I have had the opportunity to personally review the final draft of the airport master plan update and land use plan as recommended by the airport consultants and the Airport Advisory Board. I believe that the Airport Advisory Board has taken a great deal of time and effort to develop the recommended plans and that their efforts should be recognized. Based upon this review and the comments received to date through the various public meetings and workshops, however, I believe that some additional work is needed to clarify certain aspects of these plans in order to be more consistent with previously stated City Council policy comments and directions. Briefly:

1. The master plan update and land use plan does not identify areas to preserve for continued use as a public performance and community events area. The local festivals and community organizations that utilize airport lands play a critical role in maintaining the character of Venice.

2. The master plan update and land use plan do not appear on their face to be consistent with one another. While the master plan contemplates compliance with airport safety areas that require re-design of the existing golf course facilities, the land use plan does not reflect changes to the size or location of these changes. City Council has clearly indicated your desire to maintain a public golf course with reasonable public play rates, clearer depiction of the impacts of meeting new safety area requirements should help clarify this question for the community.

3. The airport master plan contemplates requesting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals to deviate from normally required safety area standards in order to avoid impacts to Harbor Drive, existing residential units at the end of runway 13/31, and other areas. Prior to accepting the plan for transmittal to the FAA, it is appropriate for the consultant to more fully articulate and identify the extent and basis of waivers to these standards that are desired to avoid gross impacts to vital community assets like the Venice Pier, beach access and Caspersen Beach.

4. There is clearly misinformation regarding the classification of the airport and its expected capacity that should be more fully articulated in the plan documents and not just through the commentary by the consultants provided to date at the various workshops.

5. Neither the master plan update nor the land use plans clearly quantify the impacts of safety area compliance upon the existing golf course and the likely fiscal costs to mitigate these impacts. The City Council is already on record as supporting golf course operations that are consistent with comparable public courses, including that rates must be reasonable, competitive and within prevailing rates in the community (these are the existing terms from the VGA lease). Estimates of the costs to mitigate these impacts should be developed and sources to fund these mitigation costs need to be understood prior to approval.

6. The land use plan does not clearly include City Council's recent determination to exclude areas along Harbor Drive across from Tramonto Vista Park and the Pier from future non-golf course uses.

Based upon these concerns, I recommend the following course of action be considered by City Council:

City Council Recommended Action

1. Return the master plan update and land use plan to the Airport Advisory Board and consultants with direction to specifically address the issues identified above and any others identified by City Council.

Please do not hesitate to see me with any questions.

[end of text in document -- no signature or signature line]

cc: Charter Officers
      CMO Staff
      Finance Director
      Airport Manager (w/distribution to AAB)