Friends of Sunset Park: SMO is Ripe for Change
Channel: myla reson
Date: 09/05/2012

May 8, 2012. Friends of Sunset Park President Zina Josephs speaks to the Santa Monica City Council regarding the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) - Pointing out inadequacies of the Santa Monica City Council Staff Report on plans for SMO.

LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL (As published in the Santa Monica Dispatch)
Posted by Peggy Clifford on Monday, May 7, 2012 ·  

To: council@smgov.net, richard.bloom@smgov.net, robert.holbrook@smgov.net, bobby.shriver@smgov.net, kevin@mckeown.net, gleam.davis@smgov.net, terry.oday@smgov.net, pam.oconnor@smgov.net, rod.gould@smgov.net
Sent: 5/7/2012 4:43:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: FOSP: May 8 -- Council agenda item 4-A -- Airport Phase II findings
May 7, 2012
To: Mayor Bloom and Honorable City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: May 8th Agenda Item 4-A — Santa Monica Airport Campus Phase II Public Process Findings

The MIG report conclusions show that most participants in the group discussions desire mitigation in the impacts of Santa Monica Airport operations.
Although the summary doesn't cite exact percentages, the number can be extrapolated from an analysis of the comment cards, revealing that 81% of the participants wanted a "change" in the airport status. These numbers line up with the two community surveys that were conducted by CASMAT and OPA. These surveys showed, respectively, that 82% and 84% of participants wanted either elimination or reduction in airport operations.
Even with these statistics, the Staff report fails to support recommendations that would REALLY make significant improvements in the negative impacts of SMO.
Staff acknowledges that some participant "preferences" have already been implemented and offers some new measures that may have a modest impact on mitigation.
Noticeably absent in the Staff report is the option of shortening the runway by eliminating the use of the western parcel of land, which is not covered by the 1948 Instrument of Transfer and, therefore, is not covered by the "perpetuity" clause.
Also not included is the City's ability to change the character of the businesses at the airport, as all the leases expire in 2015. Businesses whose uses are not community compatible would not get lease renewals. More compatible uses could take their place.
FOSP supports City Council directing Staff to explore measures that would TRULY mitigate the negative impact of SMO, including but not limited to:
Investigation of best practices at other airports (we supported this investigation for Phase I and only got "development" proposals for the non-aviation land)
The City explores seriously its power, and therefore options, as land owner and proprietor — in particular, its control over airport property leases and its ability to change the use of the western portion of the runway.
* Expansion of green space, including parkland and playing fields
"No net new trips" policy for ALL future airport options
The Staff report states that 1984 Agreement provided "bought" a "negotiated peace". Obviously this wasn't effective — have you not heard all the yelling going on for the past 28 years?
As 2015 approaches, we want our City to stand with the residents. The opportunity arises and the airport is ripe for a change.

More info: http://www.friendsofsunsetpark.org/airport/