106097 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Public Works Director Subject: Relocation of Park Maintenance fromMemorial Park to the Airport Introduction -- This report is to update the Council on the temporruy relocation of the Public Landscape Division's (PLD) Park Maintenance staff from Memorial Park to the Airport Maintenance facility. The PLO is a crucial component of the City's Public Works operations and maintenance. They maintain and enhance Santa Monica's 28 public parks, including sports fields, playgrounds, and water features. They are also responsible for the upkeep of public medians and street trees. The PLD Park Maintenance staff cunently operate from a location at Colorado Yards, adjacentto Memorial Parle Plans to expand the pru·k include use of the Colorado Yards, which requires staffand equipment to be temporarily relocated to the Airport tmtil a permanent location is identified. Background -- The process to expand and redefine Memorial Park, a goal established in Santa Monica's 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, began when the City purchased the adjacent Fisher Lumber site in 2004. At the time, the PLD operations were headquartered at the Airport and were being displaced by the construction of Airport Park. On May 10, 2005, the Council directed staff to relocate the Public Landscape operations from the Airport on an interim basis to the newly acquired Fisher Lumber site. 4 . .. In FY 2017-18, Council approved fundingto begin planning the expansion of Memorial Park with the intention of starting constrnction in 2020. As a permanent location forPublic Landscape operations has yet to be identified, staff began evaluating options fora new interim solution. On November 27, 2018, as part of the Revisions to FY 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program Budget, the Council approved allocating $800,000 in fundingfrom the Public Works Depaiiment Expenditure Control budget savings for the Public Landscape Relocation Project. Discussion -- Staffreviewed all Cityproperties and identified the City Yards and the Airport as the remaining viable alternatives forthe relocation of PLD Park Maintenance operations. Many of the City properties that were previously designated for temporary uses (surface parking lot in civic center, Hansen aggregate storage lot at the City Yards, Deauville lot adjacent to Beach Maintenance, Colorado Yards at Memorial Park) have now been, or are being developed for their intended permanent uses. As paii of the 2017 master planning process forthe City Yards, staffanalyzed the possibility of building a permanent strncture that would consolidate all city operations and maintenance activities in one location. This was deemed infeasible at this time due to the high constrnctioncost, the lack of adequate land area without the construction of an onsite parking structure, and the fact that expanding City operations in the Council approved Master Plan at the City Yards would encroach into Gandara Park. Accordingly, the Master Plan moved fo1wardwithout the inclusion of the PLD operations, and staffbegan evaluating opp01iunities at the Airport. Multiple locations were reviewed for the possible relocation of PLD Park Maintenance operations back to the Airpo1i, including all unleased airport properties. Available properties with existing buildings, such as 2501 and 3011 Airport Ave. were inadequately sized and lacked the necessary infrastrncture or site access. Dividing the operations over multiple properties at the Airport was deemed impractical due to the resulting operational inefficiencies. The undeveloped northeast cornerof the Airport was evaluated as both a permanent and temporary solution. It was deemed unusable for this project due to the high cost of constrnction fora pe1manent facility, the lack of an existing building that could be used as an interim solution, inadequate size without considerable earthwork done to the area, and the need to bring new utility services to the area. Ultimately, the existing Airport Maintenance building was identified to be suitable and adequately sized to accommodate both the Airport Maintenance and Park 5 Maintenance operations with an upgrade of some existing utilities. The space is an existing Public Works operations area, albeit at a farlower intensity use, which PLD will share with the cmTent fourAirport Maintenance staffalready housed at this location. PLD staff operates Monday to Thursday from 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. with light Fridays, 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Due to unavailability of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding, the project was funded by the Public Works Depa1tment's operational savings. Given the limited budget, and the temporary nature of the site, the original intent was to limit improvements to the bare minimum necessary. Using existing contracts and on-call vendors, staffbegan the process of designing the necessary improvements for building code compliance in the fall of 2018. Upgrades included fire/life safety systems such as fire alarm and fire sprinkler, Americans with Disabilities Act compliant pathways and restrooms, and increased electrical service to accommodate elech·ical vehicle charging. The permitting process was completed in the summer of 2019. Community Concerns -- With the start of constrnction, nearby residents became concernedwith the improvements unde1way and the possibility of ongoing operational impacts to the neighborhood. Through multiple site walks with community members, Airport Commissioners, and public comment at the Airport Commission's meeting on September 23, 2019, residents largely voiced the following concerns with the original design and intended operations: • Disruptive noise from the PLD operations starting at 6:30 a.m.; • The perceived safety concern from an increase in vehicle traffic, specifically large trucks, along 25th Street; • Disruption of existing views into the Airport from Clover Street; • Location of bulk material storage bins and equipment storage containers near adjacent residents; • Concern that hazardous and open material storage areas would lead to air pollution; and, • Concern that investing funds into the existing building would mean this proposed interim solution would become permanent. Proposed Solutions -- Staffhave actively listened to these concernsand believe they can be addressed through proposed changes to the constrnction and future operational 6 ' .. procedures. Attachment A lays out the progression of the design from the original intent, to a second iteration presented at the Airport Commission, and finally to a newly revised proposal that staffwill present to the Commission on October 28, 2019. Proposed mitigation effortsinclude: • Loading equipment/materials at the end of each day with vehicles positioned to deploy in the morning. This would greatly limit the amount of early morning noise; • On-site equipment and/or materials storage opportunities at other City facilities would be established to reduce the amount of equipment and materials staging at the Airport Maintenance facility; • Park Maintenance vehicles and equipment would only enter and exit the site using the 28th Street gate. Personal vehicles and intermittent deliveries would use the 25th Street gate; • Planting plans for Clover Street, at the Airport Maintenance facility, and in the park have been developed to maximize screening options and provide a more visually appealing site perimeter; • Storage containers, equipment and bulk materials storage have been rearranged in response to community concernsabout potential noise, sightlines, and dust. Staff is proposing to move the storage area to the east side of the site, which is furthestfrom the residential area. Bulle material storage would have a retractable cover to prevent dust and debris fromblowi ng away. Larger vehicles will be parked directly east of the building, to prevent obstruction of residents' views of the airfield. The PLD move is a temporary relocation into an existing building that would not require the development of any additional land area at the Airport. The proposed improvements are not intended as a long-term solution to meet future Park Maintenance needs, but rather as an interim solution to keep Park Maintenance services operational. The planning process for the future of the Airport property will proceed with significantcommunity input and will not be impacted by this temporary occupancy. Next Steps Staffintend to bring these revised mitigation measures back before the Airport Commission on October 28, 2019 for additional feedback. The PLD relocation to the Airport Maintenance facility is now a standing item on the Airport Commission agenda to be discussed monthly until residents' concerns are addressed. Staff also propose to keep the community informedby: 7 • Offering ongoing tours of the Airport Maintenance facilityto community members; • Issuing public notices to community members about any activity in the public right of-way around the Airport Maintenance facility; • Posting all relevant documents related to the project on the Airport's website; and, • Hosting a community open house event upon completion of construction. Staffanticipate moving PLD Park Maintenance into the new space in January 2020. Immediately after PLD moves out of Colorado Yards, the SWIP project that Council approved on September 10, 2019 will use the Colorado Yards location as a staging site until the start of construction forMemorial Park expansion expected to begin in December of 2020. Prepared By: Christopher Dishlip, Capital Program Manager Attachments: Attachment A: Site Plan Revision ************************************************�********* **************************************************** To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Airport@smgov .net Sent: 9/22/2019 9:49:07 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FOSP: Airport Commission9/23/19 agenda item 6a - Public Landscape Maintenance moving to SMO September 21, 2019 To: Santa Monica Airport Commission From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 9/23/19 agenda item 6a --. Public Landscape Division Relocation to Airport Maintenance Facility Presentation and discussion of the proposed relocation of a portion of Public Landscape Division's staff, facilities, equipment, and material storage from Memorial Park to existing Airport Maintenance Facility located adjacent to Clover Park. Agenda: https://www.smgov.net/deprutments/airpo1t/agendas/2019/20l90923/a20190923.pdf 1) Oppose -- A majority of the FOSP Board members oppose the placement of this Public Landscape Maintenance Facility adjacent both to Sunset Park homes and to Clover Parle 8 . ,, 2) Process -- The FOSP Board is extremely concerned about the process, or rather the lack of public process, that led to moving the facility to this location which, in essence, creates ongoing construction activity adjacent to an Rl neighborhood for the foreseeable future. n Because the Airport is not zoned, the project did not have a public hearing at the Planning Commission. n Because the $800,000 in fundingis coming fromthe Public Works budget rather than the Capital Improvement Projects budget, there was no hearing at City Council. n For reasons we don't understand, there was no hearing at the Airpmt Commission. n For reasons we don't understand, there was no notification of either the city recognized neighborhood organization (FOSP) whose boundaries include Santa Monica Airpmt, or of nearby neighbors. 3) Temporary -- It's difficult for us to believe that a project costing $800,000 in public funding will be only "temporary." 4) Noise -- Another concernis vehicle and equipment noise, beginning at 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. Thirty-five private vehicles driven by Public Landscape staff will arrive at 6:30 AM, and then approximately 35 Public Landscape vehicles and pieces of equipment of various types and sizes will apparently start up, load up with gravel, decomposed granite, soil and/or organic fertilizer,and be driven north on 25th Street past homes, Clover Park, and Hill & Dale preschool/daycare at 2801 25th Street, which serves children as young at 3 months old, from 7:30 AM to 6 PM. https://winnie.com/place/hill-dale-family-learning-center-santa-monica 5) Air pollution -- Yet another concern is air pollution. As has been described by former Airport Commissioner Dr. Suzanne Paulson, professor of atmospheric sciences and director of the Center for Clean Air at UCLA, due to our proximity to the ocean, in the Sunset Park neighborhood there is generally a breeze fromthe east in the morning hours and an ocean breeze from the west in the afternoonhours. It's our fear that the morning breeze from the east could blow soil, decomposed granite dust, and odiferous fertilizerinto the adjacent residential neighborhood, and that the afternoonbreeze from the west in the afternoon hours could blow soil, decomposed granite dust, and odiferous fertilizer into adjacent Clover Park. (The jet exhaust from takeoffs already sinks into the below-grade baseball diamonds, which are just east of the proposed maintenance facility.) 9 As a reminder, organic fertilizers are derived fromanimal matter, animal excreta (manure), human excreta, and vegetable matter (e.g., compost and crop residues). Naturally occuning organic fertilizers include animal waste. 6) What else will be moved to the Airport? - Suggestions seem to abound, such as moving the City Yards to the Airport, the Big Blue Bus yards, Santa Monica College, affordablehousing, and/or homeless people cruTently living on the streets. Meanwhile, we are still hoping for the Great Park! 7) Measure LC - Those of us who worked so hard to get Measure LC passed in 2014 assumed that, "Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate the use of the Santa Monica Airport." Measure LC didn't say that the Public Works Department would have that authority. ************************************************************* September 4, 2019 -- From Susan Cline, Public Works Director Project overview: O This project is happening to facilitate the move of a portion of the Public Landscape Division fromMemorial Park to the Airpo1t Maintenance facilitydue to the Memorial Park expansion. D Field staff will repott to this location in the morning, deploy to their field locations for the day, and return to wash-up before leaving forthe day. D Hours are from 6:30am-4pm, Monday thru Thursday and light Fridays. Lunches are in the field. D Airpo1t maintenance staff will remain at the facility. D The building improvements are interior upgrades; the building footprint remains unchanged with no additional buildings constructed. D Utility work for electricity (EV charging) and water (fire sprinklers) that are currently open trenches are anticipated to be completed by early October. D The PLD team is currently scheduled to start reporting to this location in early 2020. D Documents related to the project are under City Attorneyreview pursuant to a Public Record request. As soon as they are made available, they will be distributed. ************************************************* 10 Michael Ferguson From: Nancela < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 7:15 PM To: Council Mailbox Cc: Rick Cole; Susan Cline; Stelios Makrides; Lael R. Rubin; Geoffrey Neri; Andrew Wilder; Chris Waller; Joe Schmitz Subject: Say NO to Public Landscape Division Maintenance Yard at SM Airport/25th Street Dear SM government officials and personnel, Please consider this urgent plea to stop the proposed relocation of the Public Landscape Division maintenance yard to the current airport land near my neighborhood at Ashland and 25th street. The residents of this area of Sunset Park need to be considered valued members of the community and deserve to live in a home and neighborhood free from the disruption that this maintenance yard would bring. As a 37-year resident of my home, I have seen the neighborhood become besieged by traffic, noise, and parking dilemmas due to the city government seeming to put the residents' needs and concerns at the bottom of the list of considerations when planning. Over the years, Santa Monica city government has courted expansion of business development in Santa Monica which has rendered our Sunset Park neighborhood a traffic nightmare during commute hours that last northbound until 9 a.m. and begin again southbound and eastbound before 3 p.m. Residents of my neighborhood are subjected to gridlock when we leave our homes as well as cut-through traffic on our residential streets. In addition, we suffer parking shortages due to overflow from Clover Park and area businesses. My block has 2- hour parking restrictions that are rarely enforced, and we were not granted the 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. restricted parking that nearby neighborhood were given because the city deemed other uses more important than the needs of the residents. The proposed maintenance yard location would add to traffic and noise woes in the neighborhood. The noise would begin early in the morning, and traffic would increase on neighborhood streets that are already bulging with commuters. Noise and air pollution from trucks and operations would also increase, adding to what we already experience from commuters and the airport operations. I urge you to consider the well-being of the taxpaying homeowners of my neighborhood and find another location for the maintenance yard in an area of the city that can accommodate the facility without disruption to residents. Sincerely, Nancy Bon 2427 Ashland Ave. SM 90405 1 Michael Ferguson From: Ben Dear SM Airport Commissioners and City Staff: Please see the images below. I previously submitted a document on October 16, 2019 regarding a "Request to Evaluate Better Alternative Locations at SMO for the SM Public Works Landscape Division." The document had included one viable alternative which was a 87,000 square foot(= 2 acre) location where the Lower South 22 T-Hangars are in an industrial area at SMO. I had made this request to the City to evaluate better alternatives because I learned (thriough a October 2019 Public Records Request) that there was no documented review of alternative locations. Thus, there is no way for the public to see why other alternative locations were rejected, or if any other locations were even considered at all. In advance of the Airport Commission Meeting tomorrow(November 19, 2019), this issue is being discussed again and I just reviewed the meeting documents (see: https://www.smgov.net/Departments/Airport/Commission/). However, there is still no information about alternative locations that were even considered. Since there is no alternative being presented by the City, I am submitting a "Second Request to Evaluate Better AlternativeLocations." I am also submitting a second viable alternative which is about 2.2 acres. It is adjacent to the first alternative site. See images below. In summary, this alternative 2.2 acre site (includes 3011 AirportAvenue and the adjacent 2 parking lots) is sufficiently large and is in an industrial area. A portion of this site was the previous location for the SM Landscape Division at SMO in 2004. The building structure is 8,829 square feet and includes a 2,109 s.f. office space with a kitchen and bathrooms and a large 6,720 s.f. warehouse space that can secure landscape tools and equipment. The present lease terminates in about 1 year. The present lease is for the building ONLY. The tenant Cars with Class (non-aviation) pays only $120,000 per year. Note, the parking lots have no known leases. Please consider alternative locations for the Landscape Division and share the information publicly. Wouldn't it make sense for the Landscape Division to simply move back to this same location where it was previously located? Thanks, Ben Attached images: 1 • Image 1: Public Records Request October 2019 • Image 2: Viable alternative locations for the SM Landscape Division at SMO • Image 3: Location of SM Landscape Division at SMO in 2004 2 Subject: (Records Center] Public Records Request :: R004232-092719 Body: e,... (lh ,, Ni•n111 »•t1 It-•• 10/10!2019 Ben Wang •IJ.hStreet Santa Monica CA 90405 RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of September 27, 2019., Reference# R004232-092719. Dear Ben Wang, The City of Santa Monie.a received a public information request fromyo u on Sef}tember27, 2019. Your 11equest mentioned: "Please see: bttps://www.smgov .neUdepartmeuts Jairport/ageudas/2019/20 l 90923/20190923%201tem 0/e206a%20exhih its.11df At tbe Santa Monica Air1mrt Commission meeting on 9/2312019, Item 6A was discussed regarding Santa Monica Public Works at SMO. It was stated by City Staff that alternathre locations were considered prior to choosing tile current pro11osed location. I am 11olitely requestingeo11ies of the analysis that was conducted of the alternath'e locations that were considered. Thank you." Airport staffis unable to locate the repot1 you are looking for. Please contact SMO for more information at 310-458-8591. Sincerely, City of Santa Monica 3 4 Ben Wang E-mail: [email protected] 5 Michael Ferguson From: Stelios Makrides Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1:37 PM To: Michael Ferguson Subject: FW: Item 5-b From: [email protected] Commissioners, I do not support the relocation and expansion of maintenance facilities at its current proposed site on the airport property. This proposed site is adjacent to homes and appropriate public process was not followed including alternative options options that the public could provide feedback on. Sincerely, Cathy Larson Sunset Park resident 1 Michael Ferguson From: Julia Brewer Dear Airport Commissioners, Thank you for your ongoing service to our community. I am a 15 year resident of Pier Ave. During that time my husband and I have raised our two sons literally “on the runway”. While we do appreciate the recently diminished jet traffic, we have never regretted owning this property. We educated ourselves in advance, were prepared for life beside a busy airport and have enjoyed watching the planes. In all those years, we have only made one small complaint and the response from the airport was excellent. We have serious concerns now, however, of the current plan to move the PLD to the Airport Maintenance Facility beside Clover Park at the end of Pier Ave. This is an unacceptable location for such an operation due to proximity to residences and a neighborhood park, increased traffic in an area already gridlocked during ever expanding rush hours, noise, air pollution and hazardous material concerns. The City has shown no interest or regard for community members impacted by this relocation during the selection/design process and minimal concern at present during the attempted construction at the site. We strongly urge the Airport Commissioners to reject this plan, permanently halt all work and send City Council, Public Works and all involved back to the drawing board to find a permanent, suitable location for the PDL yard. I have read the document that Susan Cline, Public Works Director, has sent to you for tonight’s meeting. The options put forward in her letter do not assuage any of my concerns, which are many: 1. Temporary/interim status of location: Since no permanent location has been identified, and all other city properties have currently been ruled out by Public Works, this project appears to be, at best, indefinite and, at worst, permanent. 2. Future Expansion of the PDL. With a focus on park development in the city, the PDL yard will only expand from year to year. The problems we foresee with current operations will only be worse in years to come. 3) The proposed solutions put forth in Ms Cline's letter to address citizen concerns are not adequate: a) First, very few citizens have had an opportunity to learn about the project, and express their concerns. (see point 4 below) a) Loading equipment in the afternoon instead of the morning. This is not acceptable to residents or park users. This is a time when park use is high due to sport activities. Residents are returning home from school, work, stressful commutes, and relaxing in our yards. In talking with community members, what people love the most about our neighborhood is its quiet peacefulness. One senior citizen in the neighborhood said “My husband is almost 100. We have worked so hard. We just want peace and quiet now.” This is a reasonable expectation for all, especially our seniors who have paid their dues to this city for decades. b) Storing materials at other City facilities to reduce staging at the Airport/Clover Park site. By their own criteria, other sites were rejected because “dividing the operations over multiple properties at the Airport was deemed impractical due to the resulting operational inefficiencies”. If operations now have to be divided anyway, these other sites should be reconsidered. Also, once the PDL is well established, these materials may eventually be moved to the Airport/Clover Park site anyway without our consent or knowledge. 1 c) Maintenance vehicles and equipment would enter/exit using 28th St gate. This is still a huge problem for users of 28th and the heavily trafficked Ocean Park Ave. Also, wouldn't these vehicles then be driving along the end of Clover Park on the airport side of the fence? This would impact the enjoyment of activities held at that end of the park, adding noise and pollution. d) Personal vehicles and deliveries would still use 25th St. 25th street must be protected for use by residents, Emergency vehicles departing from the Fire Station, Park users, and the Hill and Dale Preschool. It will be severely detrimental to all of us if traffic is increased by 40 employees (and more as PDL expands) coming and going on 25th. Residents of this neighborhood are already dealing with: *severe gridlocked traffic on 23rd *gridlocked traffic on Ocean Park*dangerous peel-away traffic on Pier, Ashland, Hill and Oak between 25th & 23rd (even more dangerous in the evenings as we have no streetlights) *steadily increasing traffic on 25th *Back up of traffic at the light at 25th and Ocean Park during rush hour *thru vehicles impatient at (or ignoring) stop signs I have been walking and driving down 25th for over 15 years. Every day you will see young children crossing the street to run to soccer and baseball games, kids on bikes and scooters, parents with strollers and young toddlers crossing at the intersections to use the playgrounds, pedestrians with dogs, elderly local residents enjoying a slow, peaceful walk at the park, parents dropping their children off at the Hill and Dale preschool, not to mention emergency vehicles heading out on calls. Increasing the number of vehicles, many who are already impatient and ignoring stop signs makes this an extremely dangerous plan. Why on earth would the City consider it acceptable to increase traffic on this residential, park access street? If anything, we should be trying to reduce thru traffic here to make it safer, especially for our children and seniors. It will also add to the higher speed peel-away problem we are already experiencing on a daily basis that jeopardizes the safety of our once quiet residential streets. e) Planting plan to maximize screening options Attempting to hide the massive PDL operations behind some plants and shrubs will not improve noise, pollution, and traffic/safety issues. f) Storage containers moved to the east side of the property. This solution reminds me of the days when restaurants and airplanes had a “smoking section” located right beside the “non-smoking section”. Just as that was ineffective, the property is not large enough to make this solution effective either. Furthermore, while slightly farther from residences, this is actually closer to people using the park, which is also an unacceptable solution. 4. Negligent communication and misrepresentation from the City to community members. Clearly the city has no desire to sincerely engage with our neighborhood. a) I know you are aware that our community has not been notified, informed or engaged in any way by the City regarding the selection, design or construction of this project. Even more disturbing is that in the 2 months since your September 23rd meeting where citizens voiced concerns about the lack of communication, zero information has been sent to any community members . b) I could not find this project listed on the Public Works website or the Landscape division's monthly newsletter. A city gov't website search delivered only a document with plans for construction, nothing to inform local residents. c) Referring to this site as “the Airport” is a mischaracterization. When informing neighbors that the PDL was being moved to “the airport” or "the Airport Maintenance Facility" reaction was minimal because people assume it is in a commercial/industrial area of the airport. As soon as I mentioned it was being moved beside the park and fire station at the end of Pier Ave, people expressed shock, disbelief, disgust, anger and immediately wanted more information. The term “the airport site” works to the advantage of the City agenda and against community awareness of this issue. 2 d) Concerned neighbors have had to begin the process of informing one another. After many personal conversations with fellow residents on Pier, Ashland, Hill and Oak over the past three days, I can assure you that the vast majority of our neighbors (90+ %??) were completely shocked, uninformed and blindsided by news of this project. The existing Airport Maintenance Facility has so little current use that most residents in the vicinity that I spoke to were unaware of its existence. That will not be the case if the massive PDL operation is relocated there. This is a huge change to our community and we have the right to be informed and give input. (By the way Ms Cline’s letter to you mentions they have conducted “multiple site walks with community members”. How can this statement even be meaningful if 90% or more of the community are unaware of the project?) 4. Search criteria for a new PDL site focused exclusively on the needs of Public Works. Ms Cline’s letter states that all city properties were reviewed and all sites (other than ours) were apparently rejected based on these criteria a) Size of property b) lack of existing facilities c) lack of existing infrastructure d) high cost of building new facilities, earthwork, utilities etc. Notice all of these criteria are completely focused on the needs and budget of Public Works. It is as if the surrounding communities do not even exist in their thought process. These certainly are not the kind of neighbors I want in my community. The city has created a major problem for themselves in not establishing an appropriate permanent site for the PDL yard over the past 15 years. But to move it from industrial areas (the east end of the runway and the Fisher Lumber sites) to a residential area is wrong. We can not allow this to happen to our neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Again, I urge you to oppose this plan. Sincerely, Julia Brewer 2424 Pier Ave 3 Michael Ferguson From: Stelios Makrides Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:59 PM To: Michael Ferguson Subject: FW: SMO - Public Works Relocation Project at SMO -- Airport Commission Meeting Item 5(b) -- November 19, 2019 From: Carrey, Neil Commissioners, Although Airport2Park supports the upgrades of maintenance facilities to service our City’s parks, and logically such a facility belongs somewhere on the footprint of the “great park”, clearly the City’s choice of locating this proposed facility on a portion of the airport property adjacent to homes did not follow appropriate public process including offering a variety of location options for public input. Therefore, Airport2Park cannot support the maintenance facility at the selected site until public grievances caused by the flawed process have been addressed and resolved. We also point out the potential for violation of measure LC by any form of development on airport property. All airport land currently with any aviation purpose (such as the site chosen which contains an FAA antenna) falls under LC and must henceforth be treated as such both prior to and after full closure in 2029. This includes a full public process up to an including a measure on the ballot if uses other than those contemplated by LC are planned. In this specific case, we believe a park maintenance facility falls within the legitimate uses laid out by LC, so LC has not been violated. However as stated above there are clearly alternative sites within the airport footprint, including a site on the south side previously used by Park Maintenance. If proper public process had been followed in this case it is likely there would not have been an issue. Neil Carrey, President Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation 1 This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities. Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. 2 Michael Ferguson From: Stelios Makrides Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:59 PM To: Michael Ferguson Subject: FW: Community Concerns: Item 5B Public Landscape Division Relocation to Airport Maintenance Facility From: Julia Brewer Dear Ms Cline and Mr. Makrides, I have lived in Santa Monica since 1993, and have been a resident of Sunset Park for 15 years, residing on Pier Ave. I was recently made aware, by concerned neighbors, of the City’s decision to relocate the Public Landscape Division Maintenance Yard to our neighborhood at the end of Pier Ave. I am appalled by the plan, and further appalled by the secrecy that has enshrouded this plan. Is this how the city now conducts its business and treats its taxpayer base? Is this how you would like to be treated in your neighborhoods? That the city would move this massive operation to a residential neighborhood is ludicrous. That you would attempt to sneak it in without informing the local community is shocking. To date the residents of Pier, Ashland, Hill and Oak streets, who will all be severely impacted by this planned action, have not received one iota of information about this project from the City. (The alley behind Pier Ave has now been closed for 3 months related to the project – we were never notified that it would be closed or for how long). The residents learned of the relocation project when we saw construction beginning, and pushed for information. Many residents in the neighborhood at large still know nothing. People looking to purchase homes in the area know nothing. Sports organizations that regularly use the park know nothing, even though they will also be impacted by the relocation plan. Some of us have begun to go door to door to inform people, and I can assure you they are expressing shock and great concern. This should matter to you. This is an unacceptable location for such an operation due to proximity to residences and a neighborhood park, increased traffic in an area already gridlocked during ever expanding rush hours, noise, air pollution and hazardous material concerns. The City has shown no interest or regard for community members impacted by this relocation during the selection/design process and minimal concern at present during the attempted construction at the site. We strongly urge you to permanently halt this plan, permanently halt all work and go back to the drawing board to find a permanent, suitable location for the PDL yard. I have read the document that you, as Public Works Director, have sent to City Council and to the Airport Commissioners for the Nov 19 meeting. The options put forward in your letter do not assuage any of my concerns, which are many: 1. Temporary/interim status of location: Since no permanent location has been identified, and all other city properties have currently been ruled out by Public Works, this project appears to be, at best, indefinite and, at worst, permanent. 2 . Future Expansion of the PDL. With a focus on park development in the city, the PDL yard will only expand from year to year. The problems we foresee with current operations will only be worse in years to come. 1 3) The proposed solutions put forth in your letter to address citizen concerns are not adequate: a) First, very few citizens have had an opportunity to learn about the project, and let alone express their concerns. (see point 4 below) a) Loading equipment in the afternoon instead of the morning. This is not acceptable to residents or park users. This is a time when park use is high due to sport activities. Residents are returning home from school, work, stressful commutes, and relaxing in our yards. In talking with community members, what people love the most about our neighborhood is its quiet peacefulness. One senior citizen in the neighborhood said “My husband is almost 100. We have worked so hard. We just want peace and quiet now.” This is a reasonable expectation for all, especially our seniors who have paid their dues to this city for decades. b) Storing materials at other City facilities to reduce staging at the Airport/Clover Park site. By your own criteria, other sites were rejected because “dividing the operations over multiple properties at the Airport was deemed impractical due to the resulting operational inefficiencies”. If operations now have to be divided anyway, these other sites should be reconsidered. Also, once the PDL is well established, these materials may eventually be moved to the Airport/Clover Park site anyway without our consent or knowledge. c) Maintenance vehicles and equipment would enter/exit using 28th St gate. This is still a huge problem for users of 28th and the heavily trafficked Ocean Park Ave. Also, wouldn't these vehicles then be driving along the end of Clover Park on the airport side of the fence? This would impact the enjoyment of activities held at that end of the park, adding noise and pollution. d) Personal vehicles and deliveries would still use 25th St. This is mind-boggling. Is City Council and Public Works really this oblivious to the day to day life experience of Santa Monica residents? Surely you must know what we are dealing with in terms of daily traffic in the Sunset Park area? 25th street must be protected for use by residents, Emergency vehicles departing from the Fire Station, Park users, and the Hill and Dale Preschool. It will be severely detrimental to all of us if traffic is increased by 40 employees (and more as PDL expands) coming and going on 25th. Residents of this neighborhood are already dealing with: *severe gridlocked traffic on 23rd *gridlocked traffic on Ocean Park *dangerous peel-away traffic on Pier, Ashland, Hill and Oak between 25th & 23rd (even more dangerous in the evenings as we have no streetlights) *steadily increasing traffic on 25th *Back up of traffic trying to turn right from 25th to Ocean Park during rush hour (made worse by recent changes to this intersection) *thru vehicles impatient at (or ignoring) stop signs I have been walking and driving down 25th for over 15 years. Every day you will see young children crossing the street to run to soccer and baseball games, kids on bikes and scooters, parents with strollers and young toddlers crossing at the intersections to use the playgrounds, pedestrians with dogs, elderly local residents enjoying a slow, peaceful walk at the park, parents dropping their children off at the Hill and Dale preschool, not to mention emergency vehicles heading out on calls. Increasing the number of vehicles, many who are already impatient and ignoring stop signs makes this an extremely dangerous plan. Why on earth would the City consider it acceptable to increase traffic on this residential, park access street? If anything, we should be trying to reduce thru traffic here to make it safer, especially for our children and seniors. It will also add to the higher speed peel- away problem we are already experiencing on a daily basis that jeopardizes the safety of our once quiet residential streets. e) Planting plan to maximize screening options Attempting to hide the massive PDL operations behind some plants and shrubs will not improve noise, pollution, and traffic/safety issues. f) Storage containers moved to the east side of the property. 2 This solution reminds me of the days when restaurants and airplanes had a “smoking section” located right beside the “non-smoking section”. Just as that was ineffective, the property is not large enough to make this solution effective either. Furthermore, while slightly farther from residences, this is actually closer to people using the park, which is also an unacceptable solution. 4. Negligent communication and misrepresentation from the City, particularly Public Works, to community members. Clearly the city has no desire to sincerely engage with our neighborhood. a) Our community has not been notified, informed or engaged in any way by the City regarding the selection, design or construction of this project over the past two plus years. Even more disturbing: in the 2 months since the Airport Commission meeting on September 23rd, where citizens voiced concerns to Public Works about this lack of communication, zero information has been sent to any community members . ZERO. b) I could not find this project listed on the Public Works website or the Landscape division's monthly newsletter. A city gov't website search delivered only a document with plans for construction, nothing to inform local residents. c) Referring to this site as “the Airport” is grossly misleading. The term “the airport site” works to the advantage of the City agenda and against community awareness of this issue. After many conversations with neighbors, I notice that when people hear that the PDL is being moved to “the airport” or "the Airport Maintenance Facility" reaction is initially minimal because they assume that means a commercial/industrial area of the airport. However as soon as people understand that location is actually beside the park and fire station at the end of Pier Ave, they express shock, disbelief, disgust, anger and immediately wanted more information. d) Concerned neighbors have had to begin the process of informing one another. After many personal conversations with fellow residents on Pier, Ashland, Hill and Oak over the past three days, I can assure you that the vast majority of our neighbors (90+ %??) were completely shocked, uninformed and blindsided by news of this project. e) The existing Airport Maintenance Facility has so little current use that most residents in the vicinity that I spoke to were unaware of its existence. That will not be the case if the massive PDL operation is relocated there. This is a huge change to our community and we have the right to be informed and give input. 4. Search criteria for the PDL site appears to have focused exclusively on the needs of Public Works. Your letter states that all city properties were reviewed and all sites (other than ours) were apparently rejected based on these criteria: a) Size of property b) lack of existing facilities c) lack of existing infrastructure d) high cost of building new facilities, earthwork, utilities etc. Notice all of these criteria are completely focused on the needs and budget of Public Works. Apparently the communities and environment surrounding these communities do not even exist in your thought process. With this lack of communication and consideration, why would we want neighbors like you to move next door? I fully understand that Public Works has a problem in trying to locate the PDL site. However, the City of Santa Monica has had 14 years since the 2005 move to the Fisher Lumber site to come up with a suitable, permanent site and allocate the appropriate funds. To move it from industrial areas (the east end of the runway in 2005 and the current Fisher Lumber site ) to a residential area is wrong. We can not allow this to happen to our neighborhood. I urge you to do the right thing: halt this plan immediately, and pressure City Counsel for the time and funds to develop an alternate, appropriate location. Sincerely, Julia Brewer 2424 Pier Ave 3 Michael Ferguson From: Bart Brewer To the Airport Commission and City Council: I have been an adult resident of Santa Monica starting in 1978, before SMRR was founded and rent control passed by SM voters. I started as a renter in Ocean Park, and now am a homeowner in Sunset Park. I'm writing to voice my displeasure, and perhaps disgust, with the process of the so‐called temporary relocation of the Colorado Yard to the "Santa Monica Airport". There is a lot of heavy handedness going on here. 1. This has been advertised as a move from the Public Landscape Dept (PLD) Colorado Yard to the Santa Monica airport. While accurate, it is also not truthful. The truth is that the facilities are proposed to be moved to right next to a residential neighborhood near the northwest, and not on the southern part of the airport property. Is this true? Why wasn't it reported that way in the interest of transparency? 2. This has been advertised as a temporary or interim move. Really? What is temporary? The expansion for Memorial Park has been on the drawing board since 1997. The Fisher Lumber location was purchased in 2004 with the idea of it serving as the PLD location on an interim basis (this from Susan Cline's 10/19 memo to City Council) before the Memorial Park renovation. Well, that "interim basis" is now 15 years! The recently closed City Yard facility near Cloverfield and Michigan was evidently nixed b/c there was not a cost effective alternative to building a permanent structure. Where is the permanent structure going to go then? You'll excuse my lack of enthusiasm when I hear the new relocation will be on an interim basis also. 3. My next door neighbor wanted to put up a fence in his front yard that did not comply with current city code. EVERYONE on the street had to be notified of the intentions beforehand. The project was eventually not approved. So, how is it that something like the PLD location did not even have to submitted to the public for their comment through flyers beforehand? Public Landscape was trying to do an end run, that's my theory, b/c they knew this would never pass muster with the residents unless it was surreptitiously done. 4. Since then, PLD has been offering to do "walk throughs" and the like with the residents. Problem is that the project is already underway. "We are going to rob you, but we'd like for you to get comfortable first." That doesn't make me feel much better if a robber tells that to me beforehand! 5. The same 10/19 memo talks about other locations not being economically feasible. This was also reported in the local press. What does that mean? How much more would it cost? At least put a price tag on it so that we know how little our dissatisfaction is worth. That would be nice and transparent. If we are spending $1.8 million to redo bathrooms at Clover Park, I would hope it is a lot of money. The airport is going to be closed down. There is a lot of land that can be re‐ allocated for other uses, like for the PLD. Oh, my understanding was that the people would have a say in what happens to that airport property. Uh, how did that come into play here? 1 6. At a hastily called meeting on the airport premises, (just south of the fire station in either August or September), the few of us that were there were told that the Pier Ave. alley south of the Pier was to be closed temporarily or intermittently and that we would be given notice when such closing would occur. Guess what. It is now November, and the "Alley Closed" sign has never been taken down or removed, nor was there any notification about the ongoing status of this. I haven't seen much activity going on in that alley the last couple of months. More heavy handedness indeed. Oh, city garbage trucks can go down the alley, are they exempt? I could likely go on, but do not have the time to do so. I'll be there at the Airport Commission meeting tonight though, taking notes and names. However, I will close with this...... 7. Santa Monica City Council has decided to spend our tax dollars to fight a lawsuit which would mandate district representation. How many city council members walked our neighborhood to assay our concerns on this matter? BTW, having an address in the neighborhood is not the same as being involved in the neighborhood. I'm not Latino, but I understand the concerns. I've read the piece that Winterer and Davis wrote in the Op‐ed to the LA Times. I would like to remind City Council about Sarah Flores being the first Latino elected to the County Board of Supervisors in the late 80's/early 90's. Flores is Latino. However, MALDEF successfully filed a lawsuit to have the results overturned and have a new redistricting. This allowed Gloria Molina to be the first Latino to be elected and officially recognized as CBOS member. I'd say that worked out pretty well. If you want credibility with me in spending our money to fight this lawsuit and court order, walk the neighborhood and listen to us. Tell us that there are higher priorities than our quiet enjoyment of our living spaces (which has diminished substantially BTW over the last two decades). Here's a hint: I don't think it will happen until district representation happens. City Council is too busy pleasing the 72%(?) renter majority while ignoring the homeowners. Surprise me and prove me wrong, please! Bart Brewer 2