VENICE NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION, INC.

C/O 421 Darling Dr. Venice, Florida 34285

941 484-8520 www.veniceneighborhoods.org

May 28, 2007

Paul Hollowell, Chair

Venice Airport Advisory Board

401 W. Venice Ave.

Venice, FL 34285

Dear Mr. Hollowell and Advisory Board Members:

We are writing to implore you to delay approval of the Airport Master Plan Update (MPU). There is no reason to rush to approve this incomplete plan and there are many reasons to take more time to complete the plan and especially to address many issues that to date are unresolved or are very unsatisfactory to many members of the community. It is further our understanding that the submission of the grant application for re-construction of Runway 4-22, now called 5-23, is not dependent on approval of the Master Plan Update, such approval at this time being pre-mature at best.

Furthermore, let me clarify for you that our concern over the shortening through declared distances of runway 5-23 was based on our request that this runway be equal to runway 13-31 in all ways, so that 5-23 which is our preferred noise abatement approach and departure could be utilized to the maximum extent. However, you have failed to inform us of some very pertinent information, and that is that both runways could have declared distances of approximately 4,280 feet which would insure that 13-31 isn't overused.

As you know full well and we now know, this airport is really a class B II airport and until sometime in the past decade or so was classified as such. All aircraft with the exception of three based here are BII... Furthermore, the other aircraft based here and coming in here could still come in here if this airport were classified, as it should, as a BII. Your withholding of this information from the public has caused much confusion and a distortion of the facts and the subsequent plans and decisions based on said facts. Most specifically I call your attention to false data stated on the proposed Airport Layout Plan included in the MPU which states the existing length dimensions for runway ends 13 and 23 to be 1700 feet (CII class) when in fact the current FAA approved Airport Layout Plan 2000 states that the existing and the ultimate/future dimensions for these two runway ends are 1000 feet! The proposed AOPlan also states that the existing length dimension for runway 5 is 1700 feet when the current FAA approved AOPlan 2000 states 1000 feet as existing. And while the future length dimension of runway 5 is listed on the FAA approved AOPlan 2000 as 1700 feet, this is simply a projection, i.e., and it has never been implemented. (Likewise for the AOPlan 2000 future dimension of 2500 feet for runway31).

Even more troubling than this is that it appears that sometime since 1985 when this airport was clearly classified as a BII airport and met all the safety requirements for such, and, showed all noise contours contained within Airport lands, the City of Venice and/or the Airport Advisory Board was complicit in re-classifying this airport to a CII class, for which it had to obtain several dispensations/exemptions because it did not then nor does it now, meet the safety requirements for a CII airport. This is nothing short of public deception by not being forthcoming with the technical information and the changes which were made that allowed this airport to surreptitiously expand because the parties knew full well that a CII class allows DII jet aircraft which are inappropriate/undesirable for this airport given the close proximity of the runways to high density neighborhoods. And to continue this practice of seeking dispensations for CII safety and protection zones in order to encourage an increase in undesirable aircraft, which will have a negative, impact on residents is unconscionable. When were you going to tell the residents and the County that the required safety/protection zones for a CII classification meant encroaching on S. Harbor Dr. and several homes along Beach Road? Even if FAA approves these dispensations (waivers) and doesn't require you to purchase these properties or easements, you are clearly derelict in your duty to fully inform the public and the parties of interest...

Worse yet, it is dangerous to encourage any increase in CII or greater aircraft which can only come in and out of this airport half fueled and must rely heavily on reverse thrusters to stop such aircraft on the 5000 foot runways we have here, especially since no one is monitoring this activity and the expense of a control tower cannot be justified. By telling the public that you are not increasing the length of the runway paving, but by using other methods such as trying to meet CII safety, etc. requirements through a variety of dispensations and waivers, which will encourage inappropriate aircraft to come here, you have engaged in deception and exposed residents to undue risk and diminution of their quality of life. You also know full well that classifying this airport as BII would solve all of these problems including the impact on the golf course, and would not negatively impact this airport, which by the way gets very little from the jet traffic dropping off and picking up passengers here. Therefore, we request a 7^th alternative be added to return this airport to the BII class that it was appropriately classified as, in 1985 and has for all intents and purposes, functioned as, to date.

Also, the MPU has been in progress for well over a year and to date no hiring of professionals for the purpose of conducting noise analyses and collecting data to substantiate activity/operations, both of which are in great contention, has occurred. Meanwhile the City with concurrence from the Advisory Board has hired a consultant and convened a committee to analyze and make recommendations on land use mostly centered on non-aviation uses, and, separately the City has had drawings produced for an elaborate marina on airport property and recently conducted a costly survey of boaters purportedly to determine how to better manage and maintain the Venice harbor.

The City and your Board are both well aware of over 15 years of community dissatisfaction with noise, over flying of our neighborhoods, pollution from jets idling right across the road from hundreds of residential units, as well as concerns about impacts on habitat and endangered species on airport property designated for development. And now, the potential loss of our only municipal golf course as the City has seen fit without any real public input and comment, to solicit developers for airport lands including the golf course. The City and your Board also know full well that the recommendations made 15 years ago as a follow up to that Part 150 Noise Study, have for the most part not been implemented or practiced with the exception of the change of Runway 13 departures to right turn, coincidentally had been recommended by a pilot who lived in the affected neighborhood. Recently other residents who have requested the same consideration for their neighborhood which lies in the path of runway 4 (now 5) have been treated with disdain and insults. This should have been analyzed and recommendations included as part of this MPU... The same goes for relocation of the jet service and idling area which hundreds of people have told you are physically sickening them in their own homes, and which Council claimed last year was to be a priority, yet we see no recommendation or address of this situation in this MPU. Much time has been spent soliciting funding for a pleasure boat marina, resort hotels and a public access road to the proposed marina and resort which are totally incompatible with the designated abutting industrial land use identified in the MPU... Relocating the jet service and idling area should also have been a priority for seeking funds from both FAA and other sources.

Just recently, the City has seen fit (after being publicly embarrassed over the back door solicitation of proposals for resort development on airport land) to hire five consultants to conduct charettes on the use of airport land, who will be paid from airport revenue/reserves, yet not one cent has been spent to hire professionals in regards to addressing noise abatement and mitigation, jet facility relocation, or the hiring of personnel to monitor, document and follow up on noise complaints. To date, there are no reports on noise complaints being given as per FAA regs to your Board and your Board never discusses noise and pollution unless someone from the public brings it up at a meeting. Both your Board and the City have been woefully non-proactive in addressing these life threatening and quality of life issues. The new MPU has the same tired rhetoric from fifteen years ago regarding noise and now it will take another year for the Part 150 Noise Study to be conducted.

As I mentioned at the Airport Council workshop on May 17^th, we will copy our comments by virtue of this letter to the FAA and County Commissioners as well as other local and federal officials. We expect our comments and all others including from all previous meetings, workshops, etc. and to be fully documented and included in the MPU Appendix. Also, per the County Comprehensive Plan, any Venice airport expansion, development, etc. impacting County land, the environment, wildlife, ICW, residences in unincorporated County areas, etc. are supposed to be submitted to the County for their review and input, and necessary coordination. To our knowledge, this has yet to have been done and should be done prior to submission to FAA.

Lastly we believe that the land use designations as presented in conjunction with the MPU with the exception of a pleasure boat marina, are appropriate for this airport, and call for: No development except the golf course on the south and west sides of the airport, light industrial development on the east side without destroying the existing natural habitat buffer between the designated industrial use area and the ICW/VWTrail, and, commercial, retail, hotel, entertainment on the parcel(s) where the old circus arena is located. In general, we are not against small, clean quiet businesses on airport property including along Airport Avenue.

The City and the Airport Advisory Board has a duty to insure that the MPU reflects priorities such as addressing noise and pollution and insuring neighborhood compatibility. By returning the airport to its BII classification which it really functions as anyway, and by seeking out clean businesses (through a legitimate, out in the open, bid or request for proposals process) which would provide revenue for this airport, instead of engaging in plans for development that are incompatible with the airport and will no doubt lead to its demise along with increasing diminution of quality of life for residents, the Venice Municipal Airport can be a successful and beneficial neighbor in our community.

We ask that you delay approval of the MPU until all the issues outlined above are adequately addressed including completion of the noise and operations activity levels.

Sincerely,

Sue Lang, President