BACKGROUND:

Friends of Sunset Park is a city-recognized neighborhood organization representing residents of Sunset Park. Our borders are Lincoln Blvd. on the west, Pico Blvd. on the north, the east city limit (Centinela Ave.), and the south city limit (the southern border of S.M. Airport and Dewey St.). We surround the SMC Main Campus on 3 sides. The Airport Campus, the Administration Building at 2714 Pico Blvd., and the 14th and Pico property lie within Sunset Park, and the new Bundy Campus is adjacent to Sunset Park.

The college provides wonderful educational opportunities for residents of Sunset Park. However, as a state institution, it is not accountable to the local community in the same way that the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District and the City Council are. For example, it does not have to abide by Santa Monica and Malibu general plans and zoning regulations. And, as SMC's enrollment has grown over the decades, it has also had a growing negative impact on our community in terms of A) traffic, B) parking, C) pedestrian safety, and D) the physical expansion of the college.

Susan Aminoff: Growth and traffic are outgrowths of the planning process. Representatives from the Sunset Park neighborhood should rightfully be part of the planning process.

Charlie Donaldson: The college needs to engage in a planning process that recognizes the total environment in which it operates. Planning has not been evident. Decisions are made by the college CEO. One trustee cannot change that, but a trustee can keep the affected neighborhood organizations apprised of what the board is being asked to consider. The latest accreditation study has called for better college planning, but so have accreditation reports in the past. Planning is simply good business, and pressure needs to be maintained until the college management recognizes that.

Tonja McCoy: no response

Margaret Quinones: no response

Rob Rader: As Chair of the Wilshire/Montana Neighborhood Coalition, I have led the fight to ensure that residents’ concerns are met in my neighborhood. We regularly comment to the Planning Commission on all development going on in the neighborhood. For instance, this week, I sent a series of comments to the Planning Commission on the Garden of Angels school at 18th and Washington. (I would be glad to send you a copy.)

First, all College planning/development issues need to be presented to the neighborhood for its comments. I would ensure that all College development in the Friends of Sunset Park area is presented to you for comment. This opportunity for meaningful input is the most important means to give voice to the neighborhood. Thus, I would institutionalize a process for the neighborhood to address the College’s impact on the neighborhood.

Second, my experience in my neighborhood group will give me the greatest sensitivity to issues that affect your neighborhood. The Wilshire/Montana Neighborhood Coalition commented on the proposed SMC bond measure. One of the comments which I had brought to the group’s attention was that the College needed to respect the wishes of our co-neighborhood groups, Friends of Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood Association and to follow City planning processes in connection with partnership projects; I forwarded this and our other comments (reducing the size of the bond and limiting projects only to those with an educational purpose) to the College’s board of trustees. (I can provide a copy of this email, too.) Thus, I have already sought to protect our neighborhoods from the College’s growth.

Third, for four and a half years until January, I lived on 2nd Street, 2 blocks from the Third Street Promenade. I am therefore extremely familiar with how a large public institution can impose costs on its surrounding neighborhood. I struggled for years to get preferential parking for my neighborhood, including collecting signatures and lobbying the City Council and the California Coastal Commission. I became involved in the Bayside District Corporation (which runs the Third Street Promenade) in order to give my residential neighborhood a voice in this key institution adjoining our neighborhood. I continue to represent resident concerns and make sure we have a voice at Bayside.

Fourth, I think for the long-term, the College needs to start lobbying the MTA for the proposed Expo light rail line to have a Santa Monica College stop in order to reduce automobile trips into the Sunset Park neighborhood. This is 10 years away, but we need to start the planning process on it now.

Finally, I have assisted residents in the Sunset Park neighborhood obtain preferential parking. I collected signatures on 11th Street, just south of Pico so that the entire block would have preferential parking and that the residents living along Pico would be surrounded and therefore qualify for preferential parking permits on 11th and Euclid. (You can verify this with Ruth Harper of the Transportation Management Division of the Planning Department.) I am therefore familiar with the way parking congestion has been pushed out through the Sunset Park neighborhood and have helped in the mitigation measures. I can bring this practical knowledge to my service on the College’s board.

Susanne Trimbath: We are at a critical juncture in the development of SMC. There is no "community college" without a "community" to support it. Perhaps the time for dialogue is over; now is the time for SMC to LISTEN. I’d like to initiate a forum to solicit positive solutions from the people who live there. I invite the members of FoSP to contact me (email Trimbath@Lycos.com or mail 2118 Wilshire Blvd., #596, Santa Monica, 90403) with their issues so that, win or lose, I can use my candidacy to promote the issues important to the neighborhood.

Susan Aminoff: As a current faculty member of the LA College District, if elected to the Board, I would be able to re-ignite discussions on various utilization and consortium partnerships between SMC and West LA College ( one of LA's 9 campuses)

Charlie Donaldson: Richard Moore, a past SMC CEO, tried this at one time and was rebuffed by the Los Angeles district that runs West L.A. College. SMC unofficially has even proposed operating West Los Angeles, which has been a money loser for the L.A. district. That was toyed with in the past by L.A., but not pursued. The big problem is that students prefer SMC for its quality. West L.A. has transferred more students to SMC than it does to four-year schools because it is so lacking in adequate sophomore level class offerings. Both West L.A. and Pierce have been described as continuations of high school by their students who have switched to SMC.

The answer probably will have to come through state legislation changing the governance structure of community colleges—which originally were part of unified or union high school districts.

Tonja McCoy: no response

Margaret Quinones: no response

Rob Rader: Until the funding of community colleges is reformed, it is financially very difficult to turn students away from SMC. Unless there is an agreement that SMC can share in the revenue students funneled to other community college districts, the College cannot afford to lose its growth funding.

Now that the State has funded equalization (i.e., bringing parity to the amount each college district receives per credit) so that SMC gets funding similar to other community colleges, we can focus on removing the incentives that compel all districts toward growth. I believe that reforming the funding of community colleges in California which educate over 900,000 students per year should be a top priority and SMC should definitely lobby for such reform in the budgeting process.

Susanne Trimbath: SMC serves the entire region by providing educational opportunities for people of all ages and by providing a skilled labor pool for regional employers. Everyone needs to understand that those benefits come at a cost, costs they need to share.

Doug Willis: no response

Susan Aminoff: no response

Charlie Donaldson: Yes, but it is not technically possible. The state, which may cap payments supporting enrollment, requires the community colleges to register any 18-year-old who applies. SMC needs to "manage" its enrollment through class offerings.

SMC could continue to "grow" if it could convert more part-time students to full time. The college is paid by the state for full-time equivalent students—which roughly means students with 30-unit-a-year loads. If SMC did a better job of educating and retaining its students, it could reflect greater "growth" with fewer students, and taxpayers would be getting their money’s worth. Right now about a third of each entering freshman classes disappears before the year is out. Another third end up on probation. A few changes in state law to create real matriculation could put SMC on the right path. With adequate course advisement, classroom support, and more campus jobs, Santa Monica College would have more full-time equivalent students while the number of students driving to and from the campus would be markedly reduced. The board seldom if ever talks about better education. It only talks about growth in numbers. That could be changed with more board members who knew what the hell was going on in the classrooms.

Tonja McCoy: no response

Margaret Quinones: no response

Rob Rader: Again, theoretically, a cap on enrollment at each campus makes sense. Thus, Santa Monica College should be trying to fix the state funding scheme (as I describe in my answer to Question 2) so that this optimal enrollment size can be achieved without financially penalizing the College. Any cap should take into account the Full Time Equivalent Students as well as actual headcount of students. Naturally, any cap should be on a per campus basis.

Susanne Trimbath: SMC has serious financial problems that we can’t grow out of this time. So enrollment needs to be tempered by what the existing facilities (including the neighborhood infrastructure) can accommodate. An absolute cap isn’t the answer, especially combined with the idea that other regional campuses could be utilized. But a cap relative to infrastructure could answer the concerns of the neighborhood without unforeseen consequences for the future.

Doug Willis: I favor various considerations on cap enrollment. If the bond passes, the Malibu community will have a facility where more courses can be offered. SMC have 5 satellite campuses that favorably impact Pico/Sunset neighborhoods -less traffic and students. It is imperative that SMC administration/trustees maximize use of facilities, stagger class schedules to minimize traffic and parking congestion. Once again collaboration with SMC coordinating councils can debate and obtain studies/statistics regarding the merits of enrollment caps.

Susan Aminoff: With regard to the issue of how big the college can grow, remember that the current funding mechanism for community colleges pays colleges per FTES (the more students, the more $ the college gets to support itself). Because funding for the college is directly tied to student enrollment, tough questions are raised. Colleges must decide how to best balance access with growth. The Community College League is currently sponsoring a critically important workgroup of funding...searching for ways to provide a stable, reliable, and equitable funding allocation. I believe a policy position will emerge from this workgroup.

Charlie Donaldson: Purchase of the 10.3-acre Bundy-Centinela campus makes sense, because a full program can be offered students who attend there. Madison, the academy on Stewart Street, and the Airport campus seem to create more problems for students than they solve. The shuttle service timing seems to ignore the needs of students unless they space classes widely. Theater arts students, for example, have had a required class at the academy on Stewart Street and then their next class at the old Air National Guard building at the airport. The shuttle runs from Stewart Street to the Pico side of the main campus. There they must cross the campus to catch the Pearl Street bus to the airport. Since that is impractical, students drive from one satellite campus to another, which compounds traffic problems.

Ideally, the development of Bundy-Centinela, coupled with the new buildings on the main campus, will make Madison, the Airport and Stewart Street sites redundant.
Airport parking could be eliminated forever with a parking structure under Corsair Field, much like the parking under the soccer field at Ambassador College in Pasadena.

I do not believe that satellite campuses are educationally sound. They must be replaced.

Tonja McCoy: no response

Margaret Quinones: no response

Rob Rader: Satellite campuses should go through the same planning/development process described above in my answer to Question 1. There is no difference to a surrounding neighborhood whether it is a main campus or a satellite campus that is causing problems for the neighborhood.

Susanne Trimbath: Similar to my response above, it is time for SMC to LISTEN. I’d like to initiate a forum to solicit positive solutions from the people in the neighborhoods.

Doug Willis: no response

---

Susan Aminoff: I support the trustees' decision to place the $135 million dollar bond measure on the ballot, thus giving the voters an opportunity to decide on important facility improvements. The projects are worthy, and will enhance the quality of educational programming both on the main campus and in Malibu.

Charlie Donaldson: Better buses and better routing are needed.

Susan Aminoff: no response

Charlie Donaldson: The college should not need to buy residential properties.

Tonja McCoy: no response

Margaret Quinones: no response

Rob Rader: As part of the comments submitted by the Wilshire/Montana Neighborhood Coalition to the College’s board of trustees on the proposed bond, I did request that the College respect our co-neighborhood group’s wishes and limit physical growth (including using bond funds to purchase residential property).

At this point, I think there are more opportunities to acquire land elsewhere in the City than adjacent to the main campus. Since only bond funds will be sizeable enough for any significant purchase, there should be protection for the neighborhood from greater physical expansion.

Susanne Trimbath: SMC is not in a position to spend on ANY expansion at this time, be it residential or commercial.

Doug Willis: With new/acquisitions of buildings on campus as well as 5 satellite campuses, I would think there would not be a need to purchase additional residential property for administration use. My exception would entail visiting faculty or other employees that would need temporary housing. The purchase of residential housing should be for residential use only.

Susan Aminoff: no response

Charlie Donaldson: Making the college maintain one-story houses on the southside of Pearl Street could be a nightmare. In the past the college has done a poor job of maintaining those properties. Some even have been breeding sites for rats. The development of a decent buffer between the college and Cedar Street properties seems more feasible. The existing one-story houses along Pearl could easily become a chain of run-down storage facilities.

Background:

Friends of Sunset Park is a city recognized neighborhood association that represents the interests and concerns of a large part
of the Santa Monica community. The boundaries of Sunset Park are Lincoln Blvd. on the west, Pico Blvd. on the north, the east city limits (Centinela), and the south city limits (the southern border of S.M. Airport, Dewey St.)

Included within our borders are Santa Monica Airport, Santa Monica Business Park, Santa Monica College, Clover Park, Fairview Library, and three SMMUSD schools (Grant and Rogers Elementary and John Adams MiddleSchool).

Concerns in Sunset Park over the years have been A) traffic, B) the college, and C) the airport.

We will give you some information on each issue, followed by questions.

A) TRAFFIC

FOSP has sponsored a video documenting traffic congestion in our neighborhood. We encourage you to either view that video on our web site (www.FriendsofSunsetPark.org -- it takes a few minutes to download) or request a copy (please provide a mailing address).

Traffic congestion on both the arterials and the residential streets in Sunset Park has grown to unacceptable levels over the last 15 years. The main causes have been the special office district created in the city's industrial/commercial core, growth of enrollment at SMC, a general increase in development on the Westside, including Playa Vista, and an infrastructure not able to handle the additional traffic. Due to our geographical location, on the southern border of a city bounded on the west by the ocean and on the north by the Santa Monica Mountains, Sunset Park receives the brunt of increased traffic in and out of the city. It is particularly impacted by poor north/south circulation from the special office district south into Los Angeles and Playa Vista.

QUESTIONS

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: Yes, and we’re darn close to the saturation point

Richard Bloom: Traffic problems have persisted and grown worse in Sunset Park for many years. Traffic was one of the issues that prompted me to join the Board of the newly formed Friends of Sunset Park in the late 80's - later becoming its President. The question is not whether there is an acceptable level of traffic - we are well beyond that point. The real issue is whether we can manage and reduce traffic. Some of the solutions are within our control, some are beyond our control and some resist reasonable control.

David Cole:YES AND WE WERE AT THAT LIMIT SOME FEW YEARS AGO.

Matt Dinolfo: Yes, but my concern is how that limit is determined, against what standard, and how it is upheld? Resident dissatisfaction, however genuine, will not be as powerful a tool to affect change as will objective, concrete measurements that prove traffic is beyond acceptable limits.

Mike Feinstein: Yes there is a limit. We may be past it - like the proverbial frog in boiling water.

Ken Genser: Yes. In many areas of town, we've reached it.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: Yes. As a practical matter, that limit depends on the infrastructure and character of each community. In Santa Monica, I believe we are rapidly approaching our limit citywide and have already exceeded it in specific areas of the City, including Sunset Park. I think it is essential for the City to explore and implement measures that will help reduce that congestion. As a 41-year resident of Sunset Park, I am especially sensitive to traffic issues on the arterials and residential streets in my neighborhood and have consistently worked to find solutions to our traffic congestion problems here and throughout the City.

Maria Loya: Yes. Our City is severely impacted by traffic congestion for several reasons that include people commuting to work in Santa Monica or people visiting our beautiful City and finally our reluctance to utilize public transportation. The issue of traffic is serious and it impacts our quality of life. The solution to traffic congestion for Santa Monica is a regional solution. If elected, I will work with the City of Los Angeles and the MTA to improve our bus system and implement a light rail or subway from east to west to elevate the traffic congestion in our City.

Jon Mann: IMHO we have far surpassed that limit but our city government has other priorities.

Kathryn Morea: First off, I'd like to commend you for the very professional video tape portraying the traffic around Sunset Park. I watched this online. I believe the traffic is very bad and getting worse. Some of the causes, as you point out, are within the control of City Council, and others (like Playa Vista) are outside of our control. Our current city leaders claim to favor slow growth or no growth – yet city hall is the biggest developer around! New affordable housing projects are springing up all over town, bringing hundreds of new families into Santa Monica. It isn't only our streets that suffer with this push to keep bringing new residents into Santa Monica - our schools, our police, our parks – are all being overwhelmed.

Bobby Shriver: Yes, and we’ve reached it in many parts of the city.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: I think it’s a good idea.

Richard Bloom: The Land Use update will be a crucial focus for the next council. The idea of downzoning any area must be aired and carefully considered as implementation would likely carry both benefits and consequences. Full public discussion and debate of this idea will be essential so that well-reasoned decision making can take place.

David Cole: I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE ARE BUILT OUT AND CANNOT ADD ANY ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THIS ENTIRE CITY AS RELATES TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS WILL MEAN WE LOSE FUTURE TAX INCOME BUT THE PRICE THE RESIDENTS WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT IS GREATER THEN THE LOSS OF INCREASING INCOME.

Matt Dinolfo: I would need to study any of the traffic data that is now available for this area before I would be able to commit to a down-zoning proposal

Mike Feinstein: I support this objective. We risk a breakdown of the street system.

Ken Genser: You describe a very large area that includes many zones. Some of the included area already only allows small development. My objectives subjective to the public discussions that will occur) include: (1) establish a realistic methodology for measuring traffic impacts of projects, (2) establishing clear standards with which commercial projects must comply that severely limit or prohibit neighborhood cut-through traffic, (3) concentrating whatever development that we allow in the downtown area to form the critical mass that makes transit effective, and (4) establishing a better bicycle route network.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: I believe any approach to down-zoning must balance the economic needs of the city – the need to generate revenue to pay for essential service, including police, fire, city support for our schools and other services – and the traffic impacts on our community. While we consider the effects of down-zoning, we must also explore reasonable, workable solutions that allow us to maintain the economic health of the city while meeting the needs of the affected neighborhoods, including mandated employee carpool programs, shuttle services, dedicated public transit at peak hours (paid for by the businesses that benefit) and other programs that reduce traffic

Maria Loya: As a resident of the Pico Neighborhood I am extremely concerned about this issue. We have an opportunity this coming year when reviewing the General Plan to study the possibility of down-zoning the industrial/commercial core to single and/or multi-family residential housing in order to increase affordable housing in Santa Monica.

Jon Mann: Too Little and Too Late!

Kathryn Morea: I agree that our infrastructure is already overburdened, especially in Sunset Park and downtown Santa Monica. Down-zoning may be necessary. I would also advocate for increased use of public transportation, shuttle services, safe bicycle and walking routes to encourage residents and commuters to use alternative means of getting around.

Bobby Shriver: As I’ve been walking precincts in Sunset Park, I’ve gotten the message that more development in the industrial/commercial core translates into more "cut-through" traffic in Sunset Park. I need more time to study the current zoning and understand what that area would contain if it were built out, so I cannot yet give a definitive answer on downzoing. I can say that wherever possible I will promote redevelopment of existing buildings rather than new developments that take up our scarce open space. I will explore ways to encourage commercial uses in that area that require fewer employees per square foot. They will generate less traffic. I will find a way for the City to buy some of the open land in that area and convert it to park space or playing fields.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: I’m very much against most traffic calming—especially on major arteries such as Pico Blvd. which I consider to be a dangerous and narrow slalom course. Speed bumps, curb bump- outs, round abouts, etc., are not going to reduce traffic to any great degree, but they do anger and frustrate motorists and substantially slow down emergency vehicles.

Richard Bloom: I have supported traffic calming in Santa Monica. Slower traffic improves neighborhood livability and makes our streets safer for pedestrians and drivers.

David Cole: I OPPOSE TRAFFIC CALMING ON OUR MAJOR STREETS. REMOVING THIS JUNK WILL KEEP PEOPLE ON THE BIG STREETS AND HELP KEEP THEM OUT OF RESIDENTIAL AREA’S. BUT, I KNOW THAT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO DISCOURAGE USE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS BY VISITORS COMING AND GOING TO WORK. I DON’T LIKE SPEEDBUMPS, I THINK THEY MAKE A LOT OF NOISE AND SLOW DOWN FIRE TRUCKS. I AM WILLING TO LISTEN AND LEARN FROM RESIDENTS WHO MAY KNOW MORE THAN I.

Matt Dinolfo: I do not believe that traffic-calming measures have the desired effect. I feel in most cases they have exacerbated the problem and have also negatively impacted emergency vehicles response times.

Mike Feinstein: I support measures that promote pedestrian safety and neighborhood quality, while at the same ensuring adequate response time by public safety personnel.

Ken Genser: I generally support them; most are necessary for safety.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: I do not favor the city’s current "traffic calming" measures, which are ineffective and often unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. The circle and the curb projections cause vehicle backups, waste energy and solve nothing, while being costly to maintain. Road bumps hinder fire, police and ambulances. I believe other approaches to relieving congestion are more appropriate and effective, including implementation of a citywide shuttle that will encourage local residents to get out of their cars for short trips. I also support heightened, concentrated traffic enforcement to deal with recurring problems in seriously congested locations. Also, our wider, heavily-trafficked streets could accommodate median strips where pedestrians could wait safely if they were unable to cross in time, which would be of particular help to our older and less ambulatory residents.

Maria Loya: I believe that traffic calming measures have been an effective strategy in reducing car speed through some residential neighborhoods. As a governing body we need to ensure when implementing traffic calming measure we don’t jeopardize the effectiveness of emergency vehicles.

Jon Mann: TL&TL They do calm traffic when not already slowed by congestion.

Kathryn Morea: I'd much prefer to see traffic calming measures put to use to deter motorists away from residential streets and onto major arteries. Unfortunately, our current city leaders seem to prefer traffic calming the major streets instead. Not only does this cause additional frustration for commuters, it tends to push traffic into the nearby residential neighborhoods, as commuters seek ways to avoid congestion. I think we should use curb extensions, chokers, and traffic circles to slow traffic near homes and around schools.

Bobby Shriver: Residents of Sunset Park have told me that these measures are probably necessary in their neighborhoods because of the "cut-through" commuter mentality of so many drivers, who are trying to get through those residential areas as fast as possible. Cars do have to slow down to navigate the traffic calming devices. Twenty-sixth Street north of Wilshire is another "cut-through" route where traffic needed to be slowed. In other parts of the city, traffic calming devices may be having the opposite effect, serving as obstacle courses to make drivers so angry that they become dangerous, especially to pedestrians.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: I would support limited traffic calming on some strictly residential streets to curb a specific problem such as a high degree of short-cut through traffic on a given block, for example. Law Enforcement is the best traffic calmer and we need more of it.

Richard Bloom: I worked for many years on the issue of cut-through traffic. I supported a variety of measures designed to limit residential cut-through traffic and focus traffic on arterials.

David Cole: STOP DEVELOPMENT! REMOVE TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES FROM MAJOR STREETS!

Matt Dinolfo: I feel traffic enforcement officers would help in moving traffic at peak hours as well as synchronization of all traffic lights on major thoroughfares. I also feel that we need to develop more parking the in peripheral areas of the city and use mass transit shuttles to facilitate movement. I would encourage evaluation of similar communities’ best practices and work to provide Santa Monica with the latest, most beneficial technology.

Mike Feinstein: First, its important that we limit future any traffic growth through Sunset Park. In that vein, I have played a lead role opposing Playa Vista, including recently voting to sue to stop the project. I will work to ensure that future SMC development at the Airport does not bring more traffic down Airport Ave./23rd St.

I also support improved public transit, all the way down the coast to the South Bay along the Lincoln Bl./Sepulveda corridor, as a way of lessening pass-through traffic generated as a result of Lincoln being like a parking lot.

We additionally need to protect the health and neighborhood-serving nature of the commercial districts on Ocean Park and Pico boulevards, because that reduces car trips.

I do not support more major physical, systemic changes to the streets and sidewalks -- we’ve already made so many over the last few years that we have to learn to live with them a little first. At the same time, if there are small refinements we would improve things, I believe we should be open to that.

I also support exploring neighborhood-based shuttles that have flexible routing, if the demand were demonstrated.

Ken Genser: Please see my response to Question 2.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: I believe we can discourage cut-through traffic in Sunset Park and other neighborhoods throughout the city by improving traffic flow on major arterials such as Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard, through signal synchronization and other adjustments that will improve traffic flow on the arterials and make them move more smoothly -- providing less incentive for cut-through routes through residential neighborhoods. This will help resolve much of the cut-through traffic intrusion. I also believe a citywide shuttle system would be enormously helpful in reducing overall traffic congestion in the city and help with the cut-through traffic problem. Beyond these citywide approaches, it’s important to understand that this not is a "one size fits all" problem, with a single, comprehensive solution that can be imposed on individual neighborhoods by City Hall. Instead, the city should work closely with residents of each neighborhood to determine the best solutions that are not only most effective, but also acceptable to the residents themselves. These may include such specifics as heightened traffic enforcement in trouble spots, through-traffic restrictions on residential streets during specific hours and peak-hour turn prohibitions. As a Sunset Park resident, I drive daily on 23rd Street and understand the problem first-hand. I have worked with my neighbors here to find reasonable, workable answers and will continue to seek ways to relieve traffic in our neighborhood as well as citywide.

Maria Loya: I support studying traffic flow in Sunset Park to determine what is the best way to re-route traffic from our neighborhood streets into major streets in order to improve public safety and reduce pollution.

Jon Mann: Widen the airport artery and 23rd to handle some of the flow and reducing cut through traffic. The city council needs to respond to SP residents input!

Kathryn Morea: I believe that cut through traffic should be discouraged. If residents turn to the city for relief, we should be willing to protect them, instead of making them suffer. I would encourage use of bollards, bump outs partially blocked turning lanes to protect those small residential streets, as well as the traffic calming measures mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Bobby Shriver: The humps are already on most north/south major streets, diverting some traffic to Lincoln Blvd. and Centinela Ave. or Bundy Drive. Limiting traffic intrusion in Sunset Park is a real challenge, because every street goes through a residential neighborhood. The only traffic-control measure I know for sure is to prevent more traffic by limiting development. Sunset Park doesn’t have many signals on north/south streets, but in other parts of the city, timing the north/south signals would ease traffic congestion. Right now, signals seem to be timed to stop drivers at each block. Computerized signals that change according to traffic flow would also ease congestion.

B) SANTA MONICA COLLEGE

SMC is a regional institution. 75% of the current 33,000 students live outside of the Santa Monica/Malibu college district. When college staff recently suggested a formal partnership with the City of Santa Monica, in connection with the proposed SMC bond measure, City staff noted on 6/22/04 that, "The City and College have had a sometimes contentious relationship over the years,
centering on impacts of college expansion and student parking on neighbors. Most recently, development of the Madison Campus...and plans for the new Bundy Campus have divided the two institutions." As college enrollment has grown, residents of Sunset Park have been increasingly impacted with regard to traffic, parking, and pedestrian safety.

QUESTIONS:

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: It seems that when the City and the College get together on something like the new swimming pool, we the people and the City get the short end of the stick. For example, Municipal pool hours for general public use are limited because the college takes precedent with the facility, Even middle school children, who take their PE swimming classes at the new pool, are denied access to locker rooms. Early in the morning shivering, wet children run from the pool two blocks to JAMS locker rooms to change.

The college has it’s agenda and the City has its agenda. For the most part each agenda is not in the others best interest. A major SMC is continued growth and expansion and this is not in the best interest of the community – especially the residential area around the college.

Richard Bloom: Regrettably, the relationship between the City and Santa Monica College is poor. I strongly support improving that relationship.

David Cole:THIS CITY SHOULD HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. THE COLLEGE SHOULD RETURN THE KINDNESS. COMMON SENSE AND FAIR PLAY NEED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE GOAL.

Matt Dinolfo: I believe overall there is a lack of cooperation between the two entities that occasionally has become adversarial. Rehabilitation of the relationship between the City and its stakeholders is a priority of mine.

Mike Feinstein: To improve the relations between the two institutions -- and to increase overall transparency in our community –- the City Council, College Board of Trustees (and the School Board) should meet openly to discuss items of mutual interest.

In particular, there needs to be a more open, coordinated land use and ballot measure strategy between the three institutions, in order to allocate limited tax dollars more wisely while achieving a variety of community goals. We need to combine education, land use and open space planning in a more coordinated and synergistic way than we do today. And the public has to be involved in the creation of these strategies up front, rather than hearing about them right before they go to the ballot.

Ken Genser: It is improvement, but has a long way to go. From my viewpoint, the College inappropriately acts unilaterally, without seriously seeking input from the community.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: I believe that both parties have traditionally been far too intent on maintaining unilateral control of their own domains and that must stop. The voters of the city must make clear that they expect both the city and the District to cooperate where possible in order to relations between SMC and its neighbors -- and that they will hold the members of the Council and the College Board accountable for making that happen. I believe that are numerous areas where increased cooperation and an intensified interactive dialogue could would be helpful. There is one additional incentive for the city to pursue a course of mutual cooperation with SMC. The College has the authority to build whatever it wants on its property, with little or no control from the city. It’s essential that we work together to make sure the efforts of the city and the College are in sync and in harmony with the surrounding communities.

Maria Loya: My position regarding the relationship between the City and SMC is that it needs to be improved. As a community organizer and public policy advocate I have experience in creating effective collaborations and creating solutions. Through my efforts I will work to develop a relationship that is mutually beneficial.

Jon Mann: Students park on my street, (21st & Hill), and dump their fast food containers, ashtrays, etc. Dividing the campus creates more traffic; affluent foreign students don't take buses. Residents Should Take Priority!

Kathryn Morea: I believe Santa Monica College operates fairly independently of the city and there should be more cooperation. Shared use agreements and funding should be tied to cooperation by College officials and must be mutually beneficial. I do understand some of your frustration. Although I live in the Pico neighborhood, I live close to a school (SAMO) and I too have video taped the traffic, fought for parking near my home and felt unnecessarily burdened by an institution that city officials took a "hands off" attitude regarding. All too often, the answers given to my neighbors only seemed to "pass the buck" from either city officials to school officials. This is completely unfair. I lobbied for the creation of a task force, bringing city & school officials to the table together. The task force was able to find creative solutions to some of the problems surrounding parking and transportation around the school. This kind of creative problem solving is what I will bring to City Council. I will ensure that SMC is involved in finding solutions to their impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community.

Bobby Shriver: The City is responsible to its residents first; most SMC students are not Santa Monica residents. The City must protect the residents of Sunset Park from the adverse effects of the college, especially traffic and parking problems. This means facilitating and enforcing permit parking zones and encouraging the College to provide enough parking for all its students so they don’t drive all over the neighborhood looking for a space.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: There are a number of reasons but basically it’s another blank check to allow and facilitate further college expansion.

Richard Bloom: As of the time of submitting this response, the City and SMC have not been able to reach agreement on key issues defining the "partnership" that SMC has stated is critical to the bond. Given this state of
affairs, I am unable to support the bond.

David Cole: I WILL LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE TELLING RESIDENTS WHAT TO DO. NOT ME. YOU ARE THE BEST JUDGE OF HOW TO VOTE - NOT ME.

Matt Dinolfo: I support the bond measure. It will renovate Santa Monica facilities and fund new playing fields for college and community use. It represents an opportunity to build a more functional relationship between the city and the college.

Mike Feinstein: I have strong concerns that have not yet been addressed regarding the nature of the proposed potential partnership between the College and the City, in particular, regarding acquisition and management of athletic fields and open space.

For example, in order to support the measure, I would need to be assured that the College would dedicate enough of the Bond’s $38 million dedicated to fields and open space in Santa Monica, to ensure that the City would not have to go into long-term debt to purchase the Fisher Lumber property -- perhaps the most important open space acquisition for fields in decades in Santa Monica. Such an assurance has not been forthcoming.

I also would need a commitment at the Madison site to put the large surface parking lot underground and in its place, to provide a community park on top. The College has also not indicated that it would commit to such a plan.

The College Bond was promoted throughout the spring as a way of increasing the number of athletic fields in the community. I am frustrated that there is not a clear commitment to acquire open space in concern with the City’s Open Space element, which suggested the importance of acquiring the field space in the area of Fisher Lumber, and in increasing open space in dense, apartments areas like Mid-Cities, where the Madison site is located.

Ken Genser: I am neutral on it. I strongly object to the way the measure was formulated (and revised!) and I am concerned that it will fuel more unilateral action by the College. On the other hand, I think that there is potential for some facilities that benefit to the community to come from it. Instead of concentrating on the bond, I'm voting for College Trustees who I know will have an resident-friendly perspective.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: I favor the bond measure. It is a start to a cooperative approach with the City and, hopefully, the Unified. I believe the proceeds can be used in ways that will make the school less intrusive to neighbors. It is up to the city to work with SMC – by sponsoring increased interactive dialogue among the school, the city and the neighbors -- to make that happen. The reality is that SMC is there and will remain there. I will continue to work for a cooperative effort to decrease the negative impacts of that presence.

Maria Loya: We need to expand educational opportunity and improve access to college facilities for our residents. I support decentralizing SMC to provide opportunities outside of the main campus. This will relieve traffic and parking from an already over burdened Pico Neighborhood and Sunset Park.

Jon Mann: no response

Kathryn Morea: If I recall correctly, Santa Monica College asked for a bond measure only 2 years ago, and claimed they would not ask again for money for a number of years. Why must the taxpayers of Santa Monica come to their rescue? This seems a little disingenuous to me. After all, this is not a grade school, where our kids must go whether they want to or not - this is a school for adults (over 18), many of them from outside Santa Monica. I'm not sure they have a plan. Would they agree to a cap on enrollment? How big do they propose to make the college? Does Santa Monica need a college which expands far beyond the ability of the surrounding neighborhood and streets to accommodate? I'm very concerned about forcing Santa Monica resident taxpayers to shoulder this burden.

Bobby Shriver: Education in California needs all the help it can get, so I support this bond measure. If the bond passes, the City Council must monitor very carefully to ensure that SMC adheres to the following two provisions in the measure:
- "The District will not unilaterally override the City of Santa Monica of City or Malibu land use authority for any Projects done under Cooperative Agreements within the city limits of the respective city.
- "The District will provide an opportunity for input from the community and neighborhood residents during the development of Projects to be funded by the bond measure."

If the City enters into any joint ventures with the College as a result of this bond, strong preference should go to projects that benefit the residents of Sunset Park, because they are the ones adversely affected by the College.

C) SANTA MONICA AIRPORT

Some facts:

a. Population in our zip code, 90405 (which includes Sunset Park and part of Ocean Park) is 28,535. About one third of these residents live under the flight path of S.M. Airport.

b. The City doesn't realize any income from the Airport. Income from leases, fuel flow taxes, and fines goes into an enterprise fund, which can only be used to pay for airport operations and expenses.

c. The 1984 Agreement between the FAA and Santa Monica obligates the City to operate S.M. Airport. This agreement expires in 2015.

d. Between 1999 and 2003, jet traffic at S.M. Airport increased 69% to 16,000 operations per year. The growing popularity of fractional share jet companies ("time share" jets) is largely responsible for this
increase.

e. In 2003, jet traffic comprised 11% of total operations at S.M. Airport, but was responsible for 80% of noise violations.

f. S.M. Airport has homes closer to the runway (250 ft.) than any other airport in the nation. Currently, the airport has no "safety zones" at the ends of the runway and is not in compliance with FAA safety standards. Only the width of a street (23rd on the west, Centinela on the east) separates the runway from family homes.

g. In May 2002, airport staff proposed the "Aircraft Conformance Program" to the City Council. This program would prevent the larger
"safety inappropriate" C and D Class aircraft, which do not comply with the airport's design standards, from using the airport. Currently, 50% of of the jet traffic at S.M. Airport consists of large C and D Class aircraft.

h. In addition, the proposed Conformance program would implement declared distances (300 ft.) at either end of the runway as "designated safety zones." City Council approved this plan in concept in December 2002. [Add footnote with Airport Commission agenda items, staff reports, and Council agenda staff report.] Residents are STILL WAITING for this Conformance program to be implemented.

i. The most comprehensive S.M. Airport air quality study to date was conducted by a Sunset Park resident, Jake Bloch, who was a student at John Adams Middle School at the time. His study is available on our web site <www.FriendsofSunsetPark.org>

QUESTIONS:

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: The City council can initiate this process at any time. I don’t think the incumbents care. I would start the process, immediately.

Richard Bloom: I have kept the pressure on city staff to move with all deliberate
speed on implementing this program. The slow speed of implementation is frustrating. However, there are forces at work, including the FAA, that make it extremely important that the city not act hastily and err in the implementation process.

David Cole:I WOULD PLACE IT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA AND APPROVE THE DAMN THING. LET’S MAKE SOME PROGRESS!

Matt Dinolfo: I would support the city staff’s position first proposed in 2002 which would prohibit larger Class C & D aircraft since they do not meet the airport’s design standards. I would work with state and federal authorities to compel the FAA to implement this program.

Mike Feinstein: First, continue City Staff work with the FAA to approve the Program as sent to them on September 8th. Second, support on all levels Congressmember Waxman’s RSA determination request.

Ken Genser: I feel as frustrated at the length of time this is taking to implement as anybody. However, successfully working with (or around) the FAA is tricky and requires careful thought and strategy. I am committed to seeing the Conformance Program implemented.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: First, the City Council should enact stricter Airport noise ordinance that would have the pragmatic effect of inhibiting use of the Airport by C and D class aircraft. We also need to establish a committee that will research our most effective approaches to the air pollution concerns. And we should make clear that commercial air passenger service should not be allowed at S.M. Airport.

Maria Loya: The Santa Monica City Council needs to make the Conformance program a priority and direct resources to implement it. If I am elected I will ensure that the S.M. City Council develop a plan to implement the Conformance program.

Jon Mann: Close Down The Airport!

Kathryn Morea: We could start with increasing fees and penalties to those pilots and/or commercial aviation companies causing the abuse. Additionally, we could lobby other elected officials, such our local Congress person or Senators, to get their help in working with the Federal agencies who have jurisdiction over the airport.

Bobby Shriver: At this September’s Airport Commission meeting, staff announced it had completed written answers about the large jets using Santa Monica Airport—answers the FAA had requested one year earlier. (The Program itself was passed by City Council almost a year before that.) What is the reason for this huge delay? Some leadership and commitment from the City Council is needed here. I would ask the City Manager to have staff move faster. Staff members must have gotten the message that the Council is not particularly serious about reducing noise and jet exhaust at the airport, or making take-offs and landings any safer, or staff would have made a lot more progress over the past two years.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: Yes. This is one way to determine what the environmental hazards really are.

Richard Bloom: Environmental concerns have been and will always be investigated carefully.

David Cole:SURE I SUPPORT A STUDY HOWEVER WHAT SCIENCE DO WE NEED TO KNOW THAT THE IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND EXTREMELY UNHEALTHY.

Matt Dinolfo: Yes, I would be in favor of an environmental impact study of the airport, particularly in view of the recent increases in noise levels and jet fuel pollution. Areas of concern include any possible association with increased incidence of diseases, hearing problems, stress-related illnesses, and learning disabilities/attention issues in children. As a physician specializing in Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases I am also uniquely qualified to analyze the data, interpret it to the community, and make sound recommendations to the City Council.

Mike Feinstein: I support such study being undertaken, but I believe the Federal Government (through the E.P.A.) is the responsible agency to do it -- because there should be a connection between the gathering of such data and the ability to do something about it.

I am encouraged that the A.Q.M.D. will conduct its own study. As a state of California-mandated agency, they will have more standing with the Federal government than would simply Santa Monica.

Ken Genser: Yes.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: Yes.

Maria Loya: Yes. I am aggressively pursuing a health study to investigate the environmental and health impact of residents living near the S.M. Airport.

Jon Mann: Yes, but we already know it is

Kathryn Morea: Yes, absolutely.

Bobby Shriver: Yes. We know from other studies how loud noise affects people, but we need to know exactly how much our airport’s noise affects its neighbors. To study the effect of jet fumes, I will request the FAA to bring in the federal Environmental Protection Agency to measure levels of jet fumes in the surrounding neighborhoods, and in the area of airport land where new soccer fields are planned. I understand these fields will be the smaller ones used by younger players, whose lungs are more vulnerable to air pollution. If the EPA concluded the airport is endangering people’s health, the FAA would be much more receptive to amending its 1984 agreement with the city to restrict or ban the heavily polluting jets from using the airport.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: Almost everything in the community contributes to somebody else’s pollution, noise, safety and security —such as my neighbor’s barbecue that fills my apartment with acrid smoke almost every evening. We need to determine the extent of the negatives, determine an appropriate course of action to mitigate them and take care of the problems if they exist.

Richard Bloom: I have been resolute on this issue since I became active in Sunset Park: I will do whatever it takes to reduce and eliminate the impact of jet traffic at Santa Monica airport.

David Cole:MY COMMITMENT IS TO SEE THIS AIRPORT CLOSED.

Matt Dinolfo: I am fully committed to the residents of Santa Monica to improve their quality of life, ensure the safety of their children, and work towards long-term solutions that protect health and welfare.

Mike Feinstein: We need to do everything within our power to limit and decrease the negative environmental impacts of the Airport on our residents. At times we need to also test the limits of our power to do so – like we are with the Airport Conformance Program.

Ken Genser: I will do whatever I can to lessen the impacts. Some of our options are limited by the 1984 Agreement. With Richard Bloom, I introduced the voter-approved Charter amendment that allowed the city to impose significant fines for noise violations. I have also supported weight-based landing fees and the shortening of the runway to create buffers (to comply with the FAA's own standards) that will also limit the size of planes that use the airport.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: The safety and security of city residents must ALWAYS be to top priority for city leaders – with regard to the Airport or any other issue. That is and has always been my commitment

Maria Loya: I am committed to aggressively advocating for an environmental and health study for impacted residents, I will work with the City of Los Angeles to develop a shared plan to address the impact of the airport and create a working group made up of S.M City officials, S.M residents and the FAA to develop an exist strategy for the S.M. Airport.

Jon Mann: TOTAL - I am one of them!

Kathryn Morea: I believe strongly that appropriate action must be taken by the City Council to support those residents who are actively seeking redress. They should not be stalled or waylaid in their desire to find reasonable solutions to these airport related issues. These issues cause an unfair burden on those residents living in close proximity to the airport. There has been a movement to make people aware of "Environmental Justice". There are grant programs available to help fund mitigation to those neighborhoods adversely impacted by environment factors especially pollution, noise and health issues. For more info on the environmental justice grants, please go to this website http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/opar/titleVIand%20EJ.htm This is something I would look into as your city council person.

Bobby Shriver: To reduce those impacts as much as legally possible.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: Although I’m not a pilot, I volunteer for EVAC which is an "Angels of Mercy" type organization affiliated with the Fire Department. These small plane, private pilots are good neighbors – but I understand the larger commercial aircraft including business jets have very different and negative impacts on the area around the airport. We need to find out how serious environmental impacts are and if they are negative, then, of course, the City should support its residents and determine a remedy.

Richard Bloom: The interests of residents always take priority.

David Cole: AVIATION INTERESTS ARE LIKE SUPPORTING FOX HUNTING CLUBS. FLYING IS A RICH MANS SPORT. RICH MEN CAN TRAVEL ANYWHERE TO PLAY. OUR CHILDREN CANNOT.

Matt Dinolfo: I believe that the role of the City of Santa Monica should be, first and foremost, to protect public safety.

Mike Feinstein: I believe safety and environmental issues for surrounding issues are paramount and should be a starting point for any discussion of the airport.

I also believe Santa Monica can protect its residents from unreasonable negative impacts from the airport, while still allowing SMO to still be a quality-service venue – if Santa Monica is allowed the jurisdiction to regulate the airport in a manner necessary to achieve this.

The Airport Conformance Program and the increased fine schedule adopted after the passage of Prop. MM are steps in the right direction. But we need to be able to do more.

Ken Genser: Obviously, to protect residents.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: Again, the safety and security of residents – including environmental safety – MUST be the deciding factor in any such conflict. In situations where the conflict can be resolved or mitigated, I believe the city should explore such options but in the end the safety of residents is paramount.

Maria Loya: As a leader who has a track record of upholding a family-centered approach to policy making, I will ensure that the City protects the interest of its residents. I will not compromise our community’s right to enjoy their homes without intrusive noise, air pollution or excessive traffic.

Jon Mann: RESIDENTS FIRST!

Kathryn Morea: I believe our priority must be the residents.

Bobby Shriver: The City’s priorities should be in that order—residents first, aviation second.

Leticia Anderson: No Response

Linda Armstrong: No Response

Bill Bauer: I personally don’t think that the FAA is not going to give up the airport property. It is too important for defense and for use in emergencies. However, if the FAA relinquishes control of the site, I’d like to see a large park and limited low rise and low intensity mixed use development. The key for me would be to not allow anything that would contribute substantially to additional traffic, congestion and pollution. I would fight a Playa-Vista type development tooth and nail.

Richard Bloom: The future use of the airport property is not for me, alone, to
determine. I have successfully moved the council to instruct city staff to begin the development of a process to review options and engage the community in the discussion of what the future of the airport property will be. Virtually any option will have benefits and drawbacks. It is ultimately the community that must decide this important issue. Because Sunset Park is the neighborhood that will be most affected by the ultimate choice, it must be a key player in the
process.

David Cole: PARK! PARK! PARK!

Matt Dinolfo: I believe it is unlikely that the FAA will allow closure of the airport unless scientifically proven health hazards are determined. Doing so is a priority. If the airport could be closed I would convert this area to parks and recreational space. If this does not occur I would support a redesign of the airport to optimize fuel particle dispersal patterns and minimize noise pollution. I would vigorously advocate for the removal of jet traffic.

Mike Feinstein: Of course there would be an extensive public process to determine whether we’d want to close the airport – and if we were successful, what we would do there.

But for now, personally I envision open space, athletic fields, community gardens, urban forest, spaces dedicated to generating solar energy, innovative housing, and community/cultural venues.

I would increase the number of shuttles to the area to minimize traffic and help turn it into more of a nature area.

Ken Genser: Future use of the airport parcel must be the product of a meaningful public discussion. I am very, very unlikely to support continued operation of the airport beyond 2015 unless we are able to ban jet traffic.

Patricia Hoffman: No Response

Herb Katz: City staff, elected leaders and residents adjacent neighborhoods should be working closely together NOW to outline the options that make sense for the community, maximize benefits of future use and minimize negative impacts. Personally, I would like to see any plan include open space, parks and landscaping of which there is far too little in Santa Monica and which would benefit Sunset Park residents as well as residents of the entire city.

Maria Loya: When the 1984 Agreement expires in 2015 we have an opportunity to increase open space and affordable housing in that area of our City.

Jon Mann: CLOSE DOWN THE AIRPORT!

Kathryn Morea: I think we should poll the residents and find out what the people of Santa Monica wish to do.

Bobby Shriver: I would not propose anything without hearing from the community first. We need to begin a dialogue on that subject right away, because we may need to craft another agreement with the FAA that allows the City to continue controlling pollution from noise and jet fumes. Otherwise, the legal battles that resulted in the 1984 agreement may begin all over again. I know that the federal government will have a lot to say about the use of the airport after 2015, because it is part of our national transportation system.