City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 39
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works
Subject: Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Confirm the goals, values, and principles that will guide the planning process for the future of the Santa Monica Airport ;
2. Confirm that the proposed process for community engagement, testing and refinement is appropriate;
3. Confirm that the proposed scope, including Existing Conditions, Diverse and Inclusive Outreach, and Alternatives development is sufficient to support the City’s interest in identifying a preferred scenario.
Executive Summary
The City of Santa Monica is authorized to close the Santa Monica Airport (“Airport” or “SMO”) after December 31, 2028, pending Council action. The City’s authority to close the Airport was established in 2017 with a settlement agreement between the City and the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) that was entered as a "Consent Decree” in U.S. District Court. This expansion of the City’s proprietary rights over the Airport comes after nearly five decades of litigation and other strategic investments of City resources to gain local control of the Airport’s 227 land acres. Closure of the Airport presents a rare opportunity for Santa Monica to design, program and develop one of the largest remaining spaces in Los Angeles County. The “Future of Santa Monica Airport Project” will be a multi-year effort to engage the community and other stakeholders how this space can best serve Santa Monica and how we can fund and govern this asset. 2 of 39
For the past 100 years, the Airport has operated as a general aviation airport, and has played an integral role in the development of the City from a small beach town of several thousand residents to a sophisticated residential community, urban destination, and regional job center that now hosts nearly 100,000 residents in seven distinctive neighborhoods and a growing Downtown population. Today, the Airport is home to 166 businesses from over forty industry sectors, including aviation businesses, creative and cultural art organizations, restaurants, creative and technology office space tenants, and Santa Monica College. The Airport’s annual revenue to the Airport Fund is approximately $20 million from a combination of aviation related fees, commercial leases, and events.
In determining a future for the Airport, a public process must be undertaken that engages the community in a discussion of the land’s potential to address the needs of a diverse population for the next several generations. In 2014, the community voted and approved Measure LC, which established land use regulations for the Airport land and launched a popular concept of converting the campus into a “great park.” This idea has not yet been tested for economic feasibility, nor has it been approved by the City Council. Also, weighing upon the site’s future are multiple internal and external pressures that correspond to local - and to some extent regional - issues such as park space availability, housing affordability and supply, the need for modern municipal facilities such as emergency operations and public safety as well as a new home for the Public Landscape Division to service the growing community, and improved integration and navigation of the Airport land into the neighborhood network. It is important to note that codifying a land use mix outside of the parameters of Measure LC would require a vote of the public during a general election cycle. This is discussed in more detail later in the report.
Identifying a preferred scenario will take time, perhaps a decade or more, as it has in other communities around the world that have wrestled with airport or military base conversion projects. Numerous examples of these projects are cited in this report. The Future of the Santa Monica Airport process will involve an expansive community dialogue over preferences, tradeoffs and the economics of change. Given the expected 3 of 39
length of this process and its adjacency to other major City efforts that will be undertaken at the end of the decade (such as the General Plan Update, the 6th Cycle Housing Element, and compliance with the Surplus Lands Act), it is recommended to begin in earnest now. Thus, this report describes a recommended pathway for engaging the community, and in establishing a firm understanding of the land’s potential to accommodate a range of scenarios that may be desired for study. Staff has outlined the steps necessary to begin this journey and presents some early principles to guide the process including the values of a 21st Century Government (adopted 2019), the Sustainable City Plan and the Living Community Challenge framework that provides tangible precepts for creating regenerative spaces for people and natural ecosystems, the City’s new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion goals, and goals for the establishment of a great park.
At present, the community’s preferred outcome for the future of the Airport is unclear.
Yet one thing that is certain is that the project has the potential to be one of the most transformative urban planning events of this century for the City of Santa Monica. In light of this, staff recommends a cautious approach that is informed by data, robust and transparent discussion, rigorous economic evaluation and a visionary, far-reaching outlook to make the best use of this land for many generations to come that will reap the benefits of our efforts now. As the process unfolds over the next several years, resources will be needed to maintain consistency for the project, and to work through the many technical, political and environmental challenges that will need to be addressed in this process.
Describing the Airport’s history, benefit and impact on the community, the various legal and regulatory disputes between the City and the Federal Government, and the diversity of opinions about the Airport’s future could fill volumes of text. Consequently, retelling the full arc of the Airport’s story is extraordinarily challenging, given the tenuous nature of its relationship with residents, the often-adversarial record between the City and the FAA, and the long and complicated legal timeline that has defined the past fifty to seventy-five years. Hence, this report is organized into distinct sections that provide 4 of 39
important background for the discussion of the Airport’s future. The report is structured according to the following table of contents:
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
A. History and Legal Framework
• History
• Legal Framework
B. Past Planning Concepts Related to SMO’s Future
• Community Conversations (2010-2013)
• Airport to Park
SECTION II. DISCUSSION
A. City Values, Guiding Principles and Project Goals
• City Values
• Sustainability and Resiliency
• Great Park Goals
B. Proposed Scope of Work
• Existing Conditions Report
• Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Outreach
• Scenario Planning and Concept Development
C. Process and Timelines
• Why Plan Now?
• Request for Qualifications to Request for Proposals
• Preferred Scenario to Specific Plan
• Timelines
5 of 39
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
The Santa Monica Airport (SMO) has played a major role in the histories of both the City and modern aviation. The Airport has existed in the community for over 100 years, dating back to the advent of the aerospace industry in the early 1920’s when Santa Monica’s population was a mere 15,000 people and Los Angeles residents totaled approximately 500,000. Over the course of the next century, the Airport, and the City of Santa Monica would evolve in significant ways to meet the demands of present day by supplying new housing and job opportunities and serving as a destination for national and international visitors wishing to experience the spectacular Pacific Ocean and Southern California lifestyle. Attachment XX briefly summarizes the Airport's history.
The Santa Monica Airport (SMO) sits at the southeastern corner of the city adjacent to Sunset Park and neighboring Los Angeles. SMO land area is 227 acres, approximately 4.3% of Santa Monica. 6 of 39
The Airport's long history in the community provides context for considering its future.
SMO is one of the oldest and busiest single-runway, general aviation airports in the country. It is located on 227 acres, bordered on three sides by single-family residential neighborhoods, two of which are in the City of Los Angeles. Today's Airport campus consists of 187 acres of land legally designated and used for aviation activities and 40 acres that are used for other purposes not inconsistent with airport activities, such as park space, educational facilities and art studios. The Airport has a single runway, oriented roughly east-west, with takeoffs occurring westward over Sunset Park and toward the ocean during prevailing wind patterns.
SMO is comprised of a multitude of aviation related facilities such as a runway (shortened in 2019 to reduce jet traffic), hangars, office space and administration buildings. The campus is also home to over 40 non-aviation industry sectors, as well as the 8-acre Airport Park. Nearby property owners include Santa Monica College to the South, and the 153-acre Santa Monica Business Park to the north. . 7 of 39
A. HISTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Beginning – From Farmland to Bustling Airport and Manufacturing Facility The Airport land was acquired by the City in 1926 when Santa Monica voters approved a park bond ballot measure to purchase a tract of farmland at the eastern boundary with Los Angeles that had been in use as a provisional airfield since 1922. The City has continuously owned and operated it ever since, except during World War II, when it was leased to and operated by the federal government. Before, during, and for a brief period after the war, the Airport was home to the Douglas Aircraft Company. It was, by far, the largest employer ever in the City, at times employing upwards of 45,000 people who worked around the clock to support aircraft production necessary to meet war-era demands. The Sunset Park neighborhood was developed largely to house this enormous workforce and vestiges of the Airport’s residential development legacy are seen today in not only Sunset Park, but other areas of the city as well.
The Douglas Aircraft Company along Ocean Park Boulevard in the Sunset Park neighborhood. Housing had to be built for the company’s legion of employees and it was built in the area surrounding the airport - 8 of 39
Both L.A. and Santa Monica zoned residential up to the perimeter of the Airport and adjoining roadways to accommodate the housing demand.
Prior to World War II, the Airport’s layout included two runways configured in an "X" pattern. During World War II, when the federal government had possession of the land, the runway was enlarged and reconfigured, creating the current runway and taxiway configuration. After the war, the federal government transferred the Airport back to the City in two conveyances undertaken separately, each with its own transfer document.
One of the documents, the “Instrument of Transfer,” contained language purporting to limit the parcel to airport use in perpetuity (forever). The recent interpretation of this document in 2017, which is discussed below, was hugely determinative in giving local control of the Airport back to the City. The other post-war document is a Quit Claim Deed, which purports to convey a fee title to the City and contains no such limitations.
The Post War Years and the Emergence of Conflict
In the years following WWII, Douglas reduced its workforce and later left the Airport for a larger facility in Long Beach because the City refused to enlarge the runway to accommodate Douglas’ new generation of modern aircraft, namely the DC-8. Despite the City’s attempts to reduce larger aircraft from using SMO, the fleet mix evolved with technological advances, which saw the development and proliferation of small and medium modern jet aircraft, generally used by corporate and private consumers. These changes to the fleet mix raised concerns in the community over public health and safety and sparked substantial conflicts between the Airport and the residential neighborhoods that had grown up immediately adjacent to the Airport and its runway ends.
Legal History of Santa Monica’s Fight for Local Control of Airport Land The past 50 years have witnessed continuous legal battles between the City and the FAA over control of Airport operations and the use of the 227 acres of Santa Monica land that the Airport occupies. In fact, the City has been responding to community concerns over Airport operations since the early 1970’s by adopting local regulations to restrict operations in order to protect neighbors' quality of life. The concept of Airport 9 of 39
Closure has been present in the local narrative for nearly five decades and has birthed a litany of legal campaigns over the years.
Notably, in 1981, the City Council first adopted Resolution 6296 declaring its intention to close the Airport when legally possible. After a series of negotiations to resolve litigation that arose from the City’s adoption of that resolution, FAA and the City reached a comprehensive settlement in 1984. “The 1984 Agreement” recognized the City’s authority to mitigate aircraft noise, impose curfew limits, ban helicopter training, limit the number of aircraft tie-downs, and remove certain land areas on the south side of the airport from aviation use. In return, the City agreed to: 1) operate the airport until June 30, 2015 and 2) permit fixed base operators (FBOs) to serve passengers, service and maintain aircraft, and sell avgas and jet fuel.
One important aspect of the 1984 agreement was that it allowed the City to use Airport land that was not required for airport operations for non-aviation purposes.
Consequently, “residual land” on the Airport property was identified, including a 5.4 acre parcel at Ashland Street and 25th Street, which was incorporated into Clover Park in 1986. The expansion of Clover Park contains two softball fields, a playground, and a restroom building. A Non-Aviation Land Use Feasibility Study was later completed in 1997 which identified additional potential for recreational facilities and other community uses on the south side of the Airport. The study included a comprehensive community process and provided the framework for the development of a new park (Airport Park) on 8.3 acres of non-aviation land at the southeasterly end of the Airport property. Airport Park was opened in 2007, and it contains a multi-purpose sports field, playground, offleash dog area, restroom building, and on-site parking for 116 vehicles.
Despite the settlement agreement and the general optimism that it carried to better manage the Airport as a neighbor, the adverse impacts of airport operations continued, and in some respects accelerated, due to the significant increase in jet aircraft operations, continued use of leaded fuel, and the fear and actuality of accidents. In 1999, increased jet traffic caused Los Angeles City residents to sue the City of Santa Monica based on adverse health impacts and nuisance caused by the Airport. 10 of 39
In 2008, the City Council passed an ordinance banning larger and faster Category C and D aircraft from using SMO due to their adverse environmental impacts and increased safety hazards resulting from faster landing speeds coupled with the relatively short (4,970 foot) SMO runway length. The FAA challenged the City’s enactment of this ordinance and later prevailed in Federal Court.
On August 23, 2016, after years of legal disputes with the FAA over operations, the City moved to exert and test its local authority by adopting a resolution expressing the Council’s intention to close the Santa Monica Airport to aviation use, as soon as it was legally permitted, with a goal of June 30, 2018. During this hearing, the Council also expressed a commitment to initiate the lengthy and complex process of planning and environmental review for transitioning the Airport to new uses, namely a large park that could be supported by land uses that were consistent with the terms of Measure LC (discussed below). The recommended resolution authorized the commencement of a future planning process to establish and fund an array of natural, recreational and cultural resources and amenities to serve the residents and neighbors of the City of Santa Monica.
2017 Consent Decree and Local Control of SMO’s Future
The targeted closure date of June 30, 2018 was upended by an unexpected comprehensive global settlement between the City and the FAA in January 2017 that decisively ended multiple pending disputes between the parties, but extended the timeline for closure for an additional eleven years. After years of trying to assert local control over Airport activities and use of the Airport property, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement and “Consent Decree” with the United States of America and the Federal Aviation Administration that resolved all outstanding disputes between the parties and relinquished all claims by the U.S. and the FAA as to Airport land. Under the Consent Decree the City’s unrestricted fee ownership of the Airport was no longer in question. The City Council gave its approval at a special meeting the following day, on Saturday, January 28, 2018. The Consent Decree, which is currently in place, requires the City to maintain continuous operation of the Airport as an aviation facility and 11 of 39
subject to certain federal laws and regulations until December 31, 2028, after which the City has the indelible right to close the Airport, pending Council action.
Notable terms of the Consent Decree include:
• The City’s right to close Santa Monica Airport to aviation use as forever after December 31, 2028;
• The City’s right to immediately shorten the operational Airport runway length from 4,970 feet to 3,500 feet (completed 2019); and
• The City’s right to establish its own proprietary exclusive “Fixed Base Operation” under specific conditions and requirements.
The Consent Decree was approved and entered by Judge John F. Walter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 1, 2017.
Adoption of Measure Local Control (Measure LC) - 2014
In the midst of legal maneuvering between the City and the FAA over the future of SMO, Santa Monica voters were presented with two opposing Airport ballot measures during the general election cycle of 2014.
• Measure D was a pro-aviation measure designed to change the City Charter and thereby ensure the continuance of airport operations at SMO. Measure D, which had no local community support or endorsements, lost 40 percent to 60 percent. • Measure LC was a measure designed to exert local control over Airport decisions, predominately as they relate to permitted land uses, leaseholds development, and aviation activity. It gave certain authorities to Council to manage the Airport and its properties, and it gave the community voting power of the future use of SMO land with several exceptions for recreational, educational and cultural development. Measure LC passed 60 percent to 40 percent.
Measure LC, which is codified in City Charter section 640, read as follows:
12 of 39
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 part of the Airport to aviation use.
If all or part of the Airport land is permanently 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 spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.
While residents could not vote to close the Airport, they clearly intended that City Council limit/reduce airport operations and specified that if the Airport closes, the future uses of the land currently that is occupied by the Airport must be approved by registered voters. Further, Measure LC’s prohibition of new development on Airport land provides context for the future planning process that is the subject of this report.
Post Measure LC Actions Taken by the City
Since Measure LC passage, the City has taken various steps to regain local control over the property now occupied by the Airport.
• Leasing Guidelines: On March 22, 2016, the City adopted a new leasing policy.
Only uses that are compatible with surrounding neighbors are permitted per this policy, unless the use is required by law. The City has curtailed lease agreements with many aviation tenants, such as Gunnell Properties (and its subtenants) and Justice Aviation. • Runway Shortening: One of the principal rights secured by the City under the Consent Decree was its right to shorten the operational runway length at the Airport to 3,500 ft from its existing length at the time of 5,000 ft. In October of 2017 the runway was restriped to remove approximately 750 feet of operational 13 of 39
length from each end (a total of 1,500 feet), which had the immediate effect of limiting the type and size of aircraft that could operate on the shortened runway.
Then in 2019 the shortened unused areas of the runway were pulverized and restabilized to permanently limit the runway operational length to 3,500 feet. • Airport Park Expansion: Following the passage of Measure LC, the City Council approved a community input and design process for the 12-acre expansion of Airport Park. In a related action, the City removed all aircraft from the southeast parcel (also known as the Interim Open Space) to clear the way for the park expansion. Construction drawings for the $35M project were completed in 2018.
Due to funding constraints that continue to this day, Airport Park Expansion was never constructed. The Interim Open Space has been used for a variety of activities including a bi-monthly flea market, a drive-in movie theater, and an event space.
• Airport Closure Planning: Over the last several years, the Council has discussed planning for the potential closure of the Airport. While legal challenges, and the COVID-19 pandemic have delayed progress on this front, some initial work has been conducted to set the stage for the full range of planning, environmental and legal work that will be necessary to enable the City to determine the Airport’s future uses. The City’s FY2022-2024 Biennial Capital Improvement Program budget includes funding of $1.1 million for a portion of this process. 14 of 39
B. PAST PLANNING EFFORTS/CONCEPTS RELATED TO THE AIRPORT Community Conversations (2010-2013) – Public Outreach
Several past public engagement efforts have laid the groundwork to reengage the community on the future of the Airport. The Airport Visioning Process of the previous decade (2010-2013) was formulated to identify and assess options between the extremes of maintaining the Airport status quo and closing the Airport.
Beginning in 2010, the City of Santa Monica embarked on an ambitious three-phase public outreach process to define the future vision of the airport’s non-aviation lands and to better understand the perceptions, needs, and aspirations of the wider community, including current tenants, aviators, park users, artists, and neighbors. At that time, which was prior to the 2017 Consent Decree between the FAA and the City to authorize closure in 2029, these studies and outreach efforts focused exclusively on approximately 40 acres of “non-aviation” and “residual” land that had been identified as potentially available to host other uses which could serve the broader community including additional park and open space land, restaurants, and cultural activities.
Past community conversations about the future of SMO focused exclusively on about 40 acres of land considered to be “non-aviation.” The community now has the opportunity to plan for the entire 227 acres. 15 of 39
Phase I of the Visioning Process included three parts:
1. A general analysis by the RAND Corporation regarding best practices in local general aviation airports and conceptual land uses that could be considered for SMO while operating as an airport;
2. An economic analysis impact study of the Airport activities on the local and the regional economy, performed by HR&A. This study found SMO to be a major revenue generator and employment center; and
3. A series of preliminary community interviews, conducted by Point C.
Phase II, which ran from October 2011 through May 2012, included the core public participation piece of the Visioning Process, where 312 participants from Santa Monica and the surrounding municipalities were engaged in 32 community discussion groups facilitated by Moore Iacofono Goltsman, Inc. (MIG). Opinions voiced by participants centered on whether aviation functions at SMO should continue or not. Positions ranged widely, from closing the airport to maintaining the airport with select mitigations and improvements. The community also gave their opinions on their vision for the nonaviation lands. Participants voiced preference for using these non-aviation areas as a vehicle for integration to the surrounding neighborhoods and increasing the residents’ quality of life. Specifically, comments included:
• Increase community open space
• Improve access for pedestrians, cyclists, and mass transit • Improve accessibility and reduce traffic impacts
• New uses for the benefit of the community (arts, culture, education, housing, light retail, etc.)
• Implement sustainable agriculture projects
• Develop an incubator for green startup businesses
• Include green building practices and sustainability initiatives • Invest in the improvement of infrastructure
• Improve aesthetics of the non-aviation lands
16 of 39
Phase II of the Visioning Process further stressed that the Airport and future activities must be aligned with the City’s core values. Insights from the participatory visioning process were presented to City Council on May 8, 2012, when Council then authorized staff to move forward with Phase III.
Phase III began in August 2012 in coordination with a consultant team led by the IBI Group that included a feasibility study of different options to enhance the non-aviation lands of the Santa Monica Airport. The objective of the planning endeavor was to develop enhancement strategies for the Santa Monica Airport including access and parking, demographic and economic analysis, uses and design, programming and recreation as well as community engagement in anticipation of future opportunities. In other words, the objective was to create a strategic set of approaches to inform and guide public policy in both areas, not a detailed master plan. The IBI team developed alternative options in the areas mentioned above that could be incorporated into future SMO urban design, capital expenditure, and recreational activity planning. From this short list of recommendations, the City moved on several projects in subsequent years such as runway shortening to prevent large jet traffic, stricter noise controls on propeller craft, enhanced sustainability measures in operations, and explorations of mobility improvements. The City also engaged a design team to explore expansion of Airport Park.
Airport to Park (A2P) – Community Concept
The Airport to Park (A2P) movement of the previous decade galvanized the community’s interest in transforming the Airport into a regional showpiece of park design and recreational programming, not only addressing Santa Monica’s per capita park shortage and demand for recreational offerings, but also potentially offering a template for a park at county scale that could provide opportunities for densely populated West Los Angeles to find respite from the bound, urban environment. Many Santa Monica and Los Angeles Airport neighbors who favor closure advocate for creating a large park or dedicating the land to other passive uses.
In recent years, particularly following Measure LC’s adoption, the Airport to Park concept has continued to captivate the minds of many in the community. The concept of 17 of 39
a great park presents the opportunity to dream big, and to overlay the community’s interest in sports and recreation, urban agriculture and an expanded urban forest, passive and pastoral landscapes with mobility improvements that break down the enormous expanse of land that currently separates a large swath of Santa Monica from its neighbors in Los Angeles to the south.
The economics of preparing the land for implementation through environmental remediation, and subsequently designing, constructing, operating and maintaining such a space have not yet been evaluated. At present, the City does not have (nor will it likely have in the near future) the General Fund resources to create and maintain such a very low-density use of this valuable property, particularly in this post-redevelopment and post-pandemic era that witnessed the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars from City reserves. Based upon recent City experience in park design and construction, the design, demolition, and construction costs of a large park would far exceed several hundred million dollars and might well be multiples of that. Yearly operational costs would also be in the millions, as it is at Templehof Field in Berlin (750 acres), which is often referenced as an exemplar of Airport to Park. Templehof’s yearly maintenance costs exceed $20 million dollars per year, which accounting for the size of SMO would produce a yearly maintenance cost of around $7-10 million dollars to the City.
Importantly, the cost does not include any necessary environmental remediation work that may need to occur.
18 of 39
Sketch-level concept rendering of SMO converted into a “great park.” No economic analysis has been conducted on the feasibility of transforming the land into a regional open space amenity.
Similarly, City residents, as a whole, might be reluctant to pay the huge cost of a large park located on the City's border with Los Angeles, which would be heavily used by Los Angeles residents. Finally, one more immediate consequence to consider is the potential for a difficult and protracted land use debate akin to what the City of Irvine has experienced in the aftermath of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station closure and development of their Great Park.
In 2018, as part of the Park and Recreation Master Plan update, the City commissioned a study to explore potential pathways to realize the A2P concept. The Santa Monica Airport to Park Conversion Report (Attachment P) provided a high-level evaluation of the Airport’s context and adjacencies (absent any existing condition report or economic evaluation), identified obvious issues and opportunities such as improvements to the circulation network on Airport Avenue and other linkages that could be extended across the tarmac, and briefly discussed the order of magnitude costs for a variety of park development scenarios. These scenarios ranged from minimal intervention, where much of the existing conditions would remain and restoration of softscape would occur selectively (Templehof model), to the possibility of an amenity-rich park, with ample opportunities for programming and activities and neighborhood development (Irvine Great Park model).
19 of 39
The Airport to Park Conversion Report was drafted to evaluate models for the transformation of SMO into a great park. The report was not published due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic but is included as an attachment in this report.
The options in the report were framed by an examination of case studies of park development in communities around the world who had employed a variety of approaches to land acquisition, development, and financing. The approaches, or models, fell into the following categories:
1. Public Approach – City Funded
The Public Approach is a scaled-up version of conventional park implementation using City funding for construction, operations and maintenance. This model would provide for a limited range of improvements, such as the conversion of Airport land to park space and an increase in parking and access. Existing Airport building uses and revenue would be considered as part of this plan. The Public Approach is traditionally found in large cities and would be very challenging in a city the size of Santa Monica.
Example Communities:
20 of 39
• Templhof Field, Berlin, Germany
(pop. 3.58 million)
Size: 750 acres
Cost of construction: unknown
Cost of yearly operations: $21.2 million
• Northerly Island, Chicago, Illinois
(pop. 2.7 million)
Size: 91 acres
Cost of construction: $9.7 million
Cost of yearly operations: $3.8 million
• Los Angeles State Historic Park,
Los Angeles (pop. 4 million)
Size: 32 acres
Cost of construction: $18 million
Cost of yearly operations: $1.6 million
Tempelhof Airport Park, Berlin, Germany.
Tempelhof is widely referenced as a model
for straightforward Airport to Park
conversion. Despite limited improvements
to the campus, yearly maintenance costs
are very high for the city of 3.58 million.
Public+ Approach – Funded by City and Private Donation
The Public+ Approach is also known as the benefactor model. The City would seek significant private donations to fund the park, likely in partnership with a park authority solely focused on the redevelopment and operation of this park. This model could provide for more conversion of hardscape to park land and increased access through the park than the Public Approach. Existing Airport building uses and revenue would be considered as part of this plan.
Example Communities:
21 of 39
• Smale Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio
(pop. 301,000)
Size: 45 acres
Cost of construction: $122 million
(53% public, 47% private)
Cost of yearly operations: $2.3 million
• Clyde Warren Park, Dallas, Texas
(pop. 1.3 million)
Size: 91 acres
Cost of construction: $110 million (49%
private, 18% City, 18% State, 15%
Federal)
Cost of yearly operations: $3.8 million
• Governor’s Island, New York
(pop. 8.62 million)
Size: 32 acres
Cost of construction: $291 million
(phase 1 and 2)
Cost of yearly operations: $16 million
Governor’s Island, New York.
The park utilizes historic structures on site
for leasing opportunities as well as a variety
of other funding methods. Although
residential development is prohibited,
recent rezoning efforts would allow for
approved new construction to fund
operating and maintenance costs.
2. Public-Private Partnership -
In a Public-Private Partnership, the City or a nongovernmental organization (NGO) would enter into a partnership with neighborhood development interests. This model may provide for new development opportunities inside and outside of the Airport boundary. Increased access through and within the park, including public transportation connection to the Expo line could be possible under this model.
Airport Avenue could be realigned to allow multimodal access and improve intersections.
Example Communities:
22 of 39
• Orange County Great Park, Irvine,
California (pop. 277,453)
Size: 1,347 acres (approx. 27% for park)
Cost of construction: $1.1 billion (voter
approved cost in 2002)
Cost of yearly operations: $21.7 million
• Hemisfair Park, San Antonio, Texas
(pop. 1.5 million)
Size: 92 acres (approx. 20% for park)
Cost of construction: $68 million (phase
1 and 2)
Cost of yearly operations: $2.6 million
• Downsview Park, Toronto, Canada
(pop. 2.93 million)
Size: 291 acres (approx. 60% for park)
Cost of construction: Unavailable
Cost of yearly operations: $16.2 million
Downsview Park, Toronto, Canada
The park is mandated to fund itself with
areas dedicated for revenue-generating
opportunities on site; the park is a former
air base; Downsview Lands, a
development area adjacent to the park,
was created simultaneously as Downsview
Park.
In March 2019 the City held both an in-person and online Community Open House to receive input on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, which also included soliciting feedback on the case studies presented in the Airport to Park Conversion Report. 461 people provided input about which case studies resonated most and provided comments about each case study. Based on this feedback about park development within the three evaluated models, the following results were tabulated:
• Public Approach: 38% of participants favored this model • Public + Approach: 31% of participants favored this model • Public Private Partnership: 31% of participants favored this model 23 of 39
As the outreach on the case studies illustrate, the community did not identify a clear consensus on which model would be appropriate for Santa Monica. Similarly, the outreach indicated that there is an appetite to explore a variety of variations on the governing structure to design, build and operate a public park on the site of Santa Monica Airport. The governance structure is a key step in the exploration of alternative scenarios and will determine decision-making authority and the range of possible approaches for all subsequent decisions, including the planning and design approach. 24 of 39
SECTION II. DISCUSSION
The 2017 Consent Decree that returns local control of the Airport to the City at the beginning of 2029 sets the stage to extensively plan for the future of the Airport, and to invite community participation in designing what may be the greatest transformative event of this century for the City of Santa Monica, and perhaps the region. This expansive undertaking presents the community with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to plan an unprecedented 4.3% of the City’s land for future uses and services, and to address established goals and priorities as they relate to community needs for the next several generations.
Substantial technical background work, public outreach, and scenario planning will be necessary to help the Council and the community understand the best way to alter the use of the land. Thus, staff recommends embarking on a multi-year community planning effort to weigh and evaluate the many opportunities/challenges and to create a comprehensive, but flexible roadmap for the eventual transformation of the site that is socially just, culturally rich, financially self-sustaining and ecologically restorative.
A. CITY VALUES, GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PROJECT GOALS
Due to the exceptional nature of this project, it is important to define the principles that will guide the process, review the goals and scenarios as well as chart a path towards an appropriate outcome that is worthy of Santa Monica’s past, present and future. This section presents a series of goal sets that will be important to ensuring that the process for identifying a preferred alternative is conducted to a high standard, and that the resulting project is deeply founded in principles of sustainability.
1. City Council Values – Establishing A Standard for the Process In order to establish a framework for the planning process based on accepted and adopted criteria, staff points to the values of a reliable, effective and efficient government, as described in the restructured budget “Framework” adopted in 2019.
This document provides a strategic vision for the City of Santa Monica, identifying key outcomes that the City is striving to achieve. These values include:
25 of 39
• ACCOUNTABILITY A city that transparently acts in the best interest of the community it serves.
• EQUITY A city that provides all community members with access to resources and opportunities, and where differences in life outcomes cannot be predicted by race, class, gender, disability, or other identities.
• INCLUSION A city where diversity of backgrounds, talents, and capabilities are welcomed and leveraged for learning and informing better business decisions. • RESILIENCE A city that builds sustainable capacities to withstand and recover from adversity.
• STEWARDSHIP A city that thoughtfully plans for the long-term and effectively manages resources.
• SAFETY A city that promotes and invests in the safety of all community members.
• INNOVATION A city that seeks out and implements cutting edge, efficient, and effective new solutions to address challenges.
Using these values to engage, plan, assess, and develop a strategic vision for the future of the Airport will provide structure for the multi-year process that is proposed in this report, and will ensure that outcomes are driven by decisions that are steeped in Santa Monica’s fundamental principles.
Additionally, Santa Monica’s vast library of adopted plans and policies that promote a healthy, sustainable, and resilient community will provide a backdrop for guidance on key issues. This policy ecosystem includes the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the Sustainable City Plan, the Water Self-Sufficiency Plan, the Recreation and Parks Master Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Action Plans, and many more.
2. Sustainability and Resiliency – Foundational Goals for the Future of the Airport 26 of 39
For more than 25 years, the City of Santa Monica has used the power of community to enhance our resources, prevent harm to the natural environment and human health, and benefit the social and economic well-being of the community for the sake of current and future generations. Santa Monica is already a pioneer in integrating sustainable practices in the urban environment and is proud to be a LEED for Cities Platinum level certified community. To this end, staff is exploring using the Living Community Challenge (a rating system developed by the International Living Future Institute) as a further basis for promoting triple bottom line sustainability into any plan for the future of the Airport. Staff utilized the Living Building Challenge program to design and develop the City Hall East Facility, which is considered the most sustainable civic building in the world.
The Living Community Challenge is a framework for master planning, design, and construction. It is a tool to create a symbiotic relationship between people and all aspects of the built environment and supports creating regenerative communities to restore the health and resilience of economies, cultures, and people. With the Living Community Challenge framework, it is possible to create communities that are:
• Healthy for all elements of life
• Nurturing and generous places that promote healthy lifestyles for everyone • Net Positive with respect to water and energy. Living Communities generate their own energy and capture and treat all the water they need. • Designed using multipurpose elements. Nothing has only a single purpose; everything has multiple benefits to the community and environment • Regenerative spaces for people and natural ecosystems • Places that are walkable, bike-able, and have affordable public transportation.
The Living Community Challenge is organized into seven performance areas:
27 of 39
The Living Community Challenge presents a set of precepts for the creation of resilient and sustainable community spaces that provide generational opportunities.
3. The Great Park – Goals for an Inclusive Community Space The process to achieve a post-closure Airport Park is multi-faceted and complex, and there are multiple pathways that the City may consider for implementation of a great park and supporting land uses. Regardless of approach and process, the post-closure future of the Airport should embody the following goals, which were enumerated in the Airport to Park Conversion Report:
28 of 39
The Airport to Park Conversion Report cited eight goals for the transformation of SMO into a great park.
These goals help set expectations from the onset about the park’s ability to be inclusive, incremental and financially self-sustaining, among others.
B.PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed scope of work to determine a community preferred alternative for the future of the Airport involves a coordinated series of technical, outreach and advance planning activities to better understand the potential for the land to accommodate new uses, programs, and services that are desired by residents. Early technical studies and engagement activities will help the community to better understand the site’s underlying conditions, potential value, and capacity to balance the community’s interest in open space, cultural and educational facilities with other land use alternatives that sustainably support the ongoing operation, management and resiliency of the land as well as future on-site services and amenities.
The remainder of this report provides a process proposal for how to move through the steps of identifying a community preferred vision, beginning with a comprehensive site investigation and potentially finishing with a voter approved Specific Plan near the end of this decade that will include the rules and regulations for the incremental transformation of SMO.
29 of 39
The proposed process allows the community to first describe, evaluate and agree on a feasible scenario for future use of SMO prior to the elaboration of a regulatory document, such as a Specific Plan.
Comprehensive Existing Conditions Technical Report
An existing conditions report is the first step in the discovery process to understand the baseline environment for future scenario development. Project initiation will focus on creating a comprehensive existing conditions report that brings together a wealth of information related to the Airport including, but not limited to:
• Environmental and Ecological Conditions
• Availability of Infrastructure and Utilities
• Transportation/Mobility Gaps and Linkages
• Historical and Cultural Assets
• Facilities and Services
• SMO’s Economic profile
• Land Surveys and Project Boundaries
• Relevant Project Histories
Importantly, this work will include a thorough investigation of the environmental conditions at the Airport to estimate the scope of the full investigational work that would be required in the future. Among other things, this preliminary work should include an 30 of 39
initial cost estimate of what would be necessary to investigate potential contamination issues. Preliminary consideration of CEQA requirements for changes in use would help to prepare the City for a decision on the process and alternatives to be considered.
Further, the existing conditions report will also contend with past visioning and outreach work that has preceded the project, and include a concise summary of recommended activities, as well as conceptual ideas from the community about the future potential of the SMO land to serve as a launching point for the scenario planning phase.
Staff anticipates that the existing conditions phase will require approximately eight to ten months.
Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Outreach and Engagement Outreach and engagement of Santa Monica stakeholders is a critical and necessary component of the multi-year process to plan the for the future of the Airport. Working alongside City staff, a multilingual outreach team will provide the opportunity for community members and nearby stakeholders to help vet assumptions, provide local insight and context, and ultimately to play a role in the development and review of alternative scenarios for Council consideration. The outreach program will be built on a foundation of equity and will seek to gather input from a wide range of participants, including those who are often overlooked or left out of municipal outreach activities by minimizing barriers to participation and including creative, fun and engaging opportunities to contribute in both online and in-person formats.
The outreach team will be responsible for coordinating with staff on the creation of the engagement activities, as well as providing written summary reports of community comments. Comprehensive outreach activities shall solicit input from:
o Santa Monica residents and members of the business community o Adjacent property owners
o Neighboring Los Angeles residents and businesses
o Youth, families, and seniors
o Historically marginalized community members
o Other stakeholders
31 of 39
While there may be opportunity for outreach during the Existing Conditions phase, the bulk of engagement will be programmed during the scenario development phase which will run for a number of years.
Scenario Planning and Concept Development
The future use of the Airport land will be determined by the selection of a preferred land use scenario, which will form the basis of a subsequent Specific Plan that regulates the site and addresses implementation, including phasing, financing, and governance. The Scenario Planning phase of the project will utilize community feedback, municipal goals and priorities, and professional expertise to elaborate a series of high-level provisional master planning scenarios that demonstrate the economic, environmental, and social tradeoffs associated with potential land use decisions. This approach will allow the community to discuss the benefits and impacts of proposed concepts, establish “givens” such as a large park and the preservation of historical and cultural assets, and work towards consensus on the desired mix of supporting uses, conceptual services and programs, and infrastructure, mobility, and environmental improvements necessary to realize the desired outcomes.
A multi-disciplinary consultant team will be assembled to elaborate the Scenario Planning process, providing technical support and content creation, as well as economic analysis for each alternative scenario. The consultant team will provide professional expertise in a variety of disciplines including, but not limited to:
• Urban Design,
• Park Planning,
• Transportation and Mobility Planning,
• Civil Engineering and Infrastructure Planning,
• Sustainable Design and Operations,
• Historic and Cultural Preservation,
• Economics, and
• Environmental Remediation
This corps of professionals and staff from around the City will be further supported by the Outreach and Engagement team, all of whom will coalesce into a diverse and multivalent band of project designers, analysts, technicians, and visionaries focused on 32 of 39
producing a range of scenarios that are developed to the highest levels of resiliency and sustainability to address the multigenerational needs of the community. Each alternative scenario will be paired with high quality graphics, traffic and mobility analysis, economic analysis, and a description of the tradeoffs that accompany them.
Staff anticipates that at least three alternative scenarios will be necessary to tease out the intrinsic tradeoffs, and to help conceptualize the land use, design scale, transportation (including evaluation of regional transit connections), and policy options for the future, as well as the financial impacts/benefits of each alternative. A market and economic analysis will be prepared to evaluate market feasibility of the different alternative scenarios and the related financial implications and/or opportunities. The economic analysis will analyze upfront capital costs, life cycle and ongoing operational costs, and funding options to implement the various alternative scenarios.
To the extent that any of the alternatives explore land use scenarios outside of the parameters of Measure LC, accompanying recommendations for clarifications or adjustments to Measure LC will be required by the voters. Staff anticipates that the Scenario Planning phase will require approximately 2-3 years.
The Role of a Great Park at the Airport
It is envisioned that a large park will be the key feature of each scenario. Scenarios will be distinguished from one another by the scale of parkland present in each scheme, as well as the diversity and mix of supporting uses, mobility linkages, and other program details that will emerge from outreach and engagement. Respecting the community’s interest in Airport to Park, this approach provides a methodology for tying each scenario to a common theme.
Recent examples from around the world of airport to park conversion, such as the Ellinikon International Airport project in Athens, Greece announced in late November 2022, demonstrate the complexity of planning and financing such an enterprise. After more than 22 years of planning and an estimated cost of $8 billion to develop the 600- acre park ($13.5 million per acre), the city of Athens is ready to begin implementation with the first 250-acre phase to be completed in 2025 or 2026. Despite the challenges experienced by Athens in reaching an implementation state, the project promises to support a climate-resilient future for the city of 3.2 million inhabitants. "Looking at the 33 of 39
history of Athens, we're expecting this park, in some form or another, to be around for 1,000 years," said the project’s chief landscape designer.
C.PROPOSED PROCESS AND TIMELINES
Why Plan Now?
The process of identifying a resilient and sustainable future land use plan for the Airport that enjoys consensus with the community and is financially self-sustaining will take time. In order for the community to be ready for potential closure at the end of 2028 or shortly thereafter, the City needs to start planning and preparing now. Previous planning efforts could only consider uses and improvements for non-aviation lands, which produced several tangible projects such as the Airport Park Expansion design. Now, due to the Consent Decree, the entire property is available for reimagining. As such, the community will need to contend with a host of complex, interrelated issues that weigh heavily upon the site as one of the largest underutilized public land parcels in the whole of Los Angeles County and chart a course that allows future generations to reap the benefits of decisions made in present day.
Proximate to the potential Airport closure timeframe, the City will also be embarking on a number of substantial planning efforts that are mandated by State requirements, such as a major revision to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (2030), a new 6th Cycle Housing Element (2029), and the need to carefully navigate the Surplus Lands Act that targets unprogrammed public real estate for affordable housing development. In following a process for a preferred use of the Airport land, the City and the community have the opportunity to design a roadmap “the Santa Monica Way” and to protect the community’s interests in preserving character, scale, and quality of life.
It is also important to note that planning for the Airport may extend past the 2028 timeline. Staff is researching a scenario in which Airport closure precedes the adoption of a comprehensive master plan. In this case, aviation activities and related aviation businesses would likely cease operations and provide for interim uses while plan development continues. The economics of this scenario are currently under evaluation, as is the process for decommissioning a general aviation airport, which will likely need to be understood and planned for years prior to December 31, 2028. 34 of 39
Given the complexity of the effort, and the significance of the site to the community (and to some extent the region), staff recommends cautiously pursuing a multi-year community planning effort that begins with an exploration of interested and qualified professionals who can support the City in working with Santa Monica residents, property owners, members of the business community and other key stakeholders to define a multi-generational strategy to convert the Airport. To ensure a robust public process that will lead to a successful conclusion, Council adopted $100,000 in the FY2022-23 CIP Budget and approved and additional $1,000,000 for FY 2023-24 contingent on Council approval.
The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposal (RFP) Process Staff proposes to issue a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ") in early 2023 that solicits interest from qualified firms or multi-disciplinary teams to assist the City in developing a public-facing process to engage the community on the potential conversion of the Airport. The RFQ will allow staff to evaluate the merits of each firm or multi-disciplinary team against an established criterion, prior to requesting detailed proposals, which are costly and time consuming. A shortlist of qualified firms or multi-disciplinary firms will be established through this evaluation, and shortlisted candidates will later be invited to submit detailed process and cost proposals.
The RFQ will describe at sketch level the desired scope and process for engaging the City and the community on the future of the Airport, involving the project features that have been described in this report, including:
1. A technical report of existing conditions, including but not limited to land use, infrastructure, environmental and ecological, buildings and facilities, historical and cultural assets, and mobility conditions.
2. A robust, inclusive and modern outreach process that engages Santa Monica’s diverse stakeholders in providing input on concepts and tradeoffs related to potential airport conversion.
3. An exploration of alternative land use scenarios, leveraging triple bottom line sustainability, for the potential conversion of SMO’s 227 acres that provide rough 35 of 39
order of magnitude capital and O+M costs, conceptual land use modeling, and park, open space and roadway design.
The subsequent Request for Proposal (“RFP”) will follow the RFQ evaluation and will involve input from the community so that residents and other stakeholders have the opportunity to articulate their interests in how the planning process is shaped from inception. Following the January 24, 2023 Council study session, staff proposes to meet with Boards and Commissions, neighborhood groups, business related interests such as local business improvement districts/merchants associations, the Chamber of Commerce and Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and other interested parties to preview the project process and help shape the RFP into a detailed expression of community interests, concerns, and other factors that are important to Santa Monicans.
The RFP is anticipated for release in late Spring 2023, which provides for several months of outreach following the release of the RFQ. It is anticipated that the selected firm or multi-disciplinary team will be identified by early fall 2023, pending Council approval, with project initiation to commence in winter 2023/2024.
The Preferred Scenario to Specific Plan Process
The path from concept ideation to a legally enforceable regulatory document, such as a Specific Plan, involves multiple steps that must be initiated well in advance of the Airport’s potential closure after 2028. To adequately plan for the future, policy guidance must be clearly laid out and must address any legally required noticing requirements before potential closure of the Airport, the timing of any vote by City Council to close the Airport, and potential voter approval of any changes to City Charter section 640 (which codifies Measure LC) before any Specific Plan can be approved. Such policy guidance must also address consideration of the portion of Airport Land within the City of Los Angeles. The foundational guidance for the post-closure Airport will be the “Scenario Planning” framework that is described in this report, and that evaluates at least three potential approaches (Public, Public+, and Public-Private Partnership). As a starting point, the Framework will describe at least three conceptual scenarios for the community’s, and ultimately City Council’s, consideration. Each alternative will review 36 of 39
the land use, design scale, transportation, and policy options for the future, as well as the implications of each alternative.
Once the preferred approach and concept is identified in the Framework, a Specific Plan can be prepared (under separate contract and RFP process) to refine the policy direction and address regulatory requirements. The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE GOAL D36) requires that a Specific Plan be adopted to plan for the Santa Monica Airport and adjacent business park area. A Specific Plan will provide guidance for the development of park and open spaces, other land supporting land uses, and existing adjacent properties (including Clover Park as well as private properties within the business park). The Specific Plan will also identify the necessary infrastructure to support the post-closure Airport Park, including roads, pathways, and transportation linkages. Specific Plans can vary significantly in complexity and schedule.
The Specific Plan process will require a robust engagement strategy as well as high level design and master planning. As mentioned previously, the Specific Plan may need to be approved by voters during a general election cycle.
Timelines
Predicting the duration of the planning process is challenging given the community’s interest in land use decisions, especially at the scale contemplated by SMO. Previous long-range planning activities, such as the General Plan, or other Area and Specific Plans have traditionally spanned many years and have involved a tremendous amount of debate and discussion around issues of change, scale, growth, density, and traffic to name but a few. Santa Monica embraces these discussions as part of the civic process that fosters accountability and transparency in decision making and supports finding consensus and agreement around tough issues. The following timelines are purely speculative based on past experiences in long-range planning and present a rough estimate of anticipated schedules for each component of the proposed process:
• Consultant Selection: Summer 2023
• Project Initiation: Winter 2023
• Existing Conditions: Spring 2024
• Scenario Planning (Preferred Scenario Approved): Spring/Summer 2026 37 of 39
• Specific Plan Initiation: Fall/Winter 2026
• Consent Decree Airport Closure Authorization: Winter 2028 • Specific Plan Adoption: Fall 2028-2030 or beyond
The process to identify a preferred scenario for the future of the Airport and to draft a Specific Plan (required by the General Plan) will endure many years. Outreach and frequent communication with the Council will be fundamental to this process.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
January 24, 1984 (Attachment A) Resolution 6814 was approved for the FAA to operate SMO until 2015
July 12, 1988 (Attachment B) Authorization of the contract to expanded Clover Park by 4 acres
December 14, 2010 (Attachment C) Authorization for RAND study of airport and non-airport real property
development concepts and applications
38 of 39
and local applicability
February 22, 2011 (Attachment D) Authorization for RAND Study Phase I and HR& A to analyze the general
economic and fiscal impacts of the
current operation and activity at Santa
Monica Airport
October 4, 2011 (Attachment E) Authorization to proceed with Phase II December 6, 2011 (Attachment F) Authorization for MIG to design, facilitate and manage Phase II of the Santa
Monica Airport Visioning Process and
train City staff on the facilitation process
May 8, 2012 (Attachment G) Presented findings of MIG study with 300 community participants and proceed with
Phase III
August 14, 2012 (Attachment H) Authorization for IBI to prepare the Pier and the Airport Enhancement Plans
April 30, 2103 (Attachment I) Expanded landing fee assessment software equipment
March 25, 2014 (Attachment J) Airport Closure Update
March 24, 2015 (Attachment K) Review options as Airport will not close as per the 1984 Agreement with direction
to study recreational uses.
January 26, 2016 (Attachment L) Awards contract to Rios Clementi Hale Studios for the feasibility study and
design of the Airport Park Expansion
Project
August 23, 2016 (Attachment M) LC adopted
February 28, 2017 (Attachment N) Adopted measures to enable the Consent Decree
March 27, 2018 (Attachment O) Certified the CEQA report for Airport Expansion Park
Environmental Review
No environmental review under CEQA is required at this time since this visioning process will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget request as a result of the recommended action today. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
39 of 39
Prepared By: Peter James, Chief Operations Officer
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Minutes from 1984 Jan 24
B. Attachment B - Staff Report 1988 July 12
C. Attachment C - Staff Report 2010 Dec 14
D. Attachment D - Staff Report 2011 Feb 22
E. Attachment E - Staff Report 2011 Oct 4
F. Attachment F - Staff Report 2011 Dec 6
G. Attachment G - Staff Report 2012 May 8
H. Attachment H - Staff Report 2012 Aug 14
I. Attachment I - Staff Report 2013 Apr 30
J. Attachement J - Staff Report 2014 Mar 25
K. Attachment K - Staff Report 2015 Mar 24
L. Attachment L - Staff Report 2016 Jan 26
M. Attachment M - Staff Report 2016 Aug 23
N. Attachment N - Staff Report 2017 Feb 28 Consent Decree O. Attachment O - Staff Report 2018 Mar 27
P. Attachment P Airport Conversion Report