Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, October 10, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

16. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION.

Developer agrees not to discriminate against any actual or potential occupant of the subject property on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy, marital status, handicap, HIV, family composition, source of income, the use of a rental subsidy voucher, or the potential or actual occupancy of minor children. Developer further agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that no such person is discriminated against for any of the aforementioned reasons.

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 3-E

17. STANDING TO ENFORCE AGREEMENT.

Violation of this Agreement may be enjoined, abated or remedied by appropriate legal proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction by any aggrieved party, including but not limited to, the parties hereto, or their respective successors, heirs and assigns.

The right to specific performance of this Agreement shall be an appropriate remedy for a breach of this Agreement because of the uniqueness of the Property and the inherent difficulty in calculating adequate damages.

18. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT.

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and no modification hereof shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto.

19. APPLICABLE LAW.

All questions pertaining to the validity and interpretation of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of California applicable to contracts made to and to be performed within the State.

20. CITY AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE LAW
The obligation of the Owner pursuant to this Agreement are in addition to, and in no way limit, the authority of the City to enforce all laws and regulation applicable to the Subject Property. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the authority of the City to take appropriate action to enforce the terms of any permit issued by the City relating to the Subject Property.

21. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.

This Agreement shall terminate and become null and void fifty-five (55) years from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

22. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT.

This Agreement, and any Section, subsection, or covenant contained herein, may be terminated or amended only upon the written consent of all parties hereto.

23. RECORDING OF AGREEMENT.

The parties hereto shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the Official

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 3-E
Records of the County of Los Angeles.

24. YEARLY REPORT.

Developer shall issue a written report to City on an annual basis commencing one year from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and continuing thereafter throughout the term of the Agreement. The report shall state the rent level then being charged for the Affordable Units, whether the occupants are assisted by a rental housing subsidy program, the number of occupants in the household, whether there have been any changes in the composition of the household, whether any vacancies have occurred during the reporting year, any changes in income of the residents of the affordable units, and such other information as may be required by City staff.

25. COMPLIANCE MONITORING.

Pursuant to City of Santa Monica Resolution 10635 (CCS) and Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 9.64.050 and 9.64.060, Developer shall pay the reasonable regulatory costs of ensuring compliance with this Agreement through a Compliance Monitoring Fee, adopted and approved on November 22, 2011 and administratively revised on an annual basis.
\\\

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 3-E

26. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE.

The undersigned declare they have full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Developer, and bind Developer to all the terms and conditions contained herein. [Note: document text needs to be part of signature page; set hard page breaks when necessary]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.

ATTEST: “CITY”

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
a Municipal Corporation
___________________________
Denise Anderson-Warren
City Clerk By: ____________________________
Rick Cole
APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager

SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY
__________________________

MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney “DEVELOPER”
[Name], LLC
a California limited liability company
By_______________________
[name, and title, i.e. Manager, trustee,
owner etc]
Prepared by: Planner Name
Reference Number: XXDED-XXX

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 3-E

EXHIBIT A

LOT -----------, BLOCK ---------, TRACT ------------ IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN

BOOK XX PAGE XXX, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
(Insert Complete Legal Description)
APN ___________
Commonly Known As: [Street Address]

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 3-E
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF __________________ }ss:

COUNTY OF ________________
On before me, , a Notary Public,
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of _______________________ that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 4-A
ATTACHMENT 4-A (Updated for 2016 AHPP Guidelines Update) Sample Application for Affordable Housing Eligibility List

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 4-A

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) Administrative Guidelines
Affordable Housing Production Program
Attachment 4-B
ATTACHMENT 4-B (Updated for 2016 AHPP Guidelines Update) Property Address
Owner/Manager Name
Phone #/Email
Residence #
Name and Phone Number
Referral #1:

Was #1
Offered the
Residence?
Yes No
Comments:

Did #1
Accept the
Residence?
Yes No
Comments:

Name and Phone Number
Referral #2:

Was #2
Offered the
Residence?
Yes No
Comments:

Did #2
Accept the
Residence?
Yes No
Comments:

Name and Phone Number
Referral #3:

Was #3
Offered the
Residence?
Yes No
Comments:

Did #3
Accept the
Residence?
Yes No
Comments:

Housing Division
Waiting List Referral Form

5.D.e
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: AHPP Administrative Guidelines (5925 : Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Update) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 10, 2023
Agenda Item: 5.E
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Map for Condominium at 2002 21st Street
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the proposed project was previously analyzed in the certified 2002 21st Street Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2007031019), and no further review is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt the attached resolution approving Final Tract Map No. 66625.

Executive Summary
This report transmits for City Council approval a Final Tract Map for the following condominium project. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map was approved by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2019. A timely filing of the Final Map was made to the County or City prior to the Map’s expiration date. According to Section 66452.6(d) of the Subdivision Map Act, once a timely filing is made to the County or City, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving, and recording of a map, may lawfully occur after the map’s expiration date.

Discussion

TRACT MAP ADDRESS SUBDIVIDER UNITS
66625 2002-2018 21st St Park Virginia, LLC 19
The following table provides a brief summary of the project:

5.E
Packet Pg. 338
2 of 3
Zoning District R2 (Low Density Residential)
Parcel Area 28,935 SF
Parcel Dimensions 203’ x 142.5’
Existing On-Site Improvements
(Year Built)
Six one-story residential buildings comprised of
15 rent-controlled dwelling units totaling
approximately 8,985 SF and three garage
structures constructed between 1935-1951
Rent Control Status 15 rent-controlled units, pending Ellis Act withdrawal.

Historic Resources Inventory Status 2002 21st St designated Structure of Merit 2008 21st St designated Structure of Merit
AHPP Compliance Payment of Fee
A Vesting Tentative Tract Map application (06TM-021) was submitted to the City Planning Division on July 12, 2006, to create 19 residential condominium air space parcels on one land lot in the R2 Zoning District. After a public hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations, the Planning Commission approved a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the above project on May 15, 2019. The action of the Planning Commission was based on its findings that the proposed subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, and is in conformance with all state and local laws and regulations, and applicable General Plan Elements. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. As a vesting tentative tract map application, its associated approval confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vesting map is deemed complete by the City. In this case, the application was deemed complete on July 12, 2006, and therefore the development is subject to the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time.

The developer will be required to show proof of payment of the condominium tax of $19,000 prior to issuance of building permit. The Final Map has been approved by the Los Angeles County Engineer’s Office and certified by the City Engineer for

5.E
Packet Pg. 339
3 of 3
conformance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivision Map Act, and local ordinances pertaining to the subdivision. The City Engineer’s office indicates that there are no required off-site public improvements.

Environmental Review
In accordance with CEQA, this project was analyzed in the 2002 21st Street Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2017031019) that was certified by the City on May 15, 2019. No substantial changes have occurred warranting the preparation of a subsequent EIR as set forth in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Therefore, no further environmental documentation is required pursuant to CEQA.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Ross Fehrman, Senior Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Final Map Resolution - 2002 21st St

5.E
Packet Pg. 340
1 City Council Meeting: October 10, 2023 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 66625
TO SUBDIVIDE A PROPERTY AT 2002-2018 21st STREET
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2019, the Santa Monica Planning Commission approved a vesting tentative tract map to create 19 residential condominium airspace parcels on one land lot at 2002-2018 21st Street; and
WHEREAS, a timely filing of a final tract map was made to the County of Los Angeles prior to expiration of the vesting tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.6(d) of the Government Code, if a timely filing of a final map is made to the City or County, then the City may process, approve, and record a final map after the expiration of the vesting tentative map; and WHEREAS, the final tract map conforms to the vesting tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the Final Map for Tract No. 66625 in the City of Santa Monica is hereby accepted and approved.

SECTION 2. That the City Clerk hereby is authorized and directed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authenticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica.

5.E.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Final Map Resolution - 2002 21st St [Revision 2] (5973 : Final Map for Condominium at 2002 21st Street) 2 SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Douglas Sloan
City Attorney

5.E.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Final Map Resolution - 2002 21st St [Revision 2] (5973 : Final Map for Condominium at 2002 21st Street) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 10, 2023
Agenda Item: 5.F
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Engineering and Street Services
Subject: Award Construction and Construction Management Contracts for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Award Bid #SP2680 to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for construction services for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project for the Public Works Department.

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company in an amount not to exceed $2,853,346 (including a 10% contingency).

4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within contract authority.

5. Award Request for Proposals (RFP) #SP2680 to PSOMAS to provide construction management, observation, and material testing services for the FY 2023-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project and the Street Lighting Modernization Program - Package 3 Project for the Public Works Department.

6. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with PSOMAS in an amount not to exceed $600,000.

Summary
The FY 2023-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project (Project) would repair and repave Neilson Way from the southern city limit to Pacific Street and Michigan Avenue from Cloverfield Boulevard to the Bergamot Station Arts Center, and repair sidewalks along Main Street and Montana Avenue. The Project would include asphalt concrete paving, dig-outs at severely cracked locations, traffic signing and

5.F
Packet Pg. 343
2 of 7
striping improvements, and concrete repairs to sidewalks, curb ramps, curbs, and gutters. Staff recommends Sully-Miller Contracting Company to provide construction services in an amount not to exceed $2,853,346 (including a 10% contingency). Staff also recommends PSOMAS to provide construction management and observation services for the FY 2023-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project and Street Lighting Modernization Program – Package 3 Project in an amount not to exceed $600,000 (no contingency).

Discussion
Street Paving Improvements
The Project would repave and install signing and striping improvements on Neilson Way, from the southern city limit to Pacific Street, and on Michigan Avenue, from Cloverfield Boulevard to the Bergamot Station Arts Center. The Project would grind and repave the roadway. Severely deteriorated pavement would be removed and replaced by a new structural section before repaving. After repaving, new signing and striping improvements would be installed to meet current City standards.

Sidewalk Repairs
The Project would repair concrete sidewalks, curbs, and gutters along Main Street and Montana Avenue. Repair locations were identified in the annual sidewalk inspection performed by the Engineering & Street Services Division of Public Works. In addition, concrete curb ramps would be removed and replaced at ten locations along Neilson Way and Michigan Avenue.

Construction Management and Observation Services
The recommended firm would provide construction management and observation services for two projects, FY 2023-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project and Street Lighting Modernization Program – Package 3 Project. The firm would be responsible for conducting weekly progress meetings, reviewing contractor material submittals, coordinating materials testing and inspections, observing the work of the construction contractor to ensure construction adheres to project design plans

5.F
Packet Pg. 344
3 of 7
and specifications, answering contractor questions in the field, verifying contractor invoices, preparing daily reports, capturing and maintaining progress photos, coordinating work with various City departments, distributing construction notifications, and addressing questions or concerns from the public. With a significant number of City projects currently in construction, City staff does not have the capacity to inspect and manage the construction of these two larger scale projects, which requires full-time oversight.

Vendor Selection
Construction Services
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder Sully-Miller Contracting Company
Evaluation
Criteria
Price; the ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder to perform the services; the capacity of the bidder to perform the contract within the time specified; the sufficiency of the bidder’s financial resources; the reputation and experience of the bidder.

Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.180
Bid Data
Date
Posted Posted On Advertise In (City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
7/11/2023 City's Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily
Press
40 8/10/2023
Submittals Received
Sully-Miller Contracting Company $2,593,951.05
Hardy & Harper, Inc. $2,610,000.00
PALP Inc. dba Excel Paving Company $2,844,954.20
All American Asphalt $2,986,053.71
Onyx Paving Company, Inc. $3,030,000.00
Best Bidder Justification
Staff recommends Sully-Miller Contracting Company, the lowest bidder, as the best bidder when evaluating bid price, previous paving project experience, and completion of past projects for the City of Santa Monica.

5.F
Packet Pg. 345
4 of 7
Construction Management and Observation Services
RFQ Information
Prequalified Firms Berg and Associates, Inc., MNS Engineers, Inc., Psomas, TRC Engineers, Inc., and Willdan Engineering
Evaluation Criteria Training/credentials/experience, competence/skill, capacity/ability to perform services promptly, sufficiency of financial/other resources, character/reputation, and price.

Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
RFQ Data
Date
Posted Posted On
Advertised In
(City Charter &
SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Submittals
Received
Date
Publicly
Opened
9/25/2019
City's
Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily
Press 110 29 10/24/2019
RFP Information
Best Qualified Firm PSOMAS
Evaluation Criteria Price; the ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder to perform the services; the capacity of the bidder to perform the contract within the time specified; the sufficiency of the bidder’s financial resources; the reputation and experience of the bidder.

Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
Proposals Received
Berg & Associates
PSOMAS

5.F
Packet Pg. 346
5 of 7
RFP Data
Date
Posted Posted On VendorsDownloaded
Date
Opened
8/8/2023 Directly solicited from 4 Pre-Qualified Firms 3 8/22/2023 Justification to Award
PSOMAS is recommended to provide construction management and observation services from a shortlist of pre-qualified construction management firms. The shortlist was created by way of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process in which proposals were evaluated by staff from the Engineering and Street Services Division.

Two firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP for construction management and observation services. The proposals were evaluated by staff from Engineering and Street Services Division. Staff recommends PSOMAS as the best qualified firm to provide construction management and observation services based on its qualifications, price, and its directly related experience providing similar services for municipal agencies.

Public Outreach
Construction is expected to begin in early 2024 and last for eight to ten months. Prior to and during construction, City staff and the contractor would distribute notifications to adjacent properties detailing the project scope, construction schedule, and potential impacts. Periodic updates would be provided, as necessary. Social media would be utilized to notify the public about general construction updates.

Environmental Review
The Project is categorically exempt as a Class 1 exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. This project would repave existing City streets and repair existing concrete sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The project would not expand or materially change existing City streets or infrastructure. Furthermore, none of the

5.F
Packet Pg. 347
6 of 7
exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2, apply to this exemption.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the Gas Tax, Miscellaneous Grants, Water, and Wastewater Funds to award a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company to provide construction services for the FY 2023-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project.

Contract Request
FY 2023-24
Request Amount CIP Account # Account Description Total Contract Amount $1,921,208 C2604600.689610 RMRA $1,921,208
$432,138 C2008500.689000 Annual Paving Program Grant $432,138 $250,000 C5004600.689000 Water Fund $250,000
$250,000 C5104600.689000 Wastewater Fund $250,000
Total $2,853,346
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the Local Return Fund to award a contract with PSOMAS to provide construction management and observation services for the FY 2023-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project and Street Lighting Modernization Program – Package 3 Project.

Contract Request
FY2023-24
Request Amount CIP Account # Account Description
Total
Contract
Amount
$300,000 C2704600.689120.21039 Measure R $300,000
$300,000 C2704590.689110 Measure M $300,000
Total $600,000

5.F
Packet Pg. 348
7 of 7
Prepared By: Robert Zak, Civil Engineer
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Oaks Initiative Form - Sully Miller Contracting Company B. Oaks Initiative Form - Psomas

5.F
Packet Pg. 349

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form - Sully Miller Contracting Company (5589 : Award Construction Contract for FY23-24 Annual Street Paving

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form - Sully Miller Contracting Company (5589 : Award Construction Contract for FY23-24 Annual Street Paving

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________ Psomas
List of officers is attached on following page
Not Applicable. No person has more than 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest.

Brett Barnett, PE, CCM, QSD Vice President
8/22/2034
[email protected] 714.481.7933
__
2__ 03

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form - Psomas (5589 : Award Construction Contract for FY23-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project)

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form - Psomas (5589 : Award Construction Contract for FY23-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project)

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form - Psomas (5589 : Award Construction Contract for FY23-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project)

5.F.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form - Psomas (5589 : Award Construction Contract for FY23-24 Annual Street Paving and Sidewalk Repair Project) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 10, 2023
Agenda Item: 5.G
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lori Gentles, Chief People Officer, Human Resources Department Subject: Approval of Agreement with Trustmark for Long Term Care Insurance Coverage
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Trustmark for Long-Term Care (LTC) insurance coverage for a period of 5 years with one additional one-year option for the Human Resources Department. This is a no cost contract to the City with an estimated value of $240,000. All services are paid by the plan participants, who are employees that voluntarily elect to obtain LTC coverage.

Summary
AB 567 (Calderon, Chapter 746, Statutes of 2019) established the Long-Term Care (LTC) Insurance Task Force (Task Force) in the California Department of Insurance to explore the feasibility of developing and implementing a culturally competent statewide insurance program for long-term care services and support. As part of the City’s employee benefits program, the City would like to provide Long-Term Care coverage to staff to address the need for accessible and comprehensive eldercare services due to an aging population with limited assets and significant Long-Term Care needs. All premiums and fees relating to the services are voluntary and borne by plan participants, not the City. Health and disability insurance exclude LTC services, Medicare offers minimal coverage, and Medicaid typically requires individuals to be below a certain

5.G
Packet Pg. 356
2 of 3
income to qualify. Very few people own private LTC coverage, and many carriers have exited the market.

Discussion
The state of California is considering legislation to mandate long term care insurance through a state-run program with funding from taxes (e.g., payroll tax). In 2021, Washington became the first state to adopt a mandatory, State-run LTC insurance program. California’s LTC Task Force mission is to explore a statewide insurance program for LTC services and support. Plan participants who elect to receive this benefit may have the opportunity to opt out of the payroll tax. These benefits may be used for a range of services, including professional care at home or at a licensed facility; training, pay and support for family members who provide care; memory care; home-delivered meals; rides to a health care provider; adaptive equipment and technology; home safety evaluation; and emergency alert devices.

Due to many insurers having exited the LTC market, there are few carriers who provide this benefit. As a result, The City worked with its broker, Alliant, to assess available carriers’ customer base, pricing, and solvency. Of those carriers, the City looked at its employee base and cost of premiums to determine the best long-term option. Trustmark provides two-tiers offering greater affordability and equity based on varying benefits, including a guaranteed issue LTC benefit available for employer groups in California.

Trustmark gives employees the most cost-effective option and a Universal Life Policy that builds equity. The fund will be supported by a premium paid by employees only.

This procedure is consistent with the City’s informal bidding process as set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.210. The informal bidding process is appropriate due to the estimated value of the contract not exceeding $250,000. Staff has elected to present this agreement to the City Council for approval to ensure maximum transparency due to the nature of the services that will result in additional employee benefits on a voluntary basis.

5.G
Packet Pg. 357
3 of 3
Environmental Impact
The agreement for Long-Term Care insurance coverage is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The agreement would provide administrative services to the City and would not result in physical effects. No further environmental review is necessary.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. All premiums and fees relating to the services are voluntary and borne by plan participants, not the City.

Prepared By: Sasha Sargent, Executive Administrative Assistant Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. OAKS INITIATIVE FORM 10.04.2023

5.G
Packet Pg. 358

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after theofficial votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of SantaMonica.

All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, theCity compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any personorpersons whois seeking a “publicbenefit.” If the“public benefit” is sought by an entity, ratherthan an individual person, the information includes the nameof everyperson who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.

5.G.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM 10.04.2023 (5994 : Long Term Care Insurance Agreement)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-monthperiod;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more inany 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #

5.G.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM 10.04.2023 (5994 : Long Term Care Insurance Agreement) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 10, 2023
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 19
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Architecture Services Subject: Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council:

1. Review and comment on the democratic lottery process as the primary public engagement method for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project;

2. Provide direction to staff about: the framing question the Lottery Selected Panel would answer and whether the Lottery Selected Panel should be comprised of Santa Monica residents only or also include business owners and/or people from the adjacent West Los Angeles area; and

3. Direct staff to prepare a sole source contract, as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (b), for Healthy Democracy to provide the services related to the democratic lottery process and bring it back for Council review in November.

Summary
As per Council direction on January 24, 2023 (Attachment A), City staff have been working to assemble a team of consultants to help the City prepare for the anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) after December 31, 2028.

During these past eight months, staff explored the notion of a democratic lotteryselected panel for the outreach scope of this project to happen concurrently with the work of the Design and Technical Team (D+TT) instead of being led by the D+TT and Staff, the traditional way of engaging community members.

The City has a long history of reaching out to and engaging with our community members on long-range planning projects. From the General Plan Land Use and

7.A
Packet Pg. 361
2 of 19
Circulation Element (LUCE) to the most recent Housing Element, staff designed the planning efforts to maximize community participation and find consensus on tradeoffs. While each of these were adopted by a majority of City Council members, each plan took longer than expected and many in our community were left feeling disenfranchised and disconnected. Previous outreach methods attempted to bring each of these plans to every Santa Monican but even with these concerted efforts only those with life circumstances that afforded them the ability to participate were able to do so. These traditional planning efforts faced challenges due to limited participation opportunities, individual unwillingness to participate, and plan fatigue, among others.

To overcome these issues, staff proposes a democratic lottery process facilitated by the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Healthy Democracy (HD). This process is designed to efficiently navigate the complexities of planning by involving a broad and diverse panel of individuals that represent the Santa Monica community at large. The Lottery- Selected Panel (“Panel” or “LSP”) is intended to be the focal point for public engagement, with multiple opportunities to gather input from stakeholders and the wider community. The goal is to establish a comprehensive and inclusive approach to planning the airport's future that considers the realities of Measure LC, the needs of our community now and in the future and seeks to foster broad consensus on how to move forward. The principles of the Lottery-Selected Panel approach include:
selection by democratic lottery (or sortition), transparency of the process and recommendations, collaboration between differing points of view, ample time for information gathering and deliberating ideas iteratively, independence from special interest groups, and accessibility to all participants.

An Information Item detailing the proposed outreach process was provided to the City Council on September 25, 2023, and is included as an attachment to this Staff Report (Attachment B).

Discussion

7.A
Packet Pg. 362
3 of 19
Over the last two decades, land-use planning has been a contentious issue in Santa Monica. The City has undertaken several major planning endeavors, including the LUCE, Bergamot Area Plan, Downtown Community Plan, and the most recent Housing Element, aimed to encourage robust community involvement and to find consensus on proposed changes. Despite achieving City Council approval for each of these plans, they all encountered significant opposition. This resistance, directed at key plan components, or the plan as a whole, led to prolonged disputes that forced City Council into the challenging task of managing conflicting viewpoints. This scenario created a “winner/loser” dynamic, leaving many community members feeling excluded from or upset by the decision-making process. Even though City staff and their consultants made efforts to extensively engage residents and businesses through various traditional methods of outreach/engagement, including workshops, pop-up events, and participation in local groups and City Council meetings, the community’s reaction often expressed dissatisfaction with these methods and only a small percentage of community members could participate.

Traditional outreach methods are further challenged due to limited participation opportunities for community members (the number of events are limited and times may not align with the availability of community members), personal barriers to volunteering time to attend engagement events (the only people who can participate are those with life circumstances that allow them to do so); and plan fatigue, as these efforts can take years and those who can and want to participate grow weary.

In contrast to the above, LSPs are a democratic innovation that are designed to involve everyday people in public decision-making. Often called “Citizens’ Assemblies” or “Policy Juries,” these processes merge two crucial elements: a democratic lottery that guarantees a diverse panel that is representative of our actual community, and a deliberative process that allows Panelists to collaboratively formulate well-informed policy and/or land-use recommendations that go directly to decision-makers. With over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to engage residents in collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy solutions.

7.A
Packet Pg. 363
4 of 19
Figure 1 – Healthy Democracy’s lottery-selected panel
process.

7.A
Packet Pg. 364
5 of 19
In LSPs, participants are selected through a democratic lottery, ensuring representation across demographic factors. The process actively invites randomly chosen community members, breaking participation barriers by reaching people in their homes via mailers. Those who respond to the invitation mailer opt-in to a pool of respondents who are then selected in a public lottery selection event to participate in the process. To encourage diverse participation, it is anticipated that healthy Democracy may provide Panelists stipends and reimbursements to alleviate the financial burden of participating and other accommodations are made to ensure inclusivity and break down some of the challenges noted above. Support services for the Community Panel, such as translation and adaptive technology, catering to diverse learning styles, further ensures that a representative sample of Santa Monica’s community members can participate fully in the process. It should be noted that the work of the Panel does not supplant the traditional planning process. The preferred scenario would be presented to the City Council as the Panel’s recommendation, but the City Council has the authority to accept, revise, or reject the scenario. If it is accepted, only then would the City begin the Specific Plan, Zoning, and General Plan updates necessary to move forward. This next phase of work is not included in the Panel’s work.

Once selected, the Panel is tasked with answering the framing question. To do so they are guided by professional third-party facilitators, to collaboratively explore guiding principles and scenario options related to the question. The deliberative process places community members at the center of comprehensive decision-making and fosters the ability to identify common-ground solutions. They gather information from presenters, stakeholders, and experts, and use it to evaluate options and tradeoffs through facilitated small-group work. The broader community can view the plenary discussions, even if they were not selected to be on the Panel, as all group discussions will be live streamed. There will also be opportunities to provide input to the Panel during their sessions through a variety of methods.

7.A
Packet Pg. 365
6 of 19
The Panel will work over the course of nine months to understand existing conditions, learn from each other, create guiding principles, deliberate on scenarios, and provide recommendations to the City Council, with emphasis on community buy-in.

Participants will have access to a Design and Technical Team (D+TT), contracted through the City separately from this work, to support the Panel's work as well and ensure the recommendations the Panel creates are rooted in an actionable plan that considers ‘Day 1’ through full realization scenarios. Stakeholders and the broader community will be involved in the process by nominating presenters and engaging in feedback loops thereby deepening the reach and understanding of the Panel and community support. Given their extensive time commitment and collaborative orientation, Panelists quickly become leaders who are trusted, both by the public and elected officials, to work in service of the broadest public good. The recommendations, written by the Panelists themselves, will be presented directly to City Council. This thorough and cooperative approach fosters recommendations with wide community support and strong legitimacy.

Lottery-Selected Panel Process Specifics
The processes of Lottery-Selected Panels prioritize universal access, ensuring that everyone can meaningfully participate in decision-making. In contrast to traditional methods that place the responsibility on participants, these panels uphold the belief that every individual has the right to be involved in decisions affecting their lives. To achieve this inclusivity, barriers are actively reduced, and support is offered to Panelists throughout the process. This support starts from the moment the Panelists are selected, including personalized contact to address accessibility needs and provide an orientation to the process. Dedicated staff are available to offer intensive assistance to each panelist, setting a new standard for inclusivity and countering unequal barriers often faced by marginalized individuals. By adopting this peoplecentric approach to land-use and policymaking, the aim is to create an environment where all individuals feel that they belong at the decision-making table, minimizing obstacles to participation.

1. Preparation for the Selection Process

7.A
Packet Pg. 366
7 of 19
a. City Council to approve the framing question the Panel would answer. b. An education campaign for Santa Monica community members about the democratic lottery process and what the mailers look like and why folks might want to send in the response and participate.

2. Panelist Selection Process
The selection process begins 10-12 weeks before the Panel’s first day. Panelists in LSPs are chosen using a democratic lottery, ensuring a representative sample from the general public. Unlike traditional methods that rely on self-selected participants, this approach engages new residents through a randomized process. The process starts with Healthy Democracy invitations to randomly chosen residential addresses, simplifying participation by offering incentives like stipends, language services, and expense reimbursements, if needed. From the respondents, a panel is randomly selected to represent a diverse cross-section of the city. a. Mailings are sent to 15,000-20,000 randomly selected (by Healthy Democracy) residential addresses.
b. Any qualified residents at the selected addressees may reply by selfreporting demographic information and returning the postage-paid mailer back to Healthy Democracy. A “qualified” person is one who is at least 18 years of age, primarily lives at the address that the mailing was sent (or have received a ‘golden ticket’ from a social service agency), are not a current or former elected official and are not a current City staff member. c. Healthy Democracy staff will take the responses and develop hundreds of possible panels using the community demographics of Santa Monica guaranteeing that any panel selected will reflect the diverse population in the city. Each respondent is given a number to protect the privacy of the Panelists.
d. A public lottery selection event is held to select the Panel and an alternate panel in case any folks need to drop off before the Panel is seated. Only the numbers are shown, not names at this stage.

7.A
Packet Pg. 367
8 of 19
e. Panelists are then informed by Healthy Democracy’s Panelist Liaison and provided with comprehensive support services so they can participate fully once the Panel is seated.
f. It is anticipated that the Panel will consist of approximately 40 people.

3. Panelist Services
In addition to ensuring that the Santa Monica community is represented fairly and equitably, Healthy Democracy may compensate the Panelists for their time and effort to alleviate the financial burden of participating. This helps ensure level footing by all community members and illustrates the City’s commitment to listening to community members and not filtering responses about the future of the Santa Monica Airport.

Healthy Democracy proposes to offer the following services:
a. Stipends are a key equity component of this process to ensure a wider audience can participate. Traditional public engagement relies on residents’ ability to give freely of their time, which allows those with greater access to resources to have their voice heard more frequently. It is anticipated that offering a stipend to offset the burden will incentivize participation of those with fewer resources in terms of time and money.
b. Reimbursements for additional expenses incurred in order to participate, such as public transportation, further level the playing field by providing support for community members that typically do not participate due to family circumstances or lack of access to reliable transportation to and from Panel discussions.
c. Comprehensive language services are provided so that residents whose primary language is not English can participate fully. d. Technology support is provided if an in-person meeting is not possible, mostly this was needed as a response to COVID-19 outbreaks but if an unforeseen circumstance occurs, necessary equipment and tech support will be provided.
e. Process orientation is critical and provided after the Panel is finalized.

This includes a personalized interview and information session,

7.A
Packet Pg. 368
9 of 19
survey of accessibility needs, dietary requirements, and intake paperwork.
f. Accessibility accommodations are proactively identified and provided for in-person venues and electronic communications as well.
g. Other logistical support might include setting up carpools, oneon-one phone support, delivery of materials in case of illness, and addressing other needs as they come up to ensure Panelists can fully participate.
h. Meals and refreshments are also provided throughout Panelist deliberation days and accommodates food allergies and
restrictions.

4. Deliberation
The deliberative process places everyday individuals at the core of well-informed and collaborative decision-making. Analogous to a jury trial, Panelists receive comprehensive information and then independently deliberate on recommendations.

By engaging with numerous presenters, stakeholders, and experts, Panelists will gain an understanding of the diverse perspectives about the Airport project.

Through carefully structured small-group discussions facilitated by professionals, Panelists analyze options, assess trade-offs, and collaboratively devise solutions.

The broader public's input is integrated throughout the process to ensure diverse community voices are considered. The recommendations, crafted in Panelists' own words, are presented directly to decision makers. The rigorous and collaborative nature of the deliberative process generates recommendations that typically enjoy widespread community support and notable legitimacy.

Healthy Democracy will provide these unique process elements:
a. The deliberative process leaves time and space for deep and thoughtful deliberation that will occur over 140 hours of discussion in six weekend-long meetings allowing Panelists to ‘dig in’ to the

7.A
Packet Pg. 369
10 of 19
topic. At these meetings the Panel will utilize diverse and iterative formats, led by third-party facilitators, that allow for larger group discussions and then small-group work and activities to bring about trust and understanding when tackling hard questions.
b. Healthy Democracy will engage in an intensive onboarding process to yield productive collaboration by including activities related to communication styles cognitive biases, and power and privilege.

This is important to unlock people’s natural knack for collaborative problem solving and move beyond “win/lose” thinking.
c. There will be an extensive learning phase with dozens of presenters, personal story-telling and site-specific learnings. During this time Healthy Democracy will also demystify policy making and empower Panelists to become experts on this complex topic, exercise judgement and believe in their lived experiences. d. Healthy Democracy will convene an Information Committee (IC) that will ensure balanced information reaches the Panel during its initial learning phase.
e. The notion that stakeholders and experts are “on tap, not on top” to help inform the Panel but allow Panelists to recommend common ground solutions and work through their own process to make decisions.
f. Panelists will lead several community engagement opportunities including a community workshop and by utilizing a tool called Pol.is to “listen at scale” to what the community thinks about what the Panel is working on without it being filtered through City staff or electees. The Panelists receive direct feedback from the community and can consider it in future discussions.
g. There is a strict process/content delineation over what and how the Panel receives information and then delivers recommendations.

Typical outreach engagements rely on consultants of City staff to collect, interpret, and summarize comments that can lead to misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what the public thinks.

7.A
Packet Pg. 370
11 of 19
The LSP process eliminates outside intervention so that the Panel speaks for itself and reports out directly to City Council. h. Panel autonomy is of paramount importance. Panelists define the process and Healthy Democracy is there to support and guide them, but the Panel makes its own self-governance decisions.
i. There is third-party academic evaluation at each stage of the project to continue learning and improving the LSP process.

5. Timeline
Healthy Democracy has proposed the following time commitment for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project: six (6) weekends and each weekend is expected to be three-day weekends (Friday – Sunday) that could shift as the actual Panel is selected.

Full workdays would be from 9 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. with a break for lunch. The full schedule is in the attached proposed scope of services (Attachment C), but an overview is provided below with anticipated timeframes.

1. Weekend 1 (Fall 2024)
a. Welcome, introductions, Panelist lived-experiences, and Airport tour. b. Meet and greet with Design and Technical Team (D+TT) and other Information Committee (IC) approved presenters.
c. Activities around identifying potential Guiding Principles, Pol.is usage, and decision-making methodologies.
d. Initiate first Pol.is engagement with broader community.

2. Weekend 2 (Fall 2024)
a. More IC selected presenters and the first Panel
requested presentations.
b. Independent Panelist research and interactions with D+TT c. Review Pol.is feedback.
d. Brainstorming and iterative workshopping of Guiding
Principles in rotating small groups.
e. Initiate self-governance structure through Panelist-led subcommittees.

3. Weekend 3 (Winter 2025)

7.A
Packet Pg. 371
12 of 19
a. Panelist-driven research and additional Panel-requested presenters. b. Panel-hosted community event.
c. Initiate second Pol.is to the broader community.
d. Guiding Principles Report finalization and delivery. e. Exploration of specific land-use frameworks in rotating small groups.

4. Weekend 4 (Winter 2025)
a. Review responses back from the Guiding Principles Report. b. Deep Dive #1 with D+TT, to collaboratively explore potential land-use frameworks and precedent case studies.
c. Review Pol.is feedback from broader community.
d. Iterative brainstorming and exploration of land-use frameworks and tradeoffs analysis.
e. Organize around concepts for scenarios.

5. Weekend 5 (Spring 2025)
a. Review feedback from D+TT and stakeholders.
b. Deep Dive #2 with D+TT, to collaboratively develop
multiple comprehensive site use alternatives.
c. Alternative Scenarios Report finalization and delivery.

6. Weekend 6 (Summer 2025)
a. Review responses from City Council, stakeholders, and the broader public on the Alternative Scenarios Report.
b. Deep Dive #3 with D+TT, to bring the Panel’s alternative scenarios together into one cohesive recommendation.
c. Preferred Scenario Report finalization and delivery.

Anticipated LSP Project Timeline

7.A
Packet Pg. 372
13 of 19
Item Date
Info Item Submitted to City Council September 25, 2023
City Council Study Session October 10, 2023
City Council Contract Authorization November 14, 2023
Panel Process Kick-off January 2024
Design & Technical Team Kick-off January 2024
Public Panel Selection Summer 2024
Design & Technical Team Existing Conditions Report Summer 2024 First Panel Weekend Fall 2024
Second Panel Weekend Fall 2024
Third Panel Weekend Winter 2025
Fourth Panel Weekend Winter 2025
Fifth Panel Weekend Spring 2025
Final Panel Weekend Summer 2025
Table 1 – Anticipated Lottery-Selected Panel Timeline

7.A
Packet Pg. 373
14 of 19

7. Cost

7.A
Packet Pg. 374
15 of 19
Figure 2 – Healthy Democracy’s Proposed Project Timeline

7.A
Packet Pg. 375
16 of 19
While there is no budget request now, the anticipated cost for this robust and diverse community outreach process which will ensure that a representative portion of Santa Monica’s population is able to participate is $1,200,000 – 1,500,00.00 (including a 20% contingency). Staff have included the detailed proposed scope of services as an attachment to this staff report for reference and consideration (Attachment C). Also, the Design and Technical Team has been mentioned throughout this Staff Report and the anticipated cost for their scope of work is $1,300,000 - $1,400,000 (with a 10% contingency). Both contracts would be brought to the City Council for consideration and approval at the November 14th meeting.

Questions for City Council Related to the LSP Next Steps Staff requests feedback on the following items related to the Lottery-Selected Panel process specifically.

1. The Panel’s work focuses on answering the framing question set forth by City Council. Please confirm or revise the following suggested framing question:
a. With the anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport after 2028, there is an exciting and unique opportunity to develop a vision for over 200 acres of public land to serve generations to come. In all of its work, the City strives for a community that is vibrant, safe, sustainable, resilient, mobile, culturally rich, ethnically diverse, and equitable to serve the needs of the entire community and to foster a thriving local economy. Therefore, the project and this land, which was originally purchased for a public park, must be in service of this vision. With this background, how should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land-uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?

2. Council to confirm if the Panel should be comprised of:

7.A
Packet Pg. 376
17 of 19
a. Santa Monica residents only (unless displaced); or
b. Include business owners as well; and/or
c. Include up to two people from the adjacent West Los Angeles area.

Staff recommends that Healthy Democracy use the current general population data for Santa Monica, based on the most recent US Census data (except where Census data is not available – e.g. unhoused individuals – in which case other current sources will be used) for the Panel selection.

Why Healthy Democracy?
Healthy Democracy (HD) is a unique nonpartisan, nonprofit organization in the United States that focuses on designing and coordinating Lottery-Selected Panels with local governments. Unlike other similar organizations, HD maintains a strict separation between process and content, avoiding practitioner bias and promoting Panel participant agency. Their processes are topic-agnostic, and moderators only ask non- content questions to help guide the process, not the outcome. The organization employs democratic methods for informational input, involving a separate deliberative process conducted by the Information Committee, which is independent from the convening agency to curate introductory information for the Panel.

Moreover, HD has worked in California on a land-use planning project process, while other LSP practitioners in the US have worked on policy frameworks only. Also, the HD process considers participatory disparities and suggests adjustments to ensure the inclusion of marginalized communities for a more equitable LSP. Further, Panelist empowerment is a core principle, as their processes center around Panelists' authority, featuring Panelist-led governance, conflict resolution, oversight of designers and moderators, and external communications.

These distinct aspects set Healthy Democracy's Lottery-Selected Panels apart within the realm of citizens' assemblies, differentiating their approach from other organizations both in the United States and internationally.

7.A
Packet Pg. 377
18 of 19
Update on RFQ/P Process
As per Council direction on January 24th of this year (Attachment A), staff solicited a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Airport Conversion Project on February 13th that received 27 responses for three scopes of work: 1) Existing Conditions Report; 2)
Community Outreach; and 3) Scenario Planning and Analysis when it closed on March 13th. From those 27 responses, staff short-listed eight (8) teams and invited them to submit for the Request for Proposal (RFP) on May 15th. It was during the writing of the RFP that Staff decided to remove Scope 2 (Community Outreach) from the RFP and pursue the democratic lottery selection process with Healthy Democracy and have the Design and Technical Team (D+TT) perform a much smaller/supportive role for the outreach work. The deadline for responding to the RFP was June 29th and from the eight proposers, five (5) teams were invited to participate in virtual interviews. Those interviews occurred the week of July 14th and those five teams were permitted to revise their proposals as a ‘best and final’ response due August 4th. Of the final five teams Staff has selected a recommended proposer that will be brought before Council for consideration on November 14th. If approved by Council, this team would be the D+TT referenced throughout this staff report.

Past Council Actions
While Airport matters have been before City Council many times in the past several decades, below are the previous dates that the Airport Conversion Project has been before City Council.

Meeting Date Description
01/24/2023 (Attachment A) City Council directed staff to begin working on the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
09/25/2023 (Attachment B) Information Item sent to City Council Environmental Review

7.A
Packet Pg. 378
19 of 19
No environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required at this time since the purpose of this study session is to receive Council direction and comments. No actions are being undertaken that will result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Financial Impacts and Budget Action
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of this Study Session. However, with City Council’s direction and comments, staff will return to City Council at the November 14th meeting for contract approval.

Prepared By: Amber Richane, Acting Chief Operating Officer – Special Projects Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. January 24, 2023 - Staff Report (Web Link)
B. Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process C. SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services
D. Written Comments
E. PowerPoint Presentation
F. Presentation Outreach Overview

7.A
Packet Pg. 379
Information Item
Date: September 25, 2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director
Subject: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
Introduction
This Information Item introduces the plan to engage the community for the “Future of Santa Monica Airport Project”. Staff proposes that the City utilize a Democratic Lottery process to guide community engagement and this Information Item provides an overview of the process.

Background
At direction from the City Council at the January 24, 2023 meeting and after a series of twenty outreach meetings to the City’s Boards and Commissions, neighborhood groups, local and regional stakeholder organizations, and other interested parties, project staff have developed an approach to address public engagement in a way that deepens the community’s understanding of the core issues and tradeoffs related to transforming the 227 acres that comprise the Santa Monica Airport into a sustainable community asset (including a “great park”) that can serve the needs of multiple generations of Santa Monicans. The approach is designed to address many of the traditional inadequacies of the land-use planning process that foment divisions within the community, and result in barriers to participation that exclude or marginalize the voices of important segments of our population.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 2 The scale of opportunity presented by the closure of the Santa Monica Airport after December 31, 2028, mandates a unique public engagement model to develop a vision and implementation strategy that enjoys the support of the community, contemplates an outcome that is focused on utilizing the Airport land to provide multi-generational benefits, and builds resiliency against environmental, economic, and social impacts.

Given the far-ranging expectations for the land to accomplish these goals, and the interest in allowing the community to participate in exploring the complexity of issues faced by Airport conversion, staff proposes to utilize a Democratic Lottery process to guide community engagement.

A Democratic Lottery is a method of selecting community representatives through a randomized lottery-based system to serve as a Community Focus Group Panel that would have a direct connection to decision-makers. This approach demands broad demographic representation, and minimizes the influence of special interests, as it allows individuals from all segments of the community to participate in the decision-making process. While not common in North America, the Democratic Lottery process is utilized in many countries as a standard for addressing contemporary policy questions around land-use, economics, environmental stewardship, and voter representation. In over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to deeply engage their community in collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy decisions.

Recently, the City of Petaluma utilized a Democratic Lottery to identify a future land-use plan for its historic Fairgrounds, a 55-acre parcel in the middle of their community that served as a seasonal gathering space for over 100 years. Similar to the Santa Monica Airport, the Petaluma Fairgrounds presented the City of Petaluma with an opportunity to reimagine a large public parcel into a more connected, accessible, and productive community space, but after nearly two decades of failed attempts to determine the fate of the site no consensus had been reached. In a renewed effort in 2022, Petaluma officials unveiled an entirely new approach that utilized the Democratic Lottery process.

In under six months, the lottery-selected panel delivered its recommendation to the Petaluma City Council for adoption. The Panel’s recommendation was backed by broad community support involving many previously adversarial counterparts who had bought

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 3 into the process and found compromise and agreement on the preferred land-use recommendation.

Staff proposes to use the Democratic Lottery process for the Future of Santa Monica Airport project.

Discussion
The Santa Monica Airport (“Airport” or “SMO”) is more than just another municipal real estate asset or functional transportation facility; it is a living piece of Santa Monica’s history. In continuous use since 1917, the Airport has been part of the community for over 100 years, during which time its aviation functions have changed considerably. Starting out as a grass landing strip in a barley field for WWI pilots, it then became home of the Douglas Aircraft company, and served as a critical manufacturing center for the Federal Government’s WWII effort. After the war, it emerged as an aviation technology center, and finally a local general aviation airport, which it continues to be to this day.

The City of Santa Monica is authorized to close the Airport 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 on how this space can best serve Santa Monica and how the City can fund and govern this asset.

Land-use planning is often a hotly debated topic. Over the past 20 years, the City has taken on a number of high-profile planning efforts to alter the organization and zoning of the cityscape, including the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), the Bergamot Area Plan, the Downtown Community Plan and the recently adopted 2021-

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 4 2028 Housing Element. All of these long-range planning efforts were designed to maximize community participation, and to find consensus on trade-offs associated with the level of change contemplated by policy makers. Though each plan was ultimately adopted by the City Council, they suffered tremendous opposition from vocal community members whose resistance to key elements of each plan – or even the entire plan itself – resulted in protracted land use battles that placed Council in a difficult position of navigating narrow majority perspectives and fostered a “winner/loser” paradigm that left many in the community feeling disenfranchised from the decisionmaking process. Further, despite staff and consultant teams’ best efforts to “bring the plan to the doorstep” of every Santa Monica resident or business owner, the traditional outreach methodology of workshops, pop-up’s, and participation at neighborhood groups, City Council and Boards and Commission meetings, aroused sentiments of dissatisfaction throughout the community based on the following themes:
• Limited opportunities for participation: Outreach activities are typically limited during a planning effort to available staff resources and project outreach budgets, as well as agendized discussions with City Council or the City’s Boards and Commissions. Even projects like the Downtown Community Plan, which spanned six years and included 22 public workshops was viewed by some members of the community as insufficient to hear comprehensively from residents and businesses.
• Requires individual volition to participate: Staff always endeavors to design an outreach process that is accessible and meets people “where they are.” Typically, this involves hosting workshops on weekends or evenings when working people have less obligations. For this reason, City Council and Boards and Commission meetings are also conducted in the evenings. Despite this arrangement, other barriers to participation exist that prevent many segments of the community from lending their voice to the narrative, including family obligations (childcare or senior care), transportation to access planning workshops or scheduled civic meetings, technology to meet in a virtual space, or a general feeling of disenfranchisement from decision-making based on lived experience. The 2030 LUCE, which spanned five years and involved over 4,000 residents and business members was presented to the community in dozens of workshops, meetings and events, and was debated by nearly every Board and Commission. Despite the comprehensive intent of the outreach and the project’s exposure to over a half-decade of community discussion, only 4% of residents actually participated in the plan formation. The other 96% of Santa Monica’s population chose not to participate based on many of the factors described herein.
• Caters to those with time and interest: Two key components to voluntary participation in outreach activities are a) having the time to attend city-sponsored events or meetings, and b) a personal or collective interest in the outcome.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 5 Because of the onerous time commitment to participate in long-range planning efforts (either attending lengthy workshops or waiting hours at Council meetings to speak for two minutes) many members of the community opt out, leaving vocal minorities to fill the airspace with special interests or contrarian viewpoints. This results in a narrow representation of perspectives during the planning exercise, which is often dominated by “frequent fliers” who have both the time and interest in engaging the City on future outcomes. By only engaging community members whose life circumstances provide for civic participation in the formats that are traditionally offered, we miss the City’s diversity, equity, and inclusion goals of engagement.
• Plan fatigue: Given the duration of many of these planning efforts, the number of choices, and the level of passion inherent in the discussion of future tradeoffs and change, many in the community experience a sensation known as “plan fatigue.” Plan fatigue, also known as “decision fatigue” or “choice overload” occurs when individuals become overwhelmed or exhausted by having to make numerous decisions or evaluate multiple options. Plan fatigue is particularly acute when large audiences, such as those who have participated in the City’s past longrange efforts, are asked to commit to lengthy multi-year discussions.

To adequately plan for the future of the Santa Monica Airport, the City seeks to implement a model of civic participation that resolves the factors above. Importantly, the City must also use a process that can move efficiently through the steps of defining existing conditions, elaborating a vision, and then using that vision as the basis of traditional planning work to develop a framework for implementation prior to planned closure at the end of 2028. The proposed Democratic Lottery process is a solution that can help the City and the community to address the complexity of the visioning effort efficiently and effectively. To bring the appropriate level of both breadth and depth, the City has engaged Healthy Democracy (HD), a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, to manage the Lottery-Selected Panel (“Panel”). This process will be the primary component of the City’s public engagement on the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project and will also include additional methods for collecting input from stakeholders and the broader community.

What is a Democratic Lottery?
Lottery-Selected Panels (LSP) are democratic systems that help governments tackle difficult policy questions. Panelists are everyday people. They are community members who are randomly selected and reflective of Santa Monica. They are a representation of

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 6 the city in one room. These Panels are professionally facilitated and follow a structured process to ensure fairness and productivity. They are designed to focus on collaborative problem solving and evidence. Academic research and real-world examples have shown that they handle complex policy questions effectively and fairly.

What makes a Lottery-Selected Panel different
Although Lottery-Selected Panels act in the role of a community focus group, their principles and practices differ from standard advisory committees in a number of key ways:
● Panelists are selected by democratic lottery – a stratified random sample of individuals aged 18+, a microcosm of the community in one room. Because Lottery-Selected Panels are composed of individuals who typically do not volunteer for other City processes, they are capable of more deliberative arbitration of controversial topics.
● Stakeholders and interest groups are not absent from the process, but they do not sit on the Panel itself. Rather, they participate in the process in two primary ways:
o As a presenter: A diverse selection of stakeholder organizations nominate and prioritize introductory presentations to the Panel. The presenters are vetted by an Information Committee that is made up of representatives from various Santa Monica Boards and Commissions, to determine those initial presenters. After the first meeting the Panel then selects additional presenters for their future meetings.
o As a feedback loop: Stakeholders and community members are invited to participate in feedback loops with the Panel through online deliberative tools and other Panel-hosted events.
● The Panel is treated more like a community focus group than a typical City board and commission. Staff serves the Panel in supportive, rather than directive, role. This paradigm shift is reflected in process design, moderation style, and budget.
● The Panel gathers a wide range of evidence. In addition to stakeholders, the Panel typically hears from staff and non-staff expert presenters, has ample time to review documents and question all presenters, and may call its own presenters. It may also receive other public engagement inputs – including survey data, listening sessions, walking tours, etc. – or hold open public workshops.
● The Panel engages in lengthy deliberations around grounding values and principles, before delving into any project solutions. These discussions seek mutual understanding and shared goals, but they do not force consensus. As

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 7 with the rest of the process, they are professionally moderated and follow a detailed process design established in advance – while remaining flexible to the Panel’s needs.
● The Panel has the opportunity to engage in in-depth feedback loops with technical staff, to review proposed policies in detail. ● The Panel’s output is therefore substantial, including both:
o Criteria on which it believes any decision should rest, and o Detailed policy/land-use recommendations.
● In order to accomplish these significant tasks, Panels are highly efficient public processes, while remaining comfortable, supportive, and collaborative environments for Panelists.
● Since randomly selected Panels include folks from many walks of life, universal accessibility is emphasized and stipends/reimbursements may be provided to alleviate potential financial impediments to participating. Both the in-room process and out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists’ specific needs, providing support services such as translation and assistive technology and adapting to differential learning styles to ensure a representative sample of Santa Monica’s community members can fully participate.

How Will This Panel Be Selected?
Participants are selected from the general public using a democratic lottery, also known as a representative random sample or sortition, using open-source software called Panelot. While most public engagement processes rely on the same self-selected individuals, democratic lotteries engage new residents through a randomized selection process. The lottery begins with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential addresses that makes it as easy as possible to say “yes.” From the resulting pool of respondents, a Panel of approximately 40 people is randomly selected (at a public event). Lottery-Selected Panels don’t just “work toward” representation; they are designed to achieve a cross-section of the community’s diversity. Selected Panelists are offered language interpretation and may be reimbursed for expenses incurred from participating on the panel. This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized residents, it helps ensure panelist remain engaged throughout the entire process.

The deliberative process then puts everyday people at the center of in-depth, wellinformed, and collaborative decision-making. Given that most lottery-selected Panelists

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 8 do not have prior experience with the policy topic, they have a unique capacity for identifying common ground solutions in the public’s best interest. Much like a jury trial, they receive a vast amount of information before independently deliberating on recommendations. Rather than being presented with pre-packaged information from a sponsoring government agency, Panelists hear from dozens of background presenters, stakeholders, and technical experts to understand the landscape of opinions and information on the topic. Then, through meticulously designed small-group work aided by professional moderators, Panelists carefully consider options, weigh tradeoffs, and collaboratively identify solutions. Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their process to ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered. The Panel’s recommendations, written entirely in Panelists’ own words, are submitted directly to decision-makers. The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative process results in recommendations with broad community buy-in – and unusual public legitimacy.

How Will the Process Be Accessible to All Community Members? This process is centered on accessibility. Panelists will be provided with accommodations to support their ability to participate fully in the process, such as reimbursement for transportation costs and comprehensive language access services (interpretation and translation). While not all community members will be invited to participate on the Panel, the randomized selection process allows for community members to see their views represented throughout the Panel. There will also be multiple opportunities for the community to provide feedback to the Panel throughout the process.

How Will the Panel Conduct Its Work?
Lottery-Selected Panels model a different kind of collaborative policymaking, with plentiful time for consideration of the many views and sources of information on the topic at hand. The Panel will meet in-person for six weekends over the course of approximately nine months, anticipated to be Fall 2024 – Summer 2025. This community focus group will begin its work with a robust information-gathering phase, covering the history and context of the topic, as well as a wide range of perspectives on the Airport’s future.

Panelists will receive background materials and hear from introductory presenters – with

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 9 all materials and presenters selected by a diverse group of stakeholders. Then, the Panel will select numerous presenters of its own, conduct a site visit, receive the results of initial community outreach, and gather additional information as needed. The Panel will also thoroughly consider Panelists’ own lived experiences related to the Airport. Gathering this uniquely diverse range of expertise comprises about a third of the Panel’s total work hours. All panel meetings are live-streamed and recorded so the Santa Monica community at large can see and hear what is being discussed adding to the transparency of the discussions and outcomes.

The Panel will then move into a deliberation phase – creating guiding principles, exploring long-term visions for the site, and finally crafting recommendations about the Airport’s future. All deliberation is designed to take place in iterative small- and large-group work sessions, moderated by a team of professional process staff and informed by decades of research on effective collaborative decision making – and by advisors and Panelists themselves.

Decision-making context
The work of this Panel will be to make recommendations to City staff and the City Council.

It is anticipated that:
● The Panel's recommendations will be thoroughly considered, with substantial written responses provided to the Panel after the completion of each of the Panel's deliverables.
● City staff, including technical experts, will provide thorough details to the Panel of the surrounding decision-making context upon request, but will not constrain the Panel's work beyond the initial framing question.

Furthermore, in addition to its official reporting-out to the City, Panelists (or the Panel in aggregate) may choose to speak publicly about their work, without restriction by Healthy Democracy or the City of Santa Monica. In fact, the project staff, partners, and budget will help to foster such opportunities.

The Panel will also have several designed opportunities to hear from the broader public and will have full authority to further engage the public as it wishes.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 10 How Will Stakeholders Be Involved?
Stakeholders will be involved throughout the LSP process to inform project plans, curate information for Panelists, and present information directly to the Panel, as requested.

Healthy Democracy will begin engaging stakeholders early by conducting initial information sessions to share information about the proposed process with key local leaders.

The Information Committee (IC), made up of representatives from existing Boards and Commissions, will be tasked with curating quality, balanced, introductory presenters who present to the Panel during the beginning of its information-gathering phase. A list of stakeholder organizations will have the opportunity to nominate presenters into this process. The list of stakeholder organizations will consist of diverse interests, possibly including tenants, neighbors, community advocates, and anyone else with an interest in the future of the site.

The IC will conduct the following activities within this process:
● Select initial presenters to provide a balanced “lay of the land” to the Panel. ● Compile a list of potential additional presenters, to assist the Panel when it selects its own slate of presenters.

Stakeholders who are not part of the IC process will have opportunities to present to the Lottery- Selected Panel and offer feedback at points throughout the process as well.

What Will the Panel Deliver?
The Panel will be asked to provide a series of reports that answer a key question which will be approved by the City Council. All reports are developed, written, and edited exclusively by Panelists themselves:
● Principles – a prioritized list of overarching values, decision-making criteria, key interests, and important activities that any final recommendation should take intoconsideration.
● Scenarios – an outline of the possibilities and visions for the Airport site, including options considered and rationales based on lived experience and

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 11 outside evidence.
● Final Report – the Panel's recommendations, including preferred Airport landuse(s) and rationales, dissenting opinions, and supporting details.

What Will Happen with the Panel’s Deliverables?
The Panel’s reports will be delivered to the City Council, who will be asked to thoroughly consider and publicly respond to them. The public will have opportunities to engage with the Panel’s recommendations and make comments as well. The City Council may seek the Panel’s opinion when determining next steps for the Airport property related to the vision and land-use designation(s) for the site in the City’s General Plan update (2030).

The Panel may reconvene on an ad hoc basis, to clarify its recommendations, consider any additional questions, and respond to further policy developments. It should be noted that the work of the Panel does not supplant the traditional planning process. The preferred scenario would be presented to the City Council as the Panel’s recommendation, but the City Council has the authority to accept, revise, or reject the scenario. If it is accepted, only then the City would begin the Specific Plan, Zoning, and General Plan updates necessary to move forward. This next phase of work is not included in the Panel’s work.

Overarching principles of Lottery-Selected Panels
The following are basic principles common to most lottery-based deliberative processes, including all of Healthy Democracy’s Panels. ● A paradigm of Panelists-on-the-dais, not in the audience. ○ Think of Panels as fact-finding, well-informed, community focus groups that speak directly to Council.
● A direct path to decision makers.
○ Real influence over the future of the airport.
● An emphasis on collaborative decision-making.
○ Working toward shared solutions, without forcing consensus. ● Accountable and transparent governance over the process. ○ An independent Information Committee makes decisions about initial presenters to the Panel and advises the Panel on additional presenters to consider.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 12 ○ A group of Program Advisors, made up of practitioner experts, former moderators,and former Panelists, works with Healthy Democracy staff on process details.
○ A Process Sub-group of the Panel, made up of current Panelists, makes high-level process decisions and improvements beyond the information-gathering phase.
● Independence from outside political interference.
○ Everyone involved agrees to certain guidelines to prevent undue influence over the Panel’s work – this includes guidelines for Panelists, City staff, elected City officials, process staff (i.e., Healthy Democracy), presenting experts, public observers, media, and others. ● Selection of Panelists through a democratic lottery.
○ Randomly selected from the general public.
○ Ensures a representative group of Santa Monica’s population ● A commitment to universal accessibility.
○ Panelists may be reimbursed for expenses incurred associated with participation (e.g. transportation) and a stipend to alleviate any financial burden of participating
○ Appropriate technology, training, and one-on-one logistical support is provided to all Panelists.
● A substantial information-gathering phase, including:
○ Substantial background information provided by the City and expert consultants.
○ Information presented by stakeholders are selected by the Information Committee.
○ Information presented by individuals selected by the Panel itself. ○ Other public input that engages the broader community. ● A structured, in-depth deliberation phase.
○ Designed by professional process designers and based on research. ○ Moderated by professional, trained moderators.
○ Designed to encourage collaboration across differences without forcing consensus.
○ Substantial collaborative work directly with technical experts, deep deliberation on the most contentious tradeoffs, and a methodical pathway toward agreement.
● Actionable Reports of prioritized recommendations.
○ Written by the Panelists themselves, with no writing or editing by staff. ○ Delivered by the full Panel but with room for dissenting opinions and individual voices.
● Third-party evaluation of process design and execution.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 13 ○ Academic evaluators not paid by the process, the convening agency, or Healthy Democracy observe and review the process, and report to the public and the convener on its fairness and quality. ○ An Evaluation Committee, made up of Panelists, works with these external evaluators to provide its own evaluation of the process, often surveying the broader public about the process.

Next Steps
This Info Item is the first step in explaining what this exciting, fair, and balanced outreach process is and serves as the basis of future discussions. City Staff and Healthy Democracy will be presenting to City Council in a Study Session on October 10, 2023, to further discuss this process, answer questions, listen to public comments, and receive direction from the City Council. At this Study Session, Healthy Democracy will present a detailed scope of work for the lottery-selected panel and be available to answer any questions that arise.

Cost will be discussed at this session as well.

Staff anticipates coming back to the City Council on November 14, 2023, to award contracts for this process as well as the Design and Technical Team that will support City Staff and the lottery-selected panel’s work. The Design and Technical Team (DT+T) will help the Panel understand the existing conditions realities and potential economic strategies as well as provide several presentations on topics such as: sustainability, ecology, policy frameworks, multi-generational design, etc. The DT+T will also aid the panel through a series of ‘deep dives’ in envisioning the options they want to explore as they create a preferred scenario that will be presented to Council at the conclusion of the Panel’s work.

Anticipated Project Schedule
Item Date
Info Item Submitted to Council September 2023
Council Study Session October 10, 2023
Council Contract Authorization November 14, 2023
Panel Process Kick-off January 2024
Design & Technical Team Kick-off January 2024
Public Panel Selection Summer 2024
Design & Technical Team Existing Conditions Report Summer 2024

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process 14 First Panel Meeting Fall 2024
Final Panel Meeting Summer 2025
Prepared By: Amber Richane – Acting Chief Operations Officer for Public Works and the Airport Conversion Team, Chris Dishlip – Assistant Director of Public Works, Amelia Feichtner – Capital Program Manager; Alex Parry – Sr. Design Manager Attachments: Attachment A – Lottery Selected Panel Overview Attachment B – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Attachment C – Panel Process Diagram

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Overview of Lottery-Selected Panels
Prepared for the City of Santa Monica by Healthy Democracy Updated 27 April 2023
Lottery-Selected Panels are a 50-year-old democratic innovation – inspired by ancient democracies in Greece and India – that put everyday people at the heart of public decision making.

Often called Citizens’ Assemblies or Policy Juries, these processes combine two key design elements that fundamentally transform public decision making: 1) a democratic lottery selects a Panel that is demographically representative of the community and fully supported to participate, and 2) a deliberative process allows Panelists to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations. With over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to deeply engage residents in helping find collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy solutions.

Participants are selected from the general public using a democratic lottery, also known as a representative random sample or sortition. While most public engagement processes rely on the same self-selected individuals, democratic lotteries engage new residents through a randomized process that ensures representation across an unusually broad set of diversities. The lottery begins with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential addresses that makes it as easy as possible to say “yes.” From the resulting pool of respondents, a Panel is randomly selected (at a public event) to reflect a microcosm of the city. Lottery-Selected Panels don’t just “work toward” representation; they guarantee a cross-section of the public’s diversities every time – in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity, geography, educational attainment, and other factors. Selected Panelists are paid a substantial stipend, offered language interpretation, and reimbursed for childcare, eldercare, and transportation expenses. This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized residents.

The deliberative process then puts everyday people at the center of in-depth, well-informed, and collaborative policymaking. Given that most lottery-selected Panelists do not have prior experience with the policy topic, they have a unique capacity for identifying common ground solutions in the public’s best interest. Much like a jury in a criminal court, they receive a vast amount of information before independently deliberating on recommendations. Rather than being presented with pre-packaged information from a sponsoring government agency, Panelists hear from dozens of background presenters, stakeholders, and technical experts to understand the landscape of opinions and information on the policy topic. Then, through meticulously designed small-group work aided by professional moderators, Panelists carefully consider options, weigh tradeoffs, and collaboratively identify solutions. Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their process to ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered. The Panel’s final recommendations, written entirely in Panelists’ own words, are delivered directly to decision makers. The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative process results in recommendations with broad community buy-in – and unusual public legitimacy – that are frequently adopted by government officials.
healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • [email protected] page 1/1 Attachment A
S
S
e
e
l
l
e
e
c
c
t
t
e
e
d
d
bursed for
.

Panelists are paid a substantial stipend, offered language interpretation, and reimbursed for childcare, eldercare, and transportation expenses. This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized residents.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the

LOTTERY-SELECTED PANELS

healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 [email protected] In-Depth Deliberation changes
decision-making itself. Panelists hear from
experts and stakeholders on all sides of an issue,
consider policy options, and collaboratively write
recommendations.

Lottery-Selected Panels are innovative democratic systems that help governments tackle difficult policy questions.

Panelists are everyday people capable of extraordinary
collaboration and sophisticated decision making.

Democratic Lotteries ensure all of us
– from every walk of life – have a place in public
decision-making. Panels reflect the many diversities
of the communities they serve.

Around the world, governments are
employing Lottery-Selected Panels – often called
Citizens’ Juries or Citizens’ Assemblies – to put
people at the center of governance. Healthy
Democracy has designed and convened panels
in five U.S. states and three countries since 2008.

We are best known for Oregon’s Citizens’ Initiative
Review (CIR), which is one of the most researched
deliberative processes in the world and was one
of the first modern lottery-selected processes
institutionalized in government.

A New Kind of Democracy

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Benefts

PRINCIPLES AND BENEFITS
of Lottery-Selected Panels

healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 [email protected] Boosts
diversity in
civic participation
and increases access
for historically
marginalized
groups
Fosters
ownership
over public decision
making and enhances
mutual trust in
governance
Surfaces
previously
untapped ideas,
and encourages
effective policy
co-production
Promotes
evidence-driven
public discourse,
and showcases a more
cooperative
politics
Inclusivity
Em
po
w
e
r
ment
Representation
Integrit
Co
y
llaboration
Principles
Proactive, invitation-based
recruitment methods and
accessibility-driven design bring
entirely new voices to the table.

Lottery selection
guarantees representation
across a uniquely broad set
of demographic diversities
– “a city in one room.”
Panelists have full
authority over their
process and the support
to impact real policy
decisions.

Skillfully moderated discussions
ensure thorough comprehension
of the issue, respectful exchange,
and thoughtful decision-making.

Independent evaluation and
oversight drives researchbased process design and
continuous improvement.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the

Invitation
A group of randomly selected
residential addresses receive a
letter inviting them to participate
in the Panel.
letters mailed
1 THE PROCESS
Selection

healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 [email protected]

Democratic Lottery
Of those who respond to the invitation, a Panel
is selected that represents the unique demographic
characteristics of that community.

Education Attainment
No Diploma
High school diploma
Some college
Bachelor’s degree Population Respondents Panelists
2 “This opportunity to work side by
side with fellow voters has affirmed
my belief in the value of public
participation in the democratic
process.”
- Melissa, Former Panelist
“Life often feels like a zero sum
game. Here, whenever I contributed,
others gave, too. That’s really
exceptional in this world.”
- Dylan, Former Panelist
5k-20k

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the

Recommendations
The Panel produces a set of policy
recommendations, including rationales and any
dissenting opinions. Their report – written entirely in their words – carries an inherent legitimacy with the
public and decision makers. Policy recommendations
can inform any stage of the policy process:

THE PROCESS
In-Room

healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 [email protected]

Information Gathering
The Panel interviews dozens of experts
and stakeholders, and conducts its
own research on the topic at hand. With
external support, Panelists filter information
and conduct gaps analyses to ensure
Agenda Setting Visioning Policy Making Implementation
Feedback Loops
Collaboration between the Panel and staff
and empowerment of the process –
and helps make better policy.
3 5

Deliberation
Panelists define decision-making
criteria, consider potential policy
options, and prioritize alternatives
through extensive discussions over
multiple days. Panelists spend most of their
time in small groups with trained professional
moderators. Meticulous process designs
enable collaboration between iterative small
and large groups.
4 information is strong, reliable, and reflective of
many perspectives on the issue.
or other experts increases the effectiveness

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Better metaphor: more Democracy Pies!
Open to
Anyone
Specific
Invitation
Lottery
Selection
e.g., surveys, hearings, voting e.g., stakeholder negotiations, outreach to particular community
e.g., Lottery-Selected Panels
Anyone! (in theory...)
Same individuals, “thin”
participation, debate-oriented
Can be targeted &
specialized to issue or impact
Often same individuals,
often top-down orientation
Guarantees new &
diverse folks, in-depth
deliberation, Panelist-led
Needs time & design

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 399
Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Lottery-Selected Panel?
This is a different kind of democratic process. A Lottery-Selected Panel brings together a group of everyday people to examine an important public issue. Lottery selection ensures that all of us have a place in public decision making. Five to twenty-thousand letters are mailed out to randomly selected residential addresses inviting residents to participate in the Panel. Of those who respond, a Panel is selected that represents the unique demographic characteristics of that community. Additional Panelists who may not live at an address are selected via “golden tickets” provided to social service agencies. Panels are professionally moderated and follow a structured process to ensure inclusion, collaboration, and innovation. They are designed to reduce the influence of political bias and put everyday people at the heart of policy making.

What are the principles that guide these processes?
Inclusivity: Proactive, invitation-based recruitment methods and accessibility-driven design bring new voices to the table.

Representation: Lottery selection guarantees representation across a uniquely broad set of demographic diversities – “a city in one room.”
Integrity: Independent evaluation and oversight drive research-based process design and continuous improvement.

Collaboration: Skillfully moderated discussions ensure thorough comprehension of the issue, respectful exchange, and thoughtful decision-making.

Empowerment: Panelists have full authority over their process and the opportunity to impact real policy decisions.

What makes a Lottery-Selected Panel different from a typical community advisory committee?
Selection Process: Panelists are selected by democratic lottery – a stratified random sample of community residents aged 16+, a microcosm of the city in one room. Because Lottery-Selected Panels are composed of residents who typically do not volunteer for other City processes, they are capable of more deliberative arbitration of fraught political topics.

Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholders and interest groups are not absent from the process – in fact, they are essential to it – but they do not sit on the Panel itself. Rather, they participate in the process in four ways: 1) A selection of 100 stakeholder organizations, from all sides of the topic at hand, nominate potential presenters to the Panel, 2) Representatives from existing City boards and commissions sit on an Information Committee (IC), which curates a slate of initial presenters and creates a menu of other presenters for the Panel to consider inviting, 3) A wide array of stakeholders present to and engage with the Panel healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • [email protected] page 1/5 Attachment B

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the (some called by the IC and some by the Panel itself), and 4) Stakeholders are invited to offer feedback on the Panel’s work at multiple points later in its deliberative process.

Panel Autonomy: Although it only offers recommendations, the Panel is treated more like a council, commission, or other decision-making body than a typical advisory committee. Staff serve the Panel in supportive, rather than directive, roles. This paradigm shift is reflected in process design, moderation style, and budget, with typically around ¼ of project funds being paid directly to Panelists.

Evidence Driven: The Panel gathers a wide range of evidence. In addition to stakeholders, the Panel hears from staff and non-staff expert presenters, has ample time to review documents and question all presenters, and may call its own presenters. It may also receive other public engagement inputs – including survey data, listening sessions, walking tours, or hold open public workshops.

Deliberation: The Panel engages in lengthy conversations around grounding values and principles, before delving into any policy solutions. These discussions seek mutual understanding and shared goals, but they do not force consensus. As with the rest of the Panel, they are professionally moderated and follow a detailed process design established in advance, while remaining flexible to the Panel’s needs.

Built-In Feedback Loops: The Panel has the opportunity to engage in in-depth feedback loops with technical staff, to review proposed policies in detail.

Outcomes: The Panel’s output is therefore substantial, including both: 1). Criteria on which it believes any decision should rest, and 2). Detailed policy recommendations (or a review of existing proposals).

Efficiency & Efficacy: In order to accomplish these significant tasks, Panels are highly efficient public processes, while remaining comfortable, supportive, and collaborative environments for Panelists.

Inclusivity and Accessibility: Since randomly selected Panels include folks from many walks of life, universal accessibility is emphasized. Panelists are paid a stipend and reimbursed for transportation, childcare, and eldercare. Both the in-room process and out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists’ specific needs, providing support services such as translation and assistive technology and adapting to differential learning styles. In online processes, transportation and child/eldercare reimbursements are replaced by technology and hot-spot internet access, as needed.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the ● Fosters ownership over public decision making.
● Enhances mutual trust in governance.

How do these processes guarantee equality?
Lottery-Selected Panels strive for equality in three primary ways: 1) community members have an equal opportunity of being invited to serve; 2) Panelists reflect the exact demographic makeup of their communities; and 3) deliberation creates an inclusive environment in which everyone’s voice has the same weight.

How can these processes work toward equity?
While equality is a minimum guarantee of these processes, it is possible to integrate equity through selection targets, interactions with stakeholder groups, and in-process support for Panelists.

How does Healthy Democracy ensure that the Panel is inclusive of all perspectives?
Although bias is a natural human condition, we strive for a process that minimizes unproductive political bias. The process follows an evidence-driven structure that fosters problem-solving that goes beyond partisanship. Our professional moderator teams are specifically trained to balance participation, manage power imbalances, and put Panelist autonomy first, assisting them to make their own informed decisions.

What is deliberation?
Deliberation involves carefully weighing different options, access to accurate, relevant, and diverse information, and participants finding common ground to reach shared recommendations. Most processes are split into two main phases.

Information gathering: The Panel interviews dozens of experts and stakeholders and conducts its own research on the topic at hand. With external support, Panelists filter information and conduct gaps analyses to ensure information is strong, reliable, and reflects many perspectives on the issue.

In-depth deliberation: Panelists define decision-making criteria, consider potential policy options, and prioritize alternatives through extensive discussions over multiple days. Panelists spend most of their time in small groups with trained professional moderators. Meticulous process designs enable collaboration between iterative small and large groups.

What role do stakeholders play?
Stakeholders and interest groups are vital to these processes, even though they do not sit on the Panel itself. Here’s how stakeholders are involved at each stage of the process: First, stakeholders serve as information curators for the Panel. A large number of stakeholders suggest ideas for presenters, and then a smaller Information Committee creates an initial slate of presenters to the Panel, as well as a menu of additional presenters the Panel should consider inviting. Many of these presenters will themselves be stakeholders, offering the Panel a wide variety of viewpoints, expertise, and ideas – and engaging directly with healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • [email protected] page 3/5

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Panelists during a lengthy information gathering phase of the process. After this phase, stakeholders act in an essential ongoing role, offering the Panel feedback on its work at multiple points, both in person and online.

Where else is this being used?
Around the world, governments are employing Lottery-Selected Panels – often called Citizens’ Juries or Citizens’ Assemblies – to put people at the center of governance. See OECD graphics. In over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to deeply engage their residents in collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy decisions. Healthy Democracy has designed and convened Panels in five U.S. states and three countries since 2008. We are best known for Oregon’s Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), which is one of the most researched deliberative processes in the world and was one of the first modern lottery-selected processes institutionalized in government.

Why can’t anyone decide to participate in the Panel?
Lottery-Selected Panels offer an innovative way of getting new voices to engage in public decision making. While everyone has an equal chance of receiving an invitation to join, self-selection alone tends to privilege voices with the most access. Panels almost always accompany many other public engagement opportunities in which any community member can make their voice heard – for example, public forums and open surveys. Any member of the community who wants to participate in decision-making related to the policy area is encouraged to be involved. If someone isn’t selected for the Panel but still wants to participate, all Panel sessions are available via livestream, and, like all members of the public, everyone is welcome to visit the Panel in person as an observer.

Common Concerns
Are everyday people really qualified to make quality decisions about technical policy questions?
Yes! When you give a diverse group of people access to quality, balanced information, sufficient time, and skilled facilitators, they can find common ground and make innovative and practical recommendations on even the most complex policy issues. Everyday people have weighed in intelligently on the financial plans of large cities, the location of a new hospital, and how to deal with nuclear waste.

Shouldn’t anyone be allowed to participate?
Lottery-Selected Panels are only one piece of the “democracy pie”. They are a missing tool in our public engagement toolbox – not the only one; other forms are still essential to our democracy. And, Panels can include informational inputs that are open calls for participation (e.g., surveys, workshops). We can’t all be involved on every issue. But we should all be deeply involved on some issues, sometimes – and have faith that others like us are deeply involved at other times. Lotteries allow that.
healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • [email protected] page 4/5

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Let’s focus on outcomes: Are we actually getting broad-based participation in traditional, open-to-all engagement processes or just allowing for the possibility of it? Open-in-theory doesn’t usually mean open-in-practice. Just because any can show up at a council meeting doesn’t mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. We don’t want to only hear from the loudest, most active voices, we want to hear from people from all walks of life.

Isn’t this sidelining existing stakeholders?
No! In fact, existing stakeholders are essential to the process – they curate initial information, present to the Panel, and provide feedback later in the process. However, existing advocates are often not the right (or best) deliberators; that’s why trials have juries. While organized advocacy is vital to democracy – and to these processes – lots of folks are stakeholders, not just those who are organized. And all of us deserve a chance to be at the table.

Traditional processes often make us fight to be heard – limited to two minutes at a microphone or meetings where it feels like everyone is yelling and no one is listening.

Lottery-Selected Panels are the exact opposite: processes that take the time to hear from all sides, that pay folks to seriously consider every proposal, that encourage deep collaboration and innovation, and – most of all – that create solutions with inherent power that can’t be ignored. If you are a stakeholder who believes in the value of your ideas, we hope you’ll find the Panel a breath of fresh air.

Isn’t this too expensive?
Panels typically cost no more than traditional methods. Plus, this is not just engagement; it is an investment in new civic leaders and in new civic infrastructure. The benefits of Lottery-Selected Panels go beyond recommendations: a broader culture of mutual trust and reframing of government as a tool we all use and not some entity that does things to us.

We must also consider the quality and credibility of decisions – a strong process now has benefits later: smarter policy, more public legitimacy and support, and long-term financial savings.

Isn’t this equality and not equity?
Equality is a minimum guarantee. Democratic lotteries guarantee representation on 7+ demographic factors – all at the same time. That typically doesn’t happen even in equity-based processes. And equality is only a starting place. There are many ways to incorporate equity:
● In setting targets (e.g., based on future population, compensating for past disengagement).
● In informational inputs (e.g., stakeholder outreach). ● In the process itself (e.g., support for Panelist-organized, identity-based enclave deliberation).
healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • [email protected] page 5/5

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the LotterySelected
Panel
Broader Public
Stakeholder &
Informational
Presenters
City Staff &
Decision
Makers
Santa Monica Airport Panel Process
Design &
Technical Team
Information Cmte
Stakeholders
Attachment C

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery DRAFT
2024–2025 SMO
Community Panel
Draft Scope of Services
for the City of Santa Monica – Sept. 2023
Prepared by:

In consultation with City of Santa Monica staff
Last updated: 25 Sept. 2023 1/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
This page intentionally left blank.
2/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Table of Contents

1. Project Overview 4
i. Project Introduction 4
ii. What Makes a Lottery-Selected Panel Different 6
iii. Overarching Principles of Lottery-Selected Panels 7 iv. Project Timeline 8

2. Project Elements 9
i. Panelist Selection & Care 9
a. Overview 9
b. Panelist Selection 9
c. Panelist Care 10
ii. Deliberative Process 13
a. Overview 13
b. Unique Process Elements 14
b. Timeline 16
c. Panel Deliverables 22
d. Information 23
e. Broader Public Engagement 25
f. Panel Autonomy & Self-Governance 27
g. Transparency & Privacy 28
iv. External Communications 28
a. Overview 28
b. Communicating Democratically 29
c. Communications Elements 29
v. Policy Impact 35
vi. Independent Evaluation 36

3. Roles of Project Partners 37
i. Roles, Responsibilities & Areas of Final Authority 37 ii. Relationships Between Parties 42
iv. Additional Project Partners 43
v. Dispute Resolution Methodology 44
Appendix A: Detailed Policies & Procedures for Panelist Selection 46 Appendix B: Transparency & Privacy Policy 48
Appendix C: Example Group Working Agreements 51
Appendix D: External Communications Toolkit 52
3/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services

1. Project Overview
i. Project Introduction
The Santa Monica Airport is a beloved community resource with rich historic significance – and its future should be decided through robust and inclusive community engagement.

Lottery-Selected Panels are a 50-year-old democratic innovation – inspired by ancient democracies in Greece and India – that put everyday people at the heart of public decision making. Often called Citizens’ Assemblies or Policy Juries, these processes combine two key design elements: 1) A democratic lottery selects a Panel that is demographically representative of the community and fully supported to participate. 2) A deliberative process allows Panelists to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations. With over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to deeply engage residents in helping find collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy solutions.

As an innovative City with a highly engaged community, Santa Monica is poised to become a leader in this new model for local democracy. This Scope of Services outlines how a Lottery-Selected Panel could reimagine the future of the Santa Monica Airport property.

Forty-two Panelists, reflective of Santa Monica, would meet for six long weekends from September 2024 to May 2025 to gather information and collaboratively craft a vision for the site’s future. Together, they would answer the question:

Santa Monica has an exciting and unique opportunity to develop a vision for over 200 acres of public land to serve generations to come with the anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport after 2028. The City’s adopted policy frameworks envision a Santa Monica that is a thriving, safe, sustainable, resilient, mobile, culturally rich, ethnically diverse, equitable, local economy that serves the needs of the entire community.

Therefore, the project and this land, which was originally purchased for a public park, must be in service of this vision. Keeping these things in mind, how should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land-uses and development, that will contribute most effectively to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality and leadership in our region?
1 Aided by an expert urban design team, City of Santa Monica staff, community stakeholders, and others, Panelists would engage in an extensive learning phase in which they become experts on a wide range of community perspectives and design possibilities. Through a series of collaborative design sessions, intensive internal deliberation, and feedback loops with the broader community, the Panel would then create multiple viable scenarios and eventually build agreement for one preferred vision. This recommendation would set the stage for future decision making by the City Council.

Given their extensive time commitment and collaborative orientation, Panelists quickly become leaders who are trusted – both by the public and elected officials – to work in service of the broadest public good.
1 This framing question is pending final approval by City Council. 4/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
The future of the Santa Monica Airport will impact residents for many generations. The process proposed herein sets a new standard for independence, inclusivity, and collaborative planning deserving of such great possibility. 5/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
ii. What Makes a Lottery-Selected Panel Different
Traditional Public Engagement Lottery-Selected Panels
Self-selected volunteers and
stakeholders with a vested interest in the
topic.

Frequent overrepresentation of those
with the most time and resources.

Participants often skew whiter, older, and
more highly educated than the general
public.

Everyday community members, most of
whom don’t engage in other public
processes.

Guarantees demographic
representation. Reduces practical
barriers to participation (e.g., time,
money, childcare, and information).

Participants expected to do their own
research or rely on pre-packaged
information from a government agency.

Debates over “the facts” prevent
collaborative critical thinking and
overshadow substantive conversation
about solutions.

Access to a wide range of viewpoints
and evidence, selected in part by an
independent stakeholder body.

Collecting and analyzing information is a
collaborative undertaking – with the goal
of understanding diverse viewpoints and
identifying creative solutions.

Fundamentally designed to encourage
adversarial debate about specific policy
positions, creating a zero-sum political
environment.

Time-constrained – e.g., a 3-minute
public comment or afternoon workshop
– lending itself to superficial input.

Fundamentally designed to encourage
thoughtful and respectful deliberation
about what solutions serve a variety of
community interests.

Plenty of time and freedom to dig
deeply into a topic and produce
comprehensive policy recommendations
from scratch.

Panelists oversee process staff and have
power to direct their own process; thirdparty evaluation and advice is standard.

Emphasizes one-directional community
input. Staff and electeds receive
comments from many opinion groups
and mediate a policy solution
themselves.

Effect of public feedback is often
unknown.

Emphasizes community-driven problem
solving, in which everyday residents and
stakeholders work among themselves to
identify creative solutions.

Decision makers commit to, at minimum,
thoroughly considering and
substantively responding to Panel
reports.
6/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
iii. Overarching Principles of Lottery-Selected Panels
● A paradigm of Panelists-on-the-dais, not in the audience. ○ Think of Lottery-Selected Panels as fact-finding commissions, task forces, or a jury for policy – just not focus groups.
● Presentations directly to decision makers.
○ Elected officials thoroughly consider the Panel’s recommendations and provide rationale for their decision.
● An emphasis on collaborative decision-making.
○ Working toward shared solutions, without forcing consensus. ● Accountable and transparent governance over the process. ○ An independent Information Committee makes decisions about initial presenters to the Panel and advises the Panel on additional presenters to consider.
○ A group of Program Advisors, made up of practitioner experts, former moderators, and former Panelists, works with HD staff on process details. ○ A Process Committee, made up of current Panelists, makes high-level process decisions and improvements beyond the information-gathering phase.
● Independence from outside political interference.
○ Everyone involved agrees to certain guidelines to prevent undue political manipulation of the Panel’s work – this includes guidelines for Panelists, project convener, elected officials, process staff (i.e., Healthy Democracy), presenting experts, public observers, media, and others. Standard guidelines are available from HD upon request.
● Selection of Panelists through a democratic lottery.
○ Randomly selected from the general public, and
○ Representative on a number of
demographic factors.
● A commitment to universal accessibility.
○ Panelists are supported in ways that offset
the financial burdens of participation (e.g.
child care, elder care, transportation).
○ Appropriate technology, training, and
one-on-one logistical support is provided
to all Panelists.
● A substantial learning phase, including:
○ Substantial background information
provided by the City and expert
consultants.
○ Information presented by presenters
selected by the Information Committee.
○ Information presented by presenters selected by the Panel itself. ○ Other public input that engages the broader community. ● A structured, in-depth deliberation phase.
○ Designed by professional process designers and based on research. ○ Moderated by professional, trained moderators.
○ Designed to encourage collaboration across differences without forcing consensus.
7/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
○ Substantial collaborative work directly with technical experts, deep deliberation on the most contentious tradeoffs, and a methodical pathway toward agreement.
● Actionable recommendations, prioritized in order of agreement. ○ Written by the Panelists themselves, with no writing or editing by staff. ○ Delivered by the full Panel but with room for dissenting opinions and individual voices.
● Third-party evaluation of process design and execution. ○ Academic evaluators not paid by the process, the convening agency, or Healthy Democracy – typically academics or other deliberative experts – observe and review the process, and report to the public and the convener on its fairness and quality.
○ An Evaluation Committee, made up of Panelists, works with these external evaluators to provide its own evaluation of the process, often surveying the broader public about the process.
iv. Project Timeline
8/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services

2. Project Elements
i. Panelist Selection & Care
a. Overview
Selecting Panelists through a democratic lottery
guarantees demographic representation and helps
ensure new voices in local policy making. For many
Panelists selected by lot, this will be their first and most meaningful experience in public decisionmaking. Outlined in great detail below, there are many unique elements in a Lottery-Selected Panel. To begin,
selected Panelists are offered support to offset
financial burdens, offered language interpretation, and reimbursed for childcare, eldercare, and transportation expenses. This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized residents. The personal care and support we provide helps ensure that Panelists know that their contributions are valued, and helps ensure Panelist retention throughout the deliberative process.
b. Panelist Selection
Panelists are selected from the general public using a democratic lottery, also known as a representative random sample or sortition. While most public engagement processes rely on the same self-selected individuals, democratic lotteries engage new residents through a randomized process that ensures representation across an unusually broad set of diversities.

The lottery begins with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential addresses that makes it as easy as possible to say “yes.” by offering support for Panelist time and language services. From the resulting pool of respondents, a Panel is randomly selected (at a public event) to reflect a microcosm of the city. Lottery-Selected Panels don’t just “work toward” representation; they guarantee a cross-section of the public’s diversities every time.

The lottery selection for a Panel process generally commences approximately 10-12 weeks in advance of the Panel’s first day. Here’s how the process works:
● Mailings are sent to 15,000–20,000 randomly selected residential addresses. 2 2 Recipients may be exclusively Santa Monica residents or encompass particular geographies beyond Santa Monica, pending decision by City Council.
9/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
● Any qualified
3 residents at those addresses may reply. This reply includes self-reported demographic information. Typically, the response rate for Panels in the United States is 2.5 to 3.5%.
● HD staff also distribute “golden tickets” to social service agencies, for distribution to folks without residential addresses.
● Meanwhile, HD collects data on the demographic makeup of Santa Monica. ● A public Lottery Selection Event is held to select the Panel, as well as a number of alternates. (See Appendix – External Communication Elements) ● Panelists are informed of their selection by HD’s Panelist Liaison and provided with comprehensive support services.

For more information, see Appendix A: Detailed Policies and Procedures for Panelist Selection.

Population Pool
The population from which a Panel is selected may be limited to Santa Monica residents or may extend beyond Santa Monica city limits, depending on direction from City Council.

Regardless of this decision, non-resident stakeholder organizations and presenters will be involved in providing information to the Panel.
c. Panelist Care
Our processes radically prioritize access for everyone – absolutely everyone. While traditional processes put the onus of participation on participants, Lottery Selected Panels uphold that everyone has the right to participate meaningfully in the decision making that affects their lives. To ensure access and inclusion, and to support Panelist retention, we provide thoughtful support to Panelists throughout every step of the process and actively work to reduce potential barriers. This support and care begins as soon as Panelists are selected, with one-on-one personal contact to identify accessibility needs, orient Panelists to the process, and start building a relationship with them.

Staff are made available to provide intensive support for each Panelist. This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized residents. By bringing this human-centric approach to policy making, we create a space where all people feel like they belong at the decision making table and reduce as many barriers to participation as possible. 3 “Qualified” varies by project, but, typically, members of the public are qualified if they:
● Are at least 18 years of age, regardless of official citizenship or resident status, ● Primarily live at the address to which the mailing is sent (or have received a “golden ticket from a social service agency”),
● Are not a current or former elected official, and
● Are not a current City staff member.

Note that, as part of their response forms, all respondents are asked to certify that they qualify by initialing statements about each of these factors.
10/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Panelist Services
Offsetting financial
burdens
Each Panelist is supported in ways that reduce common financial barriers to participation.

Traditional public engagement relies on residents’ ability to give freely of their time, which allows those with greater access to resources to have an outsized impact. By offering support of those with fewer resources in terms of time and money.

Reimbursement
Panelists are reimbursed for the following expenses:
● Childcare
● Eldercare
● Transportation
We offer reimbursement for childcare and eldercare to make it possible for those with caregiving responsibilities to participate, as well as reimbursement for the cost of public transportation to and from Panel sessions.

We also provide reimbursement for small expenses incurred during the post-Panel subcommittee phase, such as printing costs.

Comprehensive
Language Services
HD will contract full translation of written materials and simultaneous interpretation of oral communications in Spanish.

The invitation mailer will also include a slip inviting responses and phone-based support in several additional languages (including Farsi and Amharic). Further language services may be offered pending the needs of selected Panelists.

Language services are provided so that residents whose primary language is not English can participate fully. We oscillate between simultaneous and sequential interpretation so that non-English speakers can be heard and understood in both small and large group conversations effectively and efficiently.

Technology
Support
Wherever the use of technology is incorporated into process designs, HD staff provides the equipment and personal coaching to ensure that all Panelists are able to participate meaningfully.

This can include but isn’t limited to:
● Access to laptops
● Access to hotspots
● Technical support, personal assistance
11/57
Potential for Panelists may be reimbursed for the following types of expenses:

HD may offer reimbursement to make it possible for those with family circumstances that make it hard financially to participate typically, are able to do so. As well, reimbursement for the cost of public transportation to and from Panel sessions further ensures participation. We may also provide reimbursement for small expenses incurred during the post-Panel subcommittee phase, such as printing costs.

Transportation
Printing
Other

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
While our preference is always for in-person deliberation, we do sometimes use technology to facilitate Panel decision making. This was needed as a response to Covid outbreaks in recent years. If technology is necessary – either within the process or to respond to unforeseen circumstances that prevent in-person gathering – we will provide the necessary equipment and tech support.

Process Orientation
After being selected, every Panelist is contacted by an HD staff member to go through the following:
● Personalized interview and information session (including for alternates);
● Survey of accessibility needs and dietary requirements; ● Administration of intake paperwork (W-9, photo/video
release, reimbursement procedures, etc.).

Personalized intake allows us to anticipate Panelists' needs for accommodations so they can participate fully. It allows for confidential sharing of needs or concerns.

Studies show that it is typical for Panelists to experience some anxiety at the beginning of the process. We make direct personal contact a priority to alleviate concerns, set expectations, and begin to build a relationship.

Accessibility
Accommodations
Accessibility accommodations are proactively identified and provided, and universal accessibility is a baseline design principle.

We take accessibility into account in selecting venues and designing printed and electronic communications.

Prioritizing access and inclusion means making every effort possible for Panelists to contribute meaningfully to the deliberative process. Accommodating a range of accessibility options ensures that we have new voices at the decision making table.

Other Logistical
Support
HD provides the administrative support for financial supports, including tracking Panelist attendance, verifying expenses, and reporting taxable income. This includes as-needed
troubleshooting to address Panelists’ needs, especially as they relate to accessibility. This can include but is not limited to:
● setting up carpools,
● delivering materials in case of illness,
● providing one-on-one phone support as needed.
● providing access to technology as needed.

Reducing barriers comes in many forms. In order to most effectively serve all Panelists, our all-inclusive Panelist concierge services include all administrative costs. We aren’t always able to account for every barrier that someone might face.

We leave extra time and space for incidentals to ensure that we reduce as many barriers as possible. We center the importance and value of each person’s 12/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
contribution to the Panel. Thorough support also increases Panelist retention, which is essential – particularly in long processes.

Meals &
Refreshments
HD staff coordinate and manage:
● Coffee service, snacks, beverages, and lunch are provided at each Panel session.
● We accommodate food allergies and sensitivities and work to serve Panelist preferences in food selection as much as is possible.

Including meals and refreshments not only reduces the cost and stress of participating in a Panel process; it also has the effect of enhancing group cohesion and allowing for informal yet vital Panelist interactions. ii. Deliberative Process
a. Overview
The deliberative process puts everyday
people at the center of in-depth,
well-informed, and collaborative
policymaking. Given that most
lottery-selected Panelists do not have prior
experience with the policy topic, they have
a unique capacity for identifying common
ground solutions in the public’s best
interest. Much like a jury in a criminal court,
they receive a vast amount of information
before independently deliberating on
recommendations. Panelists hear from
dozens of background presenters,
stakeholders, and technical experts to
understand the landscape of opinions and
information on the policy topic.

Then, through meticulously designed
small-group work aided by professional moderators, Panelists carefully consider options, weigh tradeoffs, and collaboratively identify solutions. Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their process to ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered. The Panel’s recommendations, written entirely in Panelists’ own words, are delivered directly to decision makers. The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative process results in recommendations with broad community buy-in – and unusual public legitimacy – that are frequently adopted by government officials.

Healthy Democracy has designed and coordinated lottery-selected deliberative processes like this one for 15 years and draws on decades of international research in all our projects. 13/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
We work with a team of project-specific program advisors – made up of former Panelists, former project partners, and practitioner colleagues – to ensure our process designs are delivering the best practices our field has to offer.
b. Unique Process Elements
Time & Space for
Deep & Thoughtful
Deliberation
● Unusually lengthy process – in this case over 150 hours. ● Unusually diverse iterations within process design – groups larger and smaller, creative mixing, and many different types of activities
Allow for Panel cohesion, to create conditions to consider hard questions from a collaborative orientation.

Allow for time to dig fully into contentious tradeoffs and technical details.

Allow for innovation and creativity to flourish, to bubble up new ideas to highly complex issues.

Conditions for
High-Quality
Deliberation
● Intensive process onboarding to yield productive
collaboration, including activities related to communication styles, cognitive biases, and power and privilege.
● One professional small group moderator for every 6
Panelists.

Deliberation has the power to unlock people’s natural knack for collaborative problem solving – but only with careful planning and intentional exercises that move beyond “win/lose” thinking that dominates most political discourse.

Skilled moderation creates meaningful participation by empowering quiet voices and encouraging difficult conversations.

Extensive Learning
Phase
● Prior knowledge or expertise is not a prerequisite for participation.
● Unusually lengthy information-gathering process –
typically including dozens of presentations, extensive
written materials, personal storytelling, and
hands-on/site-specific learning.
● Transparent and participatory process for selecting
informational presenters.
● Substantial portion of informational inputs controlled by the Panel.

Demystifying policy makes our democracy stronger. Everyone has a role to play in the policy decisions that affect their lives – and everyone is capable of becoming an expert on even the most complex topics.
14/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Exercising considered judgment requires access to high-quality information and lived experience.

Reducing hand-selection of presenters by project conveners increases public legitimacy and buy-in.

Stakeholders &
Experts “On Tap, Not
On Top”
● Stakeholders and experts are important sources of
information, but not directing the process.

Existing stakeholders are integral to the policy landscape, but not always best-positioned to recommend common ground solutions.

Randomly selected community members need the expertise and wisdom of existing actors in order to do their job well.

Panelist-Led
Community
Engagement
● Polis, a virtual deliberative survey tool, allows the Panel to “listen at scale” to many more voices in the broader
community that would typically be able to meaningfully
participate.
● Panelist-hosted community workshop.

With Polis, Panelists can gather ideas from hundreds of community members – easily identifying points of agreement and disagreement across the opinion groups and ensuring key ideas aren’t missed.

As recipients of all community input, all information flows through the Panel itself – avoiding interpretation by consultants, process staff, or conveners.

Collaborative,
Interactive Site
Design
● Collaborative “Deep Dives” with the Design & Technical Team.
● Hands-on, tactile design work that brings the place alive.

The people who will use a space should be the ones to design it. Collaborative design workshops bring out the inherent wisdom of the community with the aid and guidance of professionals.

Lengthy charrette-style workshops put Panelists on eye-level with designers, evening out typical power imbalances. Multiple iterative feedback loops between Panelists and designers ensure that there is time to develop innovative alternatives and work out sticking points. The resulting designs gain the benefits of both energetic, real-time group collaboration and quiet, individual creativity.

Complete Panel
Authority Over
Recommendations
● Panelists are entirely responsible for content, while staff are solely responsible for the process.
● Panelists author every word of their final reports, down to the last typo.
15/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
● Recommendations are delivered directly to decision
makers by Panelists themselves.

Strict process/content delineation reduces both actual and perceived bias, and improves overall public credibility.

Typical processes rely on consultants or City staff to collect, interpret, and summarize comments – creating possible misunderstanding or mischaracterization of public will.

Starting from a blank page and co-authoring reports builds an unparalleled sense of ownership and agency among Panelists. Often they become leaders on the topic for years following delivery of their recommendations.

Maximum Panel
Self-Governance
● Panel subcommittees handle and oversee key staffing
functions.

Panelists themselves are the most trustworthy experts on their own process.

Process staff should act merely as support staff to the Panel, transferring power and ownership over to Panelists at every opportunity.

Fully Independent
Academic
Evaluation
● Qualified third-party researchers, not paid for by the project or associated with HD, observe every stage of the process in person.
● In addition to evaluating each process on a standard set of criteria, evaluators typically pursue a variety of individual research interests.

Deliberative processes benefit from decades of research and constant innovation.

HD is committed to receiving constructive feedback and making continuous improvements in every new project.

Past research on HD’s processes have produced some of the most important work in the field of deliberative democracy internationally – including dozens of articles and at least one book.
b. Timeline
The outline below includes planned Panel activities within each phase of the deliberative process. Each weekend represents 3 full days (Friday-Sunday), with an additional half-day on Weekend 1 and Weekend 6. Full days are scheduled from 9:00AM - 4:30PM, with an hour break for lunch. Sessions 5.5 and 6.5 represent shorter (2-3 hour) meetings involving only a subset of the Panel.
16/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Note that this outline is not comprehensive and is subject to changes in response to process direction from the Panel’s Process Subcommittee or the needs of other project partners.

Activities are organized by theme within each weekend, rather than in strict chronological order.

As part of the customized process design for this project, Healthy Democracy will develop a highly detailed Process Manual. A detailed agenda will be published to the public project web page for each meeting of the Panel.

Weekend 1 (Sept. 2024)
Process
Welcome
○ Dignitary welcome
○ Comprehensive introductions
Process
Orientation
○ Timing, logistics, roles, conduct, and other details
○ Cognitive biases activity
○ Power and privilege activity
○ Collaborative decision-making activity
○ (Continuous process reorientation and signposting will follow throughout the Panel’s subsequent sessions – not noted in this outline) Informational
Inputs
○ Introductions and handoff from the Information Committee ○ Policy context
○ Panelist discussions of their lived experience
○ Presented and written material from the City
○ Presenters selected by the Information Committee
○ Introduction to Polis online deliberation process
Interactions
with the DTT
○ Meet & greet with Design & Technical Team (in person) ○ Two “learning sessions” with Design & Technical Team (in person) ● Site tour
● Existing Conditions report summary
Analyzing
Information
○ Reading and collaborative sense-making of initial informational inputs ○ Information gaps analysis
● Select additional presenters
● Request additional information/analysis from Design & Technical Team
Guiding
Principles
○ Introduction to the use of principles in decision making ○ Practice activity
○ Non-judgemental principles brainstorming work
○ Parking lot for visions and site use options
17/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Broad Public
Engagement
○ Initiate Polis for broader community feedback on brainstormed Guiding Principles concepts
Weekend 2 (Oct. 2024)
Process
Orientation
○ Reminders and additional orientation activities
Informational
Inputs
○ More IC-selected presenters
○ First Panel-selected presenters
○ More review of written materials
○ Independent Panelist research
○ Additional presenters and/or materials
Interactions
with the DTT
○ Third “learning session” and review of any new information from the Design & Technical Team, with them in real time (virtual) Analyzing
Information
○ Gaps Analysis:
● Request additional information/analysis from Design & Technical Team
● Request additional information from the City team
Panel Subcommittees○ Introduction to the concept of Panel subcommittees and self-governance
Broad Public
Engagement
○ Training on how to read and interpret Polis reports
○ Review Polis feedback on brainstormed Guiding Principles concepts Guiding
Principles
○ Iterative workshopping of concepts and Polis feedback in small groups
○ Creation of rough-draft Guiding Principles
Begin SiteSpecific
Visioning
○ Non-judgemental brainstorming of visions for the site, using tactile and creative modalities
Weekend 3 (Jan. 2025)
Informational
Inputs
○ Panelist-driven research on land use topics
○ Policy context review
18/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
○ Any Panel-requested presenters/materials
Broad Public
Engagement
○ Panel-hosted community event
○ Initiate new Polis instance to gather feedback on land use ideas Guiding
Principles
○ Iterative workshopping in small groups
○ Revision and refinement
○ Prioritization process
○ Finalize Guiding Principles report
Panel Subcommittees○ Internal subcommittees convened for the first time ● These subcommittees will continue to work on their independent process oversight, planning, and outreach tasks throughout the rest of the Panel’s process (not noted further in this outline) Land Use
Topic Groups
○ Creation of Panel subgroups to work on Panel-identified subtopics ○ Fact finding
○ Design concepts
○ Tradeoffs analysis
○ Presentations back to large group
Overarching
Site-Specific
Visioning
○ Community/regional needs analysis
○ Identifying overarching land use goals that satisfy Guiding Principles Analyzing
Information
○ Prepare for Deep Dive 1:
● Prepare questions, information requests, and any additional presenters in topic groups and between groups
● Begin tradeoff analysis across topic groups & identification of polarizing points
● Engage in additional information gaps analysis
DELIVERABLE: Guiding Principles Report
(presented to City Council by Panelists)
Weekend 4 (Feb. 2025)
Informational
Inputs
○ Review response from City to Guiding Principles report, including Q&A session with City staff and/or City Councilors (if needed) ○ Additional independent reading and research time
○ Any additional Panel-requested presenters/materials/collaboration 19/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Stakeholder
Engagement
○ Panel-directed feedback on initial land use concepts from pre-identified stakeholder organizations
Broad Public
Engagement
○ Review Polis feedback on land use ideas
Initial Design
Concepts
○ Panel introduces vision/design concepts from its own prior work and collected previously from stakeholders and broader public Interactions
with the DTT
○ Design & Technical Team begins to present design precedents / case studies and conceptual frameworks – in plenary and also within land us topic groups
○ DEEP DIVE 1: Intensive charrette-style design work (in person) ● First hands-on work between Panel and Design & Technical Team.

Tradeoffs
Analysis
○ Continue tradeoffs analysis, now with help from DTT analysis and data on polarizing points from Polis report
Land Use
Topic Groups
○ Further Panel deliberation in and between topic groups Analyzing
Information
○ Gaps Analysis
● Identify additional expert and/or stakeholder presenters Prep for
Deep Dive 2
○ Organize design elements into draft visions
○ Identify additional information, analysis, and design aspects to be requested from Design & Technical Team
Weekend 5 (March 2025)
Informational
Inputs
○ Review feedback from Design & Technical Team
○ Review feedback from stakeholders and/or broader community ○ Additional independent reading and research time
○ Any additional Panel-requested presenters/materials/collaboration Analyzing
Information
○ Identify questions and additional analysis needed from Design & Technical Team
Broader
Public/
○ Identify questions for stakeholders and/or broader community 20/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Stakeholder
Engagement
Interactions
with the DTT
○ DEEP DIVE 2: Intensive charrette-style design work (in person) ● Second work session between Panel and Design & Technical Team ● Refine conceptual visualizations of each land use scenario ● Negotiate tradeoffs within each land use scenario
Evaluating
Scenarios
○ Evaluate scenarios based on existing information, including:
● Guiding Principles
● Overarching land use goals
● Policy context
● Needs analysis
● Financial analysis
● Other analysis from Existing Conditions phase or elsewhere Session 5.5 (March 2025)
Interactions
with the DTT
○ Panel reviews and approves final visualizations refined by Design & Technical Team. (Note: only a predesignated subset of the Panel meets in-person and liaises with the DTT.)
DELIVERABLE: Alternative Scenarios Report
(presented to City Council by Panelists prior to Weekend 6) Weekend 6 (May 2025)
Informational
Inputs
○ Review the City’s response to Alternative Scenarios report ○ Q&A with City staff related to the feasibility and/or policy implications of each alternative scenario
○ Review feedback from public workshop/surveys hosted by Sasaki on the Panel’s 3 alternative scenarios
Interactions
with the DTT
○ DEEP DIVE 3: Intensive charrette-style design work with the Design & Technical Team, to build agreement between alternative scenarios (in person)
● Organization of Panel work will be somewhat context dependent – on the nature and scale of existing conflict points or unsolved questions/issues
● Design & Technical Team provides creative design concepts to aid in building trans-scenario agreement
21/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
○ Iterative small- and large-group agreement-seeking towards one preferred alternative
● Tradeoffs negotiated between alternative scenarios (as opposed to within scenarios, as in Deep Dive 2)
Final
Agreement
Seeking
○ Final large-group agreement-seeking on any remaining conflict points and resolution-seeking of any other remaining unsolved
questions/issues
Report
Delivery &
Refinement
○ Plan for report delivery and follow up
○ Final refinement, editing, and approval of narrative scenario material Session 6.5 (May 2025)
Interactions
with the DTT
○ Panel reviews and approves final visualizations refined by Design & Technical Team. (Note: only a predesignated subset of the Panel meets in-person and liaises with the DTT.)
DELIVERABLE: Preferred Scenario Report
(presented to City Council by Panelists)
Following the formal process activities outlined below, Panelists will be supported for an additional 30 hours to continue engaging with the community and decision makers about their recommendations. In addition to events organized by Panelist subcommittees, at least one full-Panel event will be scheduled for approximately a year after conclusion of the process.
c. Panel Deliverables
The Panel will author at least three documents, which we have temporarily titled and placed within the overview of the Panel's process above. These reports will include (but may not be limited to):
4 1. Guiding Principles
A prioritized list of overarching values, decision-making criteria, key interests, and important activities that any final recommendation should take into consideration.

Principles will be ordered using a multidimensional prioritization mechanism.

2. Alternative Scenarios
4 City Council should approve or amend the description of each deliverable. 22/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
An outline of multiple comprehensive and viable visions for the Airport site, including options considered and rationales based on lived experience and outside evidence.

3. Preferred Scenario
The Panel's recommendations, including preferred Airport land use(s) and rationales, dissenting opinions, and supporting details.

All Panel deliverables will be authored exclusively by Panelists, without intervention or suggestion by HD staff, City staff, or any other non-Panelist. In addition, all editing – up to and including typos – will be done exclusively by Panelists, with no editing done by staff or any other non-Panelist.

Panelist reports will be presented as written to the public as soon as they are completed and approved by the Panel for distribution. Neither HD staff nor anyone other than the Panel in aggregate may delay the release of a Panel report for any reason.

Any attempts to direct, edit, delay, or otherwise compromise the Panel's independent work should be reported to the Panel's Process Subcommittee and dealt with through the Panel's Dispute Resolution process, as outlined in this document.

In view of the importance of non-majority views – even those of one person – Panel reports are created through a process of nondestructive addition and editing, with less-favored ideas dropping to the bottom of the report, rather than being eliminated. To accomplish this, we design processes that use prioritization mechanisms wherever possible, rather than simple yes/no voting. Only in cases where proposals are in direct conflict, or where a single recommendation is necessary will a simple vote be used.

The formatting of all public Panel reports will be created by Healthy Democracy and approved by the Panel's Policy Impact Subcommittee. Any explanatory preamble or other text on a report will be written by Healthy Democracy, clearly marked as such, and approved by the Policy Impact Subcommittee.
d. Information
High-quality information from a wide variety of sources is a cornerstone of any deliberative process. Many actors play a role in ensuring that Panelists have access to the information they need to complete their work. Prior to the Panel’s first meeting, a group of stakeholders select introductory presenters that introduce the Panel to the topic. The City and Design & Technical Team act as key sources of information about the policy context, existing site conditions, and initial design opportunities. Local stakeholders and members of the general public engage with the Panel in feedback loops throughout the process, and as sources of specific informational presentations when invited by the Information Committee or the Panel. Ultimately, the Panel itself contains a wealth of lived experience and capacity for independent research that drives its analysis and decision-making process.

Information Committee
The Information Committee (IC) is a group of stakeholders tasked with curating background informational presenters for the Panel. Rather than rely on hand-selected presenters by the City, the following process ensures broad representation among those initial sources of information through the following process:
23/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services

1. HD invites designated stakeholder IC participants to nominate up to two introductory presenters each, with rationales for why it’s important that the Panel hear from them.

2. Once all presenter nominations are received, HD invites the stakeholder organizations to participate in an online Polis engagement; through their evaluation of each other’s nominations, the list of nominees is sorted and prioritized.

3. The 5 presenters who receive the most consensus from poll respondents are automatically invited to speak to the Panel.

4. The Information Committee meets for a series of 5 sessions to select an additional 15 presenters.

5. All 20 selected presenters are contacted and scheduled by HD staff.

For more detailed policies and procedures related to the Information Committee, see Appendix C: Information Committee Policies.

Sources of Information
The following partners act as core information collaborators with the Panel:

City of Santa Monica staff will act as core collaborators with Panelists, delivering key policy context and background information throughout the process. City staff reserve availability throughout the process to answer Panelist questions related to the policy context.

The Design & Technical Team will act as a key information source for the Panel during the learning phase and as co-designers during the “deep dives,” in which Panelists and DTT develop alternative scenarios together for the Airport site.

The following actors engage in feedback loops with the Panel – responding to its thinking and offering suggestions.

Everyday community members who are not serving on the Panel – and in some cases, residents of surrounding areas – have opportunities throughout the process to give the Panel feedback. Opportunities will be varied in format, from online deliberation tools like Polis to an in-person community workshop hosted by the Panel itself. More on broader public engagement can be found in the next section.

City staff and City Council will have opportunities to give the Panel feedback on its reports and draft site plans. Feedback loops with staff and policymakers serve the specific purpose of helping ensure the Panel’s recommendations are actionable according to the City’s existing policy frameworks and commitments.

Stakeholder organizations are vital sources of information and feedback throughout the process – helping the Panel understand the full landscape of land use options available and why different groups are interested in particular land use types.

The following sources of information are built into the process during the Panel’s Learning Phase to portray a wide variety of perspectives and on the topic.

As an inherently diverse group, Panelists bring a wealth of lived experience to the room which creates a rich foundation for deliberation.
24/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Many informational presenters – including background experts in relevant professional fields and stakeholders with unique perspectives on the topic – will speak to the Panel during its learning phase. An initial slate of informational presenters is selected by the Information Committee, while all additional presenters are selected off a ‘Menu of Presenters’ by Panelists themselves.

Panelists conduct independent research and information requests to the extent the group deems necessary. Requests can be made from any external party or source. e. Broader Public Engagement
While the Panel is uniquely representative of the Santa Monica public – and of new voices to local politics – every democratic process must also include open calls for participation.

Opportunities open to any interested participants will always be subject to self-selection biases, but broader engagement also comes with important upsides: to provide a window on the overall political landscape and to create a way for ideas percolating among the public to be assured of making their way into the Panel’s process – regardless of any decisions about informational inputs made by the City, the DTT, the Information Committee, or the Panel itself. If there is a brilliant idea out there, then there should be a way for it to rise to the top and make its way to the Panel. In Santa Monica, a combination of low- and high-tech tools will help realize this goal.

Public Workshops & Surveys
At several stages throughout the project, the Panel will hear from the broader community through open-invitation events, to ensure it has captured and integrated ideas from all residents. Workshops and surveys will occur at several points throughout the project:
● Jan.–Sept. 2024: Broad community engagement led by the DTT (accompanying technical work on Existing Conditions) will identify community needs and opportunities at the Airport site. A summary of this engagement will be produced by the DTT for the Panel.
● Jan. 2025: A Panel-hosted community event will provide an open-invitation, interactive forum for Panelists to hear directly from community members about their needs and interests related to the Airport.
● Apr. 2025: Surveys and engagement “events” led by the DTT will showcase the Panel’s three alternative scenarios for the Airport and collect community feedback to feed into the Panel’s development of a single preferred scenario.

Polis
At two points in the process, the Panel will benefit from an open source tool called Polis, designed and maintained by our partner, the nonprofit Computational Democracy Project.

Polis is an online platform that allows for large numbers of people to participate in a form of “light deliberation,” involving suggesting short ideas, opinions, or proposals and then reacting to those submitted by others. Unlike similar tools, Polis is not a black box that collects content or tallies opinions. Rather, it acts as an aid to participants, helping them – in real time – to understand the ways in which their statements sit within the broader landscape of ideas and helping new ideas with more agreement to emerge. 25/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
In this process, the Panel will utilize Polis to test its own ideas, to understand the full breadth of the opinion landscape, and to source new concepts. This will happen in a similar manner both times that Polis is employed:
● Between Weekends 1 and 2: The Panel will send its early guiding principles concepts to Polis as “seed statements”; Polis participants will evaluate these concepts and suggest new potential principles of their own. ● Between Weekends 3 and 4: The Panel will send its early site use ideas to Polis as “seed statements”; Polis participants will evaluate these concepts and suggest new potential site uses of their own.
(Note that Polis will also be used for a specialized purpose during the Information Committee’s process. See the Information Committee section above for more details.) Distribution
Each time Polis is launched, Polis participants will be invited in two phases:
● Phase 1: First, Polis will be opened to a near-representative sample of several hundred members of the broader public, including
○ All community members who responded to the initial Panelist mailing but who were not selected onto the Panel, supplemented by
○ Targeted outreach to help fill in gaps in representation among that respondent list, to bring the overall group as close as possible to the representativeness on the Panel.
● Phase 2: After the near-representative group above has had a chance to interact with Polis, an invitation will be opened to all Santa Monica residents. This general invitation will be pushed out through:
○ The stakeholder list used during the Information Committee process, ○ The project’s communications partners, and
○ The City’s local communications channels.

The goals of this phased approach are to:
● Give an early boost to the voices of a (near-representative) cross-section of the public, before Polis is opened to a fully self-selected broader public. ● Offer a meaningful participatory opportunity to respondents to the democratic lottery who are likely to be enthusiastic first-time participants – but who were simply unlucky in the lottery.
(Note that none of this applies to the specialized use of Polis during the Information Committee’s process. See its section above for more details.) Technical Description
Polis is an open source platform that leverages machine intelligence to scale up deliberative processes. Polis was designed with respect for the extremely difficult work of facilitation.

The goal of Polis is to enable open and constructive dialogue between people with diverse viewpoints. Using a combination of machine learning and human interaction, Polis helps groups understand each other and identify points of common ground. Polis can be used for a variety of purposes, including group decision-making, public engagement, and public opinion research. Polis has a proven track record of hosting open and constructive dialogue between people with diverse viewpoints (see e.g. Horton, 2018; CPI, 2019). Polis works by 26/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
allowing participants to submit comments in response to an open-ended prompt, and votes in response to other people’s comments. By arranging the votes in a vote matrix and applying dimension reduction and clustering techniques—specifically Principle Components Analysis (PCA) (Pearson, 1901) and K-means clustering (MacQueen, 1967)—Polis is able to learn a 2-dimensional opinion space and opinion groups, which are used as the basis for syntheses of the deliberations. Specifically, it is possible to surface comments which best distinguish opinion groups, as well as points of consensus between groups (group-informed consensus). This manifests in a real-time visualization within the participation interface, as well as in an automated report for deeper analysis.
f. Panel Autonomy & Self-Governance
Panel Independence
To maintain the integrity of the process, we believe it is important that process and content are independent of each other. Panelists are entirely responsible for content – with inputs from other actors – while HD staff are only responsible for convening a high-quality process.

This is for the sake of reducing both actual and perceived bias, and improving overall public credibility. In practical terms, this means:
● Process staff design and deliver a
process that is content-agnostic,
with advice from external process
advisors, Panelists, and others –
and with oversight by the Panel’s
Process Subcommittee.
● City staff consult on process design
but do not hold final process
decision-making power.
● City staff, stakeholders, and elected
officials agree that they will not
attempt to contact Panelists
directly. All Panelist
communications should be directed
through Healthy Democracy staff to
protect Panelist privacy.

Panel Subcommittees
For the purpose of further realizing our goal of Panel autonomy, we propose the following Panel subcommittees, where the Panel will have the opportunity to act as its own staff members, make certain decisions, and speak for itself with the public and decision makers. ● Public Outreach Committee:
○ Work with HD and City Communications staff to tell the story of Panelists and their experience to a general public audience.
○ Liaise with members of the media, as appropriate.
○ Advise on the creation of materials that explain the process to the community. ○ Assist in the design and implementation of public events and public engagement opportunities in connection with the process. 27/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
○ [Refer to Section 2.iv - External Communications for additional Public Outreach Committee opportunities.]
● Policy Impact Committee:
○ Liaise with City staff and elected public officials to ensure the Panel has substantial impact on future decision making.
○ Provide proofreading of the Panel’s written reports, for the purpose of maximizing the readability – and therefore impact – of the Panel’s policy recommendations. (Note that this subcommittee may not change the original meaning of the text, and that all edits must receive final approval from the full Panel – or from the text’s original author, as appropriate). ○ Help coordinate the Panel’s presentations at Council and other public meetings and answer any questions about the Panel’s recommendations outside of public meetings (any Panelist may opt out of speaking publicly). ● Process Committee:
○ Make key high-level process decisions in collaboration with HD staff. ○ Co-create any additional process elements in collaboration with HD staff. ○ Review process mandates, time allotments, and activities for clarity and effectiveness.
○ Act as first point of contact for any concerns or disputes raised related to the Panel process, with the authority to directly determine a resolution (by supermajority) or call together a broader stakeholder group (outlined in Section 3.v Dispute Resolution Methodology).
● Evaluation Committee:
○ Liaise with independent evaluators regarding their research. ○ Review end-of-day Panelist surveys and make recommendations to HD staff. ○ Conduct additional surveys or evaluation strategies to measure the effectiveness of the process, staff, and any other components. ○ Follow and evaluate the public perception and policy impact of the Panel’s work.
○ Optionally, advise the City on general public engagement strategies, based on the experience of this Panel.
g. Transparency & Privacy
HD process staff take both public transparency and Panelist privacy very seriously. Please see Appendix D: Transparency & Privacy Policy for more details. iv. External Communications
a. Overview
The primary goal of project communications is to amplify the work of the Panel and to connect everyday Santa Monicans with its work. Ensuring that the broader public, decision makers, and city staff have a clear, accessible, and deep understanding of the Panel process is essential to generating buy-in and adding to the Panels’ legitimacy.

A secondary goal of project communications – utilizing private funding and partnerships – is to elevate Santa Monica as a model to cities everywhere. As the first ever Lottery-Selected 28/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Panel to be convened in Southern California, this is a unique and powerful opportunity to show Santa Monica’s peers, near and far, the revolutionary way in which the City is deeply involving everyday people in policy making – and on a highly complex land use topic, no less. Lottery-selected democracy is increasingly popular around the world, and we believe this project will be a groundbreaking step forward for democratic innovation. b. Communicating Democratically
With both of these goals in mind, the way we talk about the process becomes as important as the process itself. We envision a world where more of us have more collaborative power over more of our lives. And we believe that realizing that vision will require conscious changes both to how we do decision making and how we describe it.

Therefore, we work consistently to democratize not only our organizational structures and our programmatic designs, but also the language we use – publicly and privately. ● We aim for accessibility, clarity, and honesty by being simple and straightforward. ● We aim to focus on our role as process experts by being impartial to other content. ● We aim to emphasize that democracy is for everyone by being proactively inclusive. ● We aim for humility and empowerment of others by being oriented toward service.

These four tenets guide our approach to all external communications about the Panel and its work. HD staff aims to ensure that the broader public has accurate, timely, and accessible information about the Panel’s proceedings through live broadcasting of plenary sessions, regular webpage updates (including daily public agendas and Panelist materials), social media posts, and press releases. Aside from our standard external communications practices, we want to highlight some of the more creative ways 5 we plan to bring the
broader public along on this democracy ride of a lifetime 6 .
c. Communications Elements
Project Kickoff
Panel Promotion
● Seek partnerships with public broadcasting stations and local print media
● Create and display print ads on public transportation hubs (buses, bus stops, light rail, light rail stops) and public places (library, city buildings), and in local newspapers ● HD may pursue the creation of short spots for broadcast TV and public radio pending outside funding/partnerships.
6 The following elements are jumping-off concepts. Many of the elements listed can and will be directed by the Panel’s Public Outreach Subcommittee.
5 Please note that this chart also has a ‘scale’ field for each element. Most of these elements can be scaled up to include farther-reaching outreach opportunities. The scale field is broken up into a) the level we are committing to in this Scope of Services and b) the potential for growth, pending outside resources like funding, partnerships, and/or volunteers. 29/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Proposed scale:
● Current scope includes purchase of a small number of local print ads.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● With partnerships from local stations/channels and/or support from the City to display messaging in public places, promotional material could reach much wider audiences.

Panel promotion can provide a brief explanation of what the Panel is and what it is tasked with. This can encourage a better understanding of the City’s broader public engagement plan and of the Panel process. A better understanding of the Panel process can boost response rates to the initial mailing and build excitement about the process, about the City’s dedication to hearing from everyday people, and about local democracy generally.

Public Selection
Event
● Conduct a public Lottery Selection Event where a Panel, both random and demographically representative, is
selected.
● The event typically includes a presentation from the City and process staff on the project and serves as a
press-friendly kickoff of the Panel.

Proposed scale:
● Healthy Democracy designs, coordinates, and publicly broadcasts a virtual selection event via an online meeting platform. This includes translation into one other language and an ASL interpreter.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● With private funding, the selection event could be an in-person event, if desired. It could be professionally produced and broadcast to encourage understanding and buy-in from a broader section of the public.

A live and public selection event is an essential piece in creating trust and process legitimacy. Appearing professional, transparent, and accessible is essential at this initial stage. A larger event that is celebratory in nature can help bolster public sentiment and belief in the process. It can encourage participation of everyday folks in this process and, more generally, in local decision making.

Democracy Art
Installations
● Partner with a local arts nonprofit on art installations around Santa Monica that center on democratic engagement, the
Panel process, and Panelist stories.
● This can happen before, during, and after the Panel.

Proposed scale:
● Currently, no staff time or resources is included for this task.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● Dedicating HD staff time to this body of work is entirely reliant on finding outside resources and forming connections to local arts nonprofits.

Assistance and buy-in from the City could make this possibility a reality. 30/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Inviting the arts into spaces that traditionally place higher value on the written word, deductive reasoning, and oratorical mastery invites people into different perspectives and ways of life. It can help foster a sense of empathy that is required in a democracy and breathe new life into otherwise bland and bureaucratic processes. It often encourages more youth involvement and generally generates excitement about the Panel and the City’s innovative approach.

Throughout Panel Sessions
Public Gallery
● A public gallery allows members of the public to watch the Panel’s plenary sessions in person.
● Attendees have access to a communal hard copy version of the Panel’s public documents.
● Attendees are not allowed to interfere in Panel proceedings or otherwise engage Panelists.

Proposed scale::
● This is a core feature of all our in-person processes, and is open while the Panel is in session, except in the case of extenuating circumstances (e.g., Covid or other safety precautions).

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● Pending qualified volunteer support, the public gallery could have a volunteer host. This person could help orient attendees to the Panel process and the Panel’s progress. A public gallery host can help take demands off of event staff who are occupied supporting Panelists.

Much like a congressional public gallery, the Panel’s public gallery ensures the highest level of transparency while protecting Panelists’ privacy. The public gallery allows members of the public to watch a new kind of democracy in action.

Live Broadcasting
● All plenary sessions are broadcast live. However, the camera(s) are oriented toward the front of the room (away from Panelists’ faces), in order to show any presenters or people in the front of the room while still maintaining Panelist comfort and privacy.
● All Panelists, moderators, and presenters are required to use microphones for the benefit of observers, language
interpreters, and those who experience difficulty hearing. ● Sessions are broadcast in all languages for which
interpretation is available.
31/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Proposed scale:
● Healthy Democracy live streams the sessions to our YouTube channels (in English and Spanish). Contracted tech support helps ensure the live stream runs smoothly and that audio is intelligible.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● With outside resources and/or connection to a local broadcaster, the live streams could be more produced. This could make the recordings more accessible and more readily watched.

Much like the public gallery, maintaining accessible viewing opportunities through live streaming ensures the highest level of transparency and encourages buy-in from the broader public and stakeholders by ensuring that everyone can view the Panel’s proceedings.
“A Glimpse of . . .”
Session Recaps
● At the end of each weekend, self-selected Panelists will record a brief recap of the work completed by the Panel and what they’d like the broader public to know about the Panel’s progress.
● These will be compiled by HD staff and displayed on HD’s social media channels, the Panel webpage, and HD’s
YouTube channel.

Proposed scale:
● Healthy Democracy will record and compile Panelist videos and upload them to the channels mentioned above.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● With outside resources and/or connection to a local broadcasting organization, these videos could be professionally produced. This could make the video compilations more accessible, attractive, and tied into other media.

Though all plenary sessions are recorded, watching hours and hours of Panel deliberations is not usually the most accessible way to understand what the Panel is up to, nor does it highlight the emotion and connection often built in the room.

These short session recaps will function as a highlight reel of that session’s key moments as seen through the eyes of Panelists. These are meant to encourage understanding of the Panel and connection to the real, everyday people who are a part of this groundbreaking process.

Lottery Selected
Panel Tours
We’ll curate special tour days throughout the Panel that are open to local government staff, elected officials, and members of the press. An HD staff member will serve as tour guide, and tour elements may include:
● An introduction to Lottery-Selected Panels
● An update on Panel progress and a roadmap for where the process will go
● Materials that provide a snapshot of the process
32/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
● An opportunity to observe the Panel in person at a
specifically selected key moment in the process
● A Q&A with process staff
● Interaction with Panelists (pending approval by Panelist Public Outreach Subcommittee)
Proposed scale:
● Dedicated staff time for two 3-hour Panel tours at key moments in the Panel process, with invitations to Santa Monica press, decision makers, and staff.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● With private funding and financial support, tour days could make the process a model for other cities in the region and beyond. We are in discussions with the Berggruen Institute related to this element in particular.

Involvement and deep understanding by members of the press encourages accurate coverage that hones in on important programmatic elements that make this model distinct – and boosts the Panel’s legitimacy by offering a more in-depth view of the inside of the process. Involvement by decision makers and City staff builds knowledge of the process – so the City can make the most of the Panel’s later work. Finally, the experience of having outside visitors builds a sense of gravity among Panelists.

Panel Report
Learning Sessions
● Geared specifically to Santa Monica City staff and decision makers, HD will provide learning sessions prior to the
publishing of each report. Learning sessions will include HD staff and/or a subsection of Panelists, to explain the Panel’s work that led to the report. Learning sessions will act as a user manual of sorts, so that decision makers and staff understand how best to interpret and use the forthcoming report.
● It is important to note these sessions are not intended to help interpret the content of the Panel’s report, as the report won’t be complete. Rather, these sessions will help guests understand the process and context in which the
report sits.

Proposed scale:
● Dedicated staff time for three 1-hour learning sessions just preceding each Panelist report. The intended audience is Santa Monica city staff and decision makers.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● With desire from City staff and decision makers, and outside funding, there may be flexibility in the number and structure of learning sessions. If there is a desire to broaden the audience, this can be explored. 33/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Due to the nature and complexity of the Panel’s reports, we have learned that it can sometimes be useful for decision makers and staff to understand the context surrounding each report. A past Panel subcommittee created its own “user’s manual” for decision makers; now, this will be a standard part of the process from the start.

Panel Closing
Panelist Stories
Video
● Throughout the final sessions of the Panel, HD staff will put together a short video that encapsulates Panelists’ personal experiences of the process and final thoughts they wish to express about the process to Council.
● Previously, this video has been shown at the public
presentation of the Panel’s recommendations.

Proposed scale:
● Healthy Democracy will record and compile the Panelist testimonial video, upload it to HD’s social media channels, and work with City staff to have it ready for public presentation.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● With outside resources and/or connection to a local broadcaster, the video could be more fully produced.

Much like the session recap videos, the Panelist stories video will function as a highlight reel of what it is like to be a Panelist, including key moments and takeaways in Panelists’ own words. This is meant to encourage understanding of the process and connection to the real, everyday people who are a part of it.

Joint Letter from the
Panel
● In the past, some Panels have chosen to write a brief letter related to their experience. This may take the form of a letter to the editor or an open letter to decision makers. ● The direction and content of any letter would be chosen by Panelists.

Proposed scale:
● If the Panel’s Public Outreach Subcommittee chooses to write a letter – or make any other public statement – HD would share it on our channels and on the project web page.
● Any other audiences for dissemination of the letter would be chosen and pursued by Panelists themselves.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● If members of the press and decision makers make use of the Panel Tour Days, this element may be a great follow up or final stage for Panel advocacy.
34/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
A joint letter could further amplify the work of the Panel, if the Panel chooses this approach. Sharing the work of the Panel in multiple modes, mediums, and tones helps ensure that more people are along for the ride. Panelists often seek opportunities to share their experience in a meaningful democratic process; this is one of several avenues that Panelists could choose to take.

Democracy
Celebration
● At the culmination of the Panel process, we need a joyous celebration! Presenting to Council never feels like quite enough after all the time the Panel has spent together and all the work it has done for the community.

Proposed scale:
● After delivering the recommendations to decision makers, HD will host a simple outdoor gathering where Panelists and their families can get together and celebrate a job well done.

Potential scale pending outside resources:
● Pending outside funding and partnerships, the sky (could be) the limit. We’re inspired by the “democracy festivals” overseas to bring a truly festive atmosphere back to public decision making. Food? Arts? Music? Talks? Democracy? Sure!
Democracy isn’t only the hard stuff. The detailed policy making is a crucial element, but so is having an emotional and human connection with our neighbors. Panelists deserve to celebrate their success – and we all deserve to experience the fun side of democracy along with them. The more folks involved, the better! See Appendix F: External Communications Toolkit for the following resources: FAQ, Common Concerns, and Overview of Lottery-Selected Panels.
v. Policy Impact
Given the time-intensive and collaborative nature of Panel processes, their resulting recommendations tend to be adopted at unusually high rates by decision makers.

According to a 2021 report by the OECD, which reviewed the results of over 500 lottery-selected deliberative processes internationally:
● In 28% of cases, public authorities implemented 100% of the Panel’s recommendations.
● In 39% of cases, public authorities implemented more than 50% (but less than 100%) of the Panel’s recommendations.
● In only 11% of cases, public authorities implemented none of the Panel’s recommendations.

As a minimum condition of our work on any project, Healthy Democracy requires that decision makers commit to formally receiving and replying to the Panel’s work. As part of authorizing this process in Santa Monica, this would mean:
35/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
● The Santa Monica City Council commits to hearing a presentation directly from Panelists after the release of each of the Panel’s reports. ● The Santa Monica City Council commits to thoroughly considering the Panel’s recommendations and providing a substantive response to each report. 7 vi. Independent Evaluation
Like all Healthy Democracy Lottery-Selected Panels, this process will be evaluated by third-party observers. These observers will be either academic deliberation researchers or staff from fellow deliberative practitioner organizations in the United States or abroad.

These evaluators may produce, at their discretion, their own independent reports about the process, not subject to review by Healthy Democracy or the City.

Evaluators will communicate directly with members of the Panel's own Evaluation Subcommittee.

All evaluators will be independently funded – not funded by Healthy Democracy, the City, or any other project partner. Evaluators will have no formal association with HD, the City, or any other project partner.

Healthy Democracy staff will send a notice to potential lead evaluators to observe the project. Lead evaluators will be announced on HD’s project page and will assemble a research team. Any qualified evaluator is welcome to contact them about this opportunity.

All evaluators must receive prior approval and orientation from the project’s lead evaluators in advance of the Panel’s first day. Evaluators will be approved based on qualifications in deliberative evaluation and as long as space permits, but without bias toward prior statements or work.

As is our standard policy, Healthy Democracy guarantees evaluators will be provided with full access to the process, including but not limited to:
● Access to the complete Process Manual and all materials given or shown to the Panel.
● Access to any other internal materials created by Healthy Democracy related to the project, upon request – with the exception of materials containing personal demographic or contact details.
● Access to internal planning and design meetings, as feasible. ● Access to closely observe all Panel sessions, including all small-group work, from within the Panel's domain (i.e., not only from the public gallery). 7 Pending approval by City Council.
36/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services

3. Roles of Project Partners
As an innovative model, project partners’ roles and responsibilities differ from a typical staff-driven planning process. The Panel acts as the primary conduit of information and final author of recommendations to decision makers. Healthy Democracy serves as process managers and primary support staff to the Panel. The Design & Technical Team acts as a key source of information and works alongside Panelists as expert planning and design collaborators. The City of Santa Monica provides key background information, partners on logistics and communications, and facilitates pathways to policy influence for the Panel. The Information Committee selects background presenters for the Panel. Stakeholders and the broader community participate via informational presentations to the Panel, online engagement, and Panel-hosted participatory events.
i. Roles, Responsibilities & Areas of Final Authority
This represents the proposed division of work between the City, Healthy Democracy, the Panel, the Design & Technical Team, and the Informational Committee.

Healthy Democracy
Areas of
Final
Authority
● Details related to Panelist selection methodology, beyond the policies in this Scope of Services.
● Logistics-related decisions related to the process.
● Final process design details and urgent process adjustments during the Panel.
● Moderation-related process decisions, including adding or removing an assistant moderator or adjusting moderation methods.
● Management of communications, public engagement, interpretation, and process facilitation subcontractors.

Pathways to
Impact
● Consult on selection of a policy question that is specific and fitting for deliberation.
● Produce and distribute the Panel’s self-authored reports, accompanied by an explanation of the process by HD.
● Support the City’s follow-up with Panelists after the Panel concludes, including helping to coordinate Panelist attendance at Council meetings.
● Advise on the use of feedback loops throughout the process. ● Provide resources and training for City staff and decision makers about the Lottery-Selected Panel model and the process leading to the Panel’s reports.

Process ● Provide professional, customized process designs tailored to the characteristics of this policy-making context.
● Engage in continuous redesign and improvement in response to feedback from Panelists, advisors, and partners.
● Lead the process team and act as primary representative of the process design before, during, and after the deliberations. ● Recruit and train all moderators and other support staff. ● Act as liaison between the Panel and the City, the DTT, and other 37/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
presenters.
● Lead on project management for the Panel process.
● Work with the City to conduct initial stakeholder analysis. ● Collaborate on the selection process for IC members, and convene and facilitate IC meetings.
● Design and coordinate interactions with the online engagement tool Polis.

Logistics ● Lead on logistics, including scheduling and on-the-ground preparations.
● Deliver all aspects of Panelist selection.
● Deliver all aspects of Panelist care.
● Lead on technical concerns (both hardware and software), with assistance from the City when possible.
● Administer financial supports for Panelists.

Accessibility ● Arrange the distribution of funds and materials to reduce barriers to participation, including transportation, childcare, eldercare, tech support, and equipment.
● Coordinate translation of materials, simultaneous interpretation, and any other language services.

Staffing ● Provide logistics staff, including Panelist care, logistics lead and project management,
● Provide Panelist tech support, and presenter liaison. ● Provide process staff, including customized process design, professional moderators, lead process advisor, and ombud. ● Provide communications staff, including external communications with the broader public and public resource curation.

Communications● Conduct ongoing promotion of the Panel’s work, including maintaining a public project page, creating outreach materials, liaising with media about process questions, providing educational sessions about the Panel process, and distributing the resulting report(s). ● Manage relationships with external communications partners. ● Design and coordinate guided tours of Panel sessions for members of the press and interested local government staff and decision makers.

Oversight &
Evaluation
● Distribute surveys at the end of each day and upon the Panel’s conclusion.
● Take process design feedback and direction and the Panel’s Process Committee.
● Find, orient, and coordinate a team of independent evaluators (academic researchers or peer practitioners) to observe Panel sessions. ● Coordinate team of Program Advisors – composed of former Panelists, moderators, and deliberative experts – to advise on key process decisions.
● Lead debriefs with process staff.
● Receive and publish any reports created by third-party evaluators. 38/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
City of Santa Monica
Areas of
Final
Authority
● Minor and/or urgent content-related updates during the Panel, in consultation with process staff.
● Substantial written response to the Panel’s reports, presented publicly.

Pathways to
Impact
● Identify a concrete topic to be reviewed, through a participatory process.
● Build political support among decision makers to ensure the Panel’s recommendations have a pathway to impact.
● Participate in training to better understand the process and reports. ● Commit to producing a formal, substantive response to the Panel’s recommendations.
● Facilitate opportunities for Panelists to speak with decision makers and to be involved in ongoing public engagement.
● Lead on all political concerns and relationships with others in the City. ● Be a visible cheerleader of the process – not of any particular potential results but of the process itself.

Process ● Suggest easy-to-understand background information and relevant policy summaries on the topic in the Panelists’ welcome packet. ● Consult on key process design decisions.
● Support HD’s stakeholder analysis by suggesting stakeholder categories and contacts.
● Identify stakeholders to nominate informational presenters and advise on the formation of the the Information Committee.
● Provide access to staff support for Panelist questions throughout the deliberative process.
● Identify and connect HD with any additional staff members from the City / DTT who will deliver introductory presentations to the Panel.

Logistics ● Provide data and consultation related to the Panelist selection process, conducted by HD.
● Assist with identifying an accessible venue and other on-the-ground support.
● Provide access to storage space throughout the project.

Accessibility ● Provide explainers and/or training to help Panelists work with technical policy language and concepts.
● Advise on the procurement of language services.
● Assist with any special outreach necessary to the selection process, such as contacting social service agencies to invite community members without residential addresses.

Staffing ● Appoint project support staff to support the coordination of logistics, process advising, and informational inputs from the City. ● Appoint communications support staff to collaborate on promotion and outreach efforts.
39/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
● Manage planning and/or design contractors to workshop technical options and proposals with the Panel.

Communications● Prepare communications staff in advance of the process. ● Conduct ongoing promotion of the selection process and the Panel’s work through regular outreach channels.
● Support relationships with local media outlets.

Oversight &
Evaluation
● Receive and publish reports from third-party evaluators. ● Collaboratively develop and implement additional evaluation protocols, if desired.

The Panel
Areas of
Final
Authority
● All writing and editing of reports.
● High-level process decisions following the learning phase.

Pathways to
Impact
● The Panel’s Policy Impact Committee works with City staff and decision makers to promote their reports and process.

Process ● Engage in good faith in learning and deliberation. ● Uphold group discussion agreements in all small and large group work.

Logistics ● Coordinate all necessary personal travel and arrangements with external parties (including work, school, and family) to ensure full participation in the Panel process.
● Arrive on time and ready to engage in all Panel time.

Accessibility ● Communicate needs for accommodations (interpretation services, child/elder care, transportation, etc.) to program staff.

Staffing ● Serve on one of four task-specific committees throughout the process.

Communications● The Panel’s Public Outreach Committee works with communications staff to promote the Panel’s work and share their experiences with the broader community.

Oversight &
Evaluation
● The Panel’s Process Committee approves of high-level process outline for the deliberation phase – or work with staff to amend the process to reach approval. Monitor and approve any high-level changes to this portion of the process, as it moves forward.
● The Panel’s Evaluation Committee works with independent researchers to help create and interpret evaluations of the process, and make recommendations to the Panel’s Process Committee and HD staff as necessary.
40/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Design & Technical Team
Note: All contracting and scope of work decisions for the Design & Technical Team (DTT) are managed exclusively by the City of Santa Monica, not Healthy Democracy. Details are included here as reference with regard to the DTT’s interactions with the Lottery-Selected Panel.

Areas of
Final
Authority
● Creation of technical materials, including Existing Conditions reports. ● Creation of design concepts and rendering of site visualizations in accordance with Panelist deliberation and collaborative design sessions.

Pathways to
Impact
● Present supporting technical and design details to City Council and City staff, accompanying Panelist reports.

Process ● Participate in collaborative design sessions that support Panelist-led deliberation, learning, and development of land use scenarios. ● Answer Panelist questions and complete additional Panelist-requested technical analysis.

Logistics ● Coordinate with HD on the procurement of tools and materials (e.g., site maps, tactile objects) needed for Deep Dive workshops. ● Schedule in-person and virtual engagements with the Panel as part of process plans, to be developed collaboratively with HD.

Accessibility ● Translate technical reports into plain language and images that are understandable by everyday Santa Monicans with a wide variety of educational backgrounds.

Staffing ● Provide adequate staffing from relevant teams.

Communications● Update HD communications staff about project branding and outreach activities, as it pertains to the Panel process.

Oversight &
Evaluation
● Participate in debriefs with HD process staff after sessions with the Panel; make necessary adjustments and improvements for the future.

Information Committee
Areas of
Final
Authority
● Select most initial presenters to the Panel.
● Create a ‘menu’ of potential presenters for the Panel.

Pathways to
Impact
● Ensure the Panel is provided with diverse and high-quality information, leading to feasible and innovative recommendations that carry as much community and political support as possible.

Process ● Select an initial group of background presenters to speak to the Panel. ● Select additional presenters for the Presenter Menu.
● Engage in feedback loops with the Panel as community stakeholders. 41/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Logistics ● Respond to scheduling requests in a timely manner. ● Attend all meetings of the IC.

Accessibility ● None.

Staffing ● None.

Communications● None.

Oversight &
Evaluation
● Debrief Panel process and meet with Panel Subcommittees, if requested by either party.
ii. Relationships Between Parties
Healthy Democracy & the City of Santa Monica
Healthy Democracy will work in close collaboration with a cross-departmental team of City staff during regular meetings to be scheduled by project partners. Each party will provide regular updates on their areas of responsibility and authority. Subsets of programs- and logistics-focused staff members may choose to schedule additional meetings on an as-needed basis.

HD and City communications staff members will work together to develop a system of approval to efficiently and effectively share social media campaigns and website content.

Both the City and HD will designate a team of 2-3 staff members to approve information for public release by the other party on project websites and press releases. Alternatively, HD and City communications staff will develop a shared folder of pre-approved social media posts and website content. The communications teams will have a minimum of a half-hour meeting every other week to check content and create a shared vision and workplan.

Healthy Democracy & the Design & Technical Team
Healthy Democracy will remain in regular communication and coordination with the Design & Technical Team to design and implement interactions with the Panel and informational inputs from broader public engagement conducted by the DTT. Healthy Democracy process staff will act as the lead process designers for all activities involving the Panel – with input from the Panel, the City, and the DTT. All public engagement conducted by the DTT will be co-designed with HD process staff to ensure integration and logical information flows with the Panel.

The Panel & All Parties
The Panel may initiate contact with any party at any time. The same, however, is not true in reverse – for the sake of Panelist privacy, prevention of undue influence, and Panel autonomy – unless a Panelist or Panelist subcommittee has made first contact. Panelists are encouraged to never speak on behalf of the whole Panel, and all parties are encouraged to not let any personal interactions result in preferential treatment or special influence on the Panel’s process.
42/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
The Panel’s primary points of contact will be HD staff and contract moderators. All questions related to logistics, the process, and Panelist participation should first be directed to HD staff. Relevant correspondence with the Panel’s subcommittees may be forwarded via Healthy Democracy staff.

All project partners (and all members of the public) are welcome to attend any Panel sessions as observers, but direct interactions with Panelists will be reserved for designated sessions according to the process plan and pre-identified points of interaction.

Information Committee & All Parties
The Informational Committee will work primarily with HD staff in regularly scheduled meetings to fulfill its commitments to the Panel process. Members of the IC may maintain individual relationships with HD staff and/or City staff to support their Committee participation, as long as these interactions do not result in preferential treatment of any particular stakeholder interest.
iv. Additional Project Partners
A team of accomplished project partners will be integral to the success of the Panel process. Healthy Democracy has assembled a team of process and communications professionals to ensure not only that this project is a success, but that it becomes a world-class example of innovative deliberative democracy.

A list of project partners and subcontractors follows. In addition to these partners, Healthy Democracy will also contract with local professionals skilled in group facilitation, event logistics, and technical support.

Berggruen Institute
Role: Amplification of the Panel’s story and impact to audiences within Santa Monica and beyond.

The LA-based Berggruen Institute was established in 2010 to develop foundational ideas about how to reshape political and social institutions in the face of great transformations.

They work across cultures, disciplines, and political boundaries, engaging great thinkers to develop and promote long-term answers to the biggest challenges of the 21st Century. The Berggruen Institute is optimistic about supporting the following areas of collaboration:
documenting the Panel process in ways that are accessible and shareable to a wide range of audiences; providing logistic and outreach support for Tour Days to ensure a diverse and robust group of attendees; if met with support from other interested parties, supporting a celebratory event that shares the story of the Panel with the broader public and elevates it as a model for deliberative democracy in North America.

Computational Democracy Project
Role: Train HD staff and Panelists in the distribution, management, and interpretation of the Polis tool. Provide advice, custom data science, and design for new applications of the Polis tool to the Santa Monica project.

The Computational Democracy Project researches, develops, supports, and maintains open tools and systems which leverage advanced mathematics and computation to enable novel 43/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
processes of citizen-driven agenda setting, public deliberation, and participatory decision making. The Computational Democracy Project was founded in 2018 as a nonprofit continuation of Polis's open source work toward a world in which governance better reflects public will.

HD’s Program Advisors
Role: Provide advice on process design decisions by HD Program Co-Directors.

HD’s diverse group of Program Advisors are made up of our former Panelists, former project partners, public engagement practitioners, and international deliberative democracy experts. A group of 5 advisors will be selected (by lottery, of course) specifically for this project, to provide regular feedback and advice on process design to HD Program Co-Directors. Advisors’ involvement in the Santa Monica project will help (and already has helped) to ensure that the process is responsive and accountable to people with a range of expertise related to deliberative processes.

Rahmin Sarabi
Role: Co-coordinate stakeholder and broader community engagement activities.

Rahmin Sarabi is the Founder and Director of the American Public Trust. He is a collaborative entrepreneur, human-centered designer, and strategist with a nearly 20 year background across social benefit startups and not-for-profit organizations. His work in deliberative democracy includes contributions to the Michigan Citizens’ Panel on COVID-19, the Petaluma Fairgrounds Advisory Panel with Healthy Democracy, a novel integration of mini-publics with digital deliberative tools for the State of Colorado, and the lead role in the strategic planning for the international Democracy R&D network. He has spoken on democratic innovations to audiences organized by Stanford, MIT, the Berggruen Institute, and the International Association of Public Participation Professionals. He is also a board member of the Co-Intelligence Institute.

STC Interpreting & Translation
Role: Document translation and simultaneous interpretation of all Panel proceedings.

STC Interpreting & Translation specializes in the translation of documents and websites, as well as foreign language research. Based in Los Angeles and locally owned, their network of qualified and experienced interpreters provide consecutive and simultaneous interpretation in most major languages, including but not limited to: Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, German, Japanese, Greek, Russian, and Chinese. Professional, culturally knowledgeable, confidential, and flexible, STC provides onsite and in-person interpreting services nationwide.
v. Dispute Resolution Methodology
For Conflicts or Concerns Related to Project Management If a project partner becomes unable to fulfill any aspect of their commitment or is dissatisfied with work done by the other party, they may first request a meeting to discuss the concern and attempt to resolve it themselves. If no resolution can be reached, both 44/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
parties will decide whether to hire a professional mediator for a set duration of time or amend or terminate the contract (according to procedures outlined in that document).

For Conflicts or Concerns Related to the Process
Any community member, including Panelists and project partners, may raise a concern or conflict to be considered by the following parties, escalating as-needed in sequential order until a resolution is reached:
a. HD staff, to present rationales and clarifications for process design choices. b. The Panel’s Process Committee,
8 to offer a resolution (to the parties) or process
change (to HD). The Process Committee may exercise final decision-making power with a super-majority, or if they prefer, may direct the matter to the next level of escalation.
c. An ad-hoc group of project partners and stakeholders, to offer a resolution (to the parties) or process change (to HD). This group includes two representatives from each of the following groups: HD staff, the City, the Panel’s Process Committee, and the IC. If the conflict or concern reaches this group, they must exercise final decision-making power with a super-majority.
8 Panelists may recuse themselves if they identify a conflict of interest with the conflict or concern. 45/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Appendix A: Detailed Policies & Procedures for Panelist Selection
The following selection method is conducted by Healthy Democracy. Except where noted, these are HD’s standard selection methods – and common across most practitioners in the field.

The Mailing
● An invitation letter is written and designed by Healthy Democracy, in close collaboration and agreement with the project convener.
○ The letter explains the unique democratic opportunity, the compensation provided, and the time commitment, among other relevant details. ○ An attached reply form requests demographic information. Replies are also accepted online. A phone number and staff are provided for those who may have questions or need personal assistance to complete their response. ○ Both the letter and telephone-based support will be provided in multiple languages.
○ An additional survey question on the letter will ask respondents their first language preference, in order to deliver appropriate interpretation services. ● The invitation letter is sent as part of a 5-15,000-piece mailing to randomly selected residential addresses within the project’s geographic scope. ○ A reminder may be sent, if necessary – either to all addresses or to a randomly selected subset.
● Meanwhile, Healthy Democracy – with advice from the project convener – contacts social service organizations and works with them to distribute a number of “golden tickets” to their contacts who do not live at a residential address. 9 ● In the very rare case of a gap in respondents that would not allow for a Panel to be selected that represents the City of Santa Monica, Healthy Democracy or its partners conducts additional targeted outreach.
○ If the response rate is at least 2%, we do not expect this to be necessary. ○ If targeted outreach is used, we will still only accept respondents who live at the randomly selected addresses or who have received a “golden ticket.” ● Compile data to determine representation on the Panel, based on Census and other sources.
● Select 1,000 potential Panels from among the letter’s respondents. ○ Each of these potential Panels must represent Santa Monica’s population. ○ This selection is done in advance of the Lottery Selection Event, using open-source software called Panelot, developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon and Harvard Universities.
○ Respondents are informed of which potential Panels they have been selected onto, so they can follow along during the Lottery Event to see if one of the Panels they’re on is selected as the final (or alternate) Panel. ● Conduct a public Lottery Selection Event, where one of the potential Panels is chosen.
○ A public lottery is held, where one of the 1,000 potential Panels is selected. 9 A further option: extend the “golden ticket” program to also include social service agencies who work with folks who may be much less likely to reply to the mailing, including folks who live in care homes without individual residential addresses, who are blind, who speak languages other than those into which the mailing is translated, and so on.
46/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
○ A second Panel of alternates is also selected.
○ This event typically also includes a presentation from the project convener and process staff on the project, and serves as the press-friendly kickoff of the Panel.
○ All personal Panelist data is kept fully anonymous during this event.

After the Lottery Selection Event
● Respondents are notified within 4 days.
○ Those selected receive further instructions related to their involvement. Those not selected receive other information about how they can stay involved. ● The process’ Panelist Liaison reaches out to each Panelist. ○ The Panelist Liaison is an HD staff member who acts as each Panelist’s personal contact and concierge.
○ Substantial one-on-one time is spent in advance of the Panel’s first day to help each Panelist feel prepared and comfortable on the first day of the Panel. ● Any selected Panelists who decline to participate – up to midday on the first day of the Panel – are replaced from the Panel of alternates, preserving the Panel’s overall demographic profile as best as possible.
○ The attrition rate during this period can be substantial, as things come up in selected Panelists’ lives or they better understand the commitment required.

Substantial and regular personal check-ins from the Panelist Liaison (and sometimes other staff) help to mitigate this as best as possible and build excitement for the Panel.
● Alternates are supported to attend the first half of the first day of the Panel, so they can immediately be selected and called up in place of Panelists who fail to appear. ● After the first day of the Panel, Panelists may only be replaced at the discretion of Healthy Democracy staff, based on the feasibility of bringing a new Panelist up to speed midway through the process.
○ Luckily, rates of attrition after the Panel is first convened are exceptionally low – typically between zero and two Panelists over the course of the entire process. This is due primarily to the Panel’s immediate investment in its work, and the reduction of practical barriers to participation. 47/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Appendix B: Transparency & Privacy Policy
We work to push the bounds of open and transparent governance, while allowing for one important – and equally novel – exception: designated space for candid deliberation among Panelists.

Specific Policies
● We provide as many materials publicly as possible, including posting all Panel-produced work and any new Panel-requested material to a project website. ● All in-person plenary sessions are live streamed.
● All in-person processes feature a public observation gallery that is open at all times the process is running.
● All Panelists, moderators, and presenters are required to use microphones during all plenary sessions of the Panel – for the benefit of observers, language interpreters, and those who experience difficulty hearing.
● No small-group sessions are amplified or broadcast. The general public and media observers are not permitted in close proximity to small-group tables (for in-person processes) or within small-group breakout rooms (for online processes). ● During in-person processes, all observers are kept at a distance from the Panel, and are subject to the same COVID protocols as Panelists and HD staff. ● Only first names of Panelists are ever used publicly (with the exception of a last initial, as needed).
● All personal information – including demographic info – of Panelists and partners is kept solely by HD in perpetuity, except when individual Panelists provide specific written permission otherwise. More specifically: no Panelist information is ever released to conveners, funders, government agencies, researchers, subcontractors, other project partners, other Panelists, the media, the public, or anyone else who is not a current HD staff member – except with the express opt-in written permission of the Panelist whose information is to be shared, and only then for the specific purpose for which permission was granted.
● Individual Panelists are not required to act as spokespeople for the process or to speak to the public or media, except when they specifically volunteer to do so. ● Panels are designed to not be subject to public meetings laws. ● Small groups are never fully private to Panel members. Most small groups are moderated by professional moderators, who are specifically trained to promote mutual respect and understanding of the process, while staying as impartial as possible to the content of deliberations.
● Maintenance of this process/content distinction is monitored by a Process Ombud (paid by the project), by independent third-party evaluators (not paid by the project or HD), and through periodic evaluations completed by Panelists themselves (and reviewed by evaluators and a subcommittee of the Panel itself). ● All content relevant to the policy question that is generated in small groups is filtered back into the full group process, so that Panelists’ final ideas – while not their identities – are fully public.
● Panelists are empowered through the Process Oversight Subcommittee to raise and address any issues with the process that arise in small or large groups. ● HD commits to providing further explanation to absolutely anyone regarding its process design.
● HD commits to abiding by decisions made through the dispute-resolution process. 48/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Our Rationales
● One primary mission of Lottery-Selected Panels is to open our governance systems to the broadest possible public. We work to find new ways to do exactly what is so often avoided: to show everyone “how the sausage is made.” We’re proud of every part of our detailed designs and internal policies, and we hope to inspire others to do the same. We must embrace and respond productively to public scrutiny if we genuinely aim for a different kind of politics.
● This said, we also recognize that openness cannot be considered in isolation. And we have all seen traditional political bodies – where policy discussions are almost always in full public view – often come with unintended consequences. Ironically, well-intentioned public meeting laws can sometimes be counterproductive to a larger goal of openness. They often encourage meetings that are theoretically and superficially open but not practically so. More specifically:
○ First, traditional public meetings have a chilling effect on who is willing to participate: typically only those with prior political experience, with a confident political voice, and with high degrees of social privilege. ○ Traditional public meetings also have a chilling effect on how participants engage. Participants are more likely to “play to the camera,” to be highly calculated in their speech, or to simply not participate fully for fear of reprisal. ○ What’s more, when there is no accepted and organized space for private negotiation, this rarely means that negotiations are public. Rather, the candid policy conversations necessary to move toward agreement are “driven underground.” They still happen; they just happen informally and without any oversight whatsoever.
● To address these outcomes, we must have designated political spaces where members of the community can work through ideas in some level of safety together.

Courtroom juries operate on this premise – and for many of the same rationales mentioned above. In our processes, the privacy of small group sessions allows Panelists to have substantial in-process time to speak candidly with each other and to work through difficult issues before those ideas are subjected to public scrutiny. ● Panels are created to be supportive spaces where members of the public can authentically learn and contribute without becoming public figures subject to political pressures that they may not have the time, experience, or comfort to manage.
● With all of this in mind, we also want in no way to replicate our current political systems, which – in spite of public meeting laws – often only provide glimpses into policy negotiations either when details are strategically leaked to the press or when a decision is all but finalized. Our policies above relating to the periodic public sharing of content coming out of small groups, as well as the monitoring mechanisms over small-group process periods, attempt to directly address this concern. ● The public must know how processes work to have trust in them. Therefore, our default must be transparency. And where we believe theoretical openness conflicts with practical openness, we must justify our rationale in detail.

Photo/Video Release Policy
● Panelists will be asked to sign a consent form releasing their image, likeness and the sound of voice as recorded on photograph, audiotape, or videotape for the following circumstances:
○ conference presentations
49/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
○ educational presentations or courses
○ informational presentations
○ online educational courses
○ educational videos
○ research studying public deliberation
○ promotional materials
● Panelists will also have the option to release the above either while the Panel is in process or only after the Panel has concluded
Polis Open Data Policy
The Computational Democracy Project operates Polis according to an Open Data Policy.

For the purposes of this Scope of Services, "Open Data" refers to anonymous, non-personal and non-sensitive data resulting from the Polis engagements that is made available to the public under the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution license. This includes, but is not limited to, participant contributed statements, the vote matrix, and metadata related to the services provided under this contract. Exceptions include participant contributed statements that: a.

Contain personal or private information; b. Is confidential or might jeopardize the safety or privacy of individuals; c. Is subject to other legal restrictions; these shall be excluded from the Open Data commitment. Data will be hosted publicly available online, and while the data is open for public use, any public dissemination or publication of datasets, analyses, or visualizations derived from the Open Data should attribute the Computational Democracy Project as the data source under the Creative Commons 4.0 With Attribution license. 50/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Appendix C: Example Group Working Agreements
These example Group Agreements are typically offered by process staff to the Panel at the start of its work together. After any modifications by the Panel (as it desires), they are used throughout the process and apply to all Panelists, staff, and presenters. ● Use respectful verbal and nonverbal language toward everyone. ● Minimize distracting behavior.
● Attend all scheduled meetings.
● Be open to new ideas and information. Avoid making conclusions until you’ve heard and thoroughly considered all of the available information. ● Listen with care and assume good intent. Make a genuine effort to understand the perspectives of others.
● Keep focused on the issue at hand.
● Speak clearly and briefly, and share “airtime.” We have very limited time together. ● Disagree positively. Direct your energy toward the issues, not people. ● Be a problem solver – suggest alternative approaches or solutions. ● Have humility and contribute in good faith. This is a new process for many of us.

These sample Agreements are subject to change by process staff before the start of the Panel – and subject to the Panel’s modifications, as noted above. 51/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Appendix D: External Communications Toolkit
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Lottery-Selected Panel?
This is a different kind of democratic process. A Lottery-Selected Panel brings together a group of everyday people to examine an important public issue. Lottery selection ensures that all of us have a place in public decision making. Five to twenty-thousand letters are mailed out to randomly selected residential addresses inviting residents to participate in the Panel. Of those who respond, a Panel is selected that represents the unique demographic characteristics of that community.

Additional Panelists who may not live at an address are selected via “golden tickets” provided to social service agencies. Panels are professionally moderated and follow a structured process to ensure inclusion, collaboration, and innovation. They are designed to reduce the influence of political bias and put everyday people at the heart of policy making.

What are the principles that guide these processes?
Inclusivity: Proactive, invitation-based recruitment methods and accessibility-driven design bring new voices to the table.

Representation: Lottery selection guarantees representation – “a city in one room.” Integrity: Independent evaluation and oversight drive research-based process design and continuous improvement.

Collaboration: Skillfully moderated discussions ensure thorough comprehension of the issue, respectful exchange, and thoughtful decision-making.

Empowerment: Panelists have full authority over their process and the opportunity to impact real policy decisions.

Because Lottery-Selected Panels are composed of residents who typically do not volunteer for other City processes, they are capable of more deliberative arbitration of fraught political topics.

Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholders and interest groups are not absent from the process – in fact, they are essential to it – but they do not sit on the Panel itself.

Rather, they participate in the process in four ways: 1) Via the Information Committee (IC), stakeholders curates a slate of initial presenters and creates a menu of other presenters for the Panel to consider inviting, 2) A wide array of stakeholders present to and engage with the Panel (some called by the IC and some by the Panel itself), and 3) Stakeholders are invited to offer feedback on the Panel’s work at multiple points later in its deliberative process.
52/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Panel Autonomy: The Panel presents its recommendations directly to Council for thorough consideration. Staff serve the Panel in supportive, rather than directive, roles. This paradigm shift is reflected in process design, moderation style, and budget, with typically around 20-30% of project funds going to mitigating common barriers to participation (financial, logistical, etc.).

Built-In Feedback Loops: The Panel has the opportunity to engage in in-depth feedback loops with technical staff, to review proposed policies in detail.

Outcomes: The Panel’s output is therefore substantial, including both: 1) criteria on which it believes any decision should rest, and 2) detailed policy recommendations (or a review of existing proposals).

Efficiency & Efficacy: In order to accomplish these significant tasks, Panels are highly efficient processes, while remaining comfortable, supportive, and collaborative environments for Panelists.

Inclusivity and Accessibility: Since randomly selected Panels include folks from many walks of life, universal accessibility is emphasized. Panelists are supported to participate and reimbursed for transportation, childcare, and eldercare. Both the in-room process and out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists’ specific needs, providing support services such as translation and assistive technology and adapting to differential learning styles. In online processes, transportation and child/eldercare reimbursements are replaced by technology and hot-spot internet access, as needed.

What are the benefits of Lottery-Selected Panels?
Lottery-selected Panels bring a host of benefits to the community where they take place. ● Boosts diversity in civic participation.
● Increases access for historically marginalized groups. ● Surfaces previously untapped ideas.
● Encourages effective policy co-production.
● Promotes evidence-driven public discourse.
● Showcases a more cooperative politics.
● Fosters ownership over public decision making.
● Enhances mutual trust in governance.
53/57
Since randomly selected Panels include folks from
many walks of life, universal accessibility is emphasized. Panelists are supported to participate and reimbursed for transportation and other costs. Both the in-room process and out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists' specific needs, providing support services such as translation and assistive technology and adapting to differential learning styles. In online processes, transportation reimbursements are replaced by technology and hot-p-spot Internet access, as needed.

DRAFT

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
How do these processes guarantee equality?
Lottery-Selected Panels strive for equality in three primary ways: 1) community members have an equal opportunity of being invited to serve; 2) Panelists reflect the demographic makeup of their communities; and 3) deliberation creates an inclusive environment in which everyone’s voice has the same weight.

Learning: The Panel interviews dozens of experts and stakeholders and conducts its own research on the topic at hand. With external support, Panelists filter information and conduct gaps analyses to ensure information is strong, reliable, and reflects many perspectives on the issue.

What role do stakeholders play?
Stakeholders and interest groups are vital to these processes, even though they do not sit on the Panel itself. Here’s how stakeholders are involved at each stage of the process: First, stakeholders serve as information curators for the Panel. A large number of stakeholders suggest ideas for presenters, and then a smaller Information Committee creates an initial slate of presenters to the Panel, as well as a menu of additional presenters the Panel should consider inviting. Many of these presenters will themselves be stakeholders, offering the Panel a wide variety of viewpoints, expertise, and ideas – and engaging directly with Panelists during a lengthy learning phase of the process. After this phase, stakeholders act in an essential ongoing role, offering the Panel feedback on its work at multiple points, both in person and online. 54/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Where else is this being used?
Around the world, governments are employing Lottery-Selected Panels – often called Citizens’ Juries or Citizens’ Assemblies – to put people at the center of governance. See OECD graphics. In over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to deeply engage their residents in collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy decisions. Healthy Democracy has designed and convened Panels in five U.S. states and three countries since 2008. We are best known for Oregon’s Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), which is one of the most researched deliberative processes in the world and was one of the first modern lottery-selected processes institutionalized in government.

Panels almost always accompany many other public engagement opportunities in which any community member can make their voice heard – for example, public forums and open surveys. Any member of the community who wants to participate in decision-making related to the policy area is encouraged to be involved. If someone isn’t selected for the Panel but still wants to participate, all Panel sessions are available via livestream, and, like all members of the public, everyone is welcome to visit the Panel in person as an observer.

Let’s focus on outcomes: Are we actually getting broad-based participation in traditional, open-to-all engagement processes or just allowing for the possibility of it? Open-in-theory doesn’t usually mean open-in-practice. Just because any can show up at a council meeting doesn’t mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. We don’t want to only hear from the loudest, most active voices, we want to hear from people from all walks of life.
55/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
Isn’t this sidelining existing stakeholders?
No! In fact, existing stakeholders are essential to the process – they curate initial information, present to the Panel, and provide feedback later in the process.

However, existing advocates are often not the right (or best) deliberators; that’s why trials have juries. While organized advocacy is vital to democracy – and to these processes – lots of folks are stakeholders, not just those who are organized. And all of us deserve a chance to be at the table.

That said, we know what it’s like to feel a stake, to believe in an idea – yet to struggle to even be given the time of day. So we don’t just build processes that work for decision makers and the wider public; we build processes that work better for everyone, advocates included. Traditional processes often make us fight to be heard – limited to two minutes at a microphone or meetings where it feels like everyone is yelling and no one is listening. Lottery-Selected Panels are the exact opposite:
processes that take the time to hear from all sides, that support folks to seriously consider every proposal, that encourage deep collaboration and innovation, and – most of all – that create solutions with inherent power that can’t be ignored. If you are a stakeholder who believes in the value of your ideas, we hope you’ll find the Panel a breath of fresh air.

Isn’t this too expensive?
Panels typically cost no more than traditional methods. Plus, this is not just engagement; it is an investment in new civic leaders and in new civic infrastructure.

The benefits of Lottery-Selected Panels go beyond recommendations: a broader culture of mutual trust and reframing of government as a tool we all use and not some entity that does things to us. We must also consider the quality and credibility of decisions – a strong process now has benefits later: smarter policy, more public legitimacy and support, and long-term financial savings.

Isn’t this equality and not equity?
Equality is a minimum guarantee. Democratic lotteries guarantee representation of a city’s demographics. But equality is only a starting place. There are many ways to incorporate equity:
● In setting targets.
● In informational inputs (e.g., stakeholder outreach). ● In the process itself (e.g., support for Panelist-organized, identity-based enclave deliberation).

Overview of Lottery-Selected Panels
Lottery-Selected Panels are a 50-year-old democratic innovation – inspired by ancient democracies in Greece and India – that put everyday people at the heart of public decision making. Often called Citizens’ Assemblies or Policy Juries, these processes combine two key design elements that fundamentally transform public decision making: 1) a democratic lottery selects a Panel that is demographically representative of the community and fully supported to participate, and 2) a deliberative process allows Panelists to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations. With over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to 56/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) DRAFT
SMO Community Panel: Draft Scope of Services
deeply engage residents in helping find collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy solutions.

The lottery begins with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential addresses that makes it as easy as possible to say “yes.” From the resulting pool of respondents, a Panel is randomly selected (at a public event) to reflect a microcosm of the city. Lottery-Selected Panels don’t just “work toward” representation; they guarantee a cross-section of the public’s diversities every time. Selected Panelists are offered language interpretation, and reimbursed for childcare, eldercare, and transportation expenses. This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized residents.

The deliberative process then puts everyday people at the center of in-depth, well-informed, and collaborative policymaking. Given that most lottery-selected Panelists do not have prior experience with the policy topic, they have a unique capacity for identifying common ground solutions in the public’s best interest. Much like a jury in a criminal court, they receive a vast amount of information before independently deliberating on recommendations. Rather than being presented with pre-packaged information from a sponsoring government agency, Panelists hear from dozens of background presenters, stakeholders, and technical experts to understand the landscape of opinions and information on the policy topic. Then, through meticulously designed small-group work aided by professional moderators, Panelists carefully consider options, weigh tradeoffs, and collaboratively identify solutions. Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their process to ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered. The Panel’s recommendations, written entirely in Panelists’ own words, are delivered directly to decision makers. The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative process results in recommendations with broad community buy-in – and unusual public legitimacy – that are frequently adopted by government officials.
57/57

7.A.c
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 8:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.

Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:

Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization. That is not the case. Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an ultra‐low‐density open space.

HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based on the rationale that they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed to the ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 Housing Commission noting HD’s housing issue experience in their project “City of Eugene Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during Nov. 2020 through April 2021. Housing is NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing Element has been certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does not need the airport for housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:

HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 (8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952 The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/ Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political activist Leonora Camner.

Our opposition to a Lottery:

The lottery would surface the different perspectives on that outcome.

That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.

A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate impacts. The burdens of the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park will be disproportionately impacted by traffic, congestion and ongoing pollution from a non‐park development on Airport land. Proportional representation of the many stakeholders is not part of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.

This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.

The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City financing capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and those ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 will disproportionately fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of renters in the city are shielded from much of the impact from property‐related tax increases yet renters constitute more than 70% of city households. Randomly selected city residents without any technical background in the financial issues at play will likely be ill‐prepared to know what questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what information they are provided with and what information is accidently (or otherwise) omitted.

A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:

Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of engagement and advocacy.

Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely sidelined in this process.

In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.

Slippery Slope
The online publication New America described HD’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds issue as “collaborative governance—or “co‐governance.”
https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/ Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica and the Council should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without clear, unambiguous, voter consent.

We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 5 seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees or opposes what. Randomness eliminates the community and the town square and substitutes anonymity. Randomness is un‐democratic and a lottery is inherently unfair.

Thank you
Northeast Neighbors
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 11:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
On Thursday, October 5, 2023, 08:58:33 PM PDT, Tricia Crane <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa Monica Airport
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]> To: Santa Monica City Council
Oct. 6, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica for over 30 years and a home owner here for 26 years.

I’m writing to let you know that I oppose approval or any involvement of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport. I also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, which is not accurate.

Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an ultra‐low‐density open space.

HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based on the rationale that they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed to the Housing Commission noting HD’s housing issue experience in their project “City of Eugene Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during Nov. 2020 through April 2021. Housing is NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing Element has been certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does not need the airport for housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:

HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….” https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future” (8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952 The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/ Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org I urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political activist Leonora Camner.

Opposition to a Lottery:

The lottery would surface the different perspectives on that outcome.

That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 development on Airport land. Proportional representation of the many stakeholders is not part of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.

This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.

The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City financing capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and those will disproportionately fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of renters in the city are shielded from much of the impact from property‐related tax increases yet renters constitute more than 70% of city households. Randomly selected city residents without any technical background in the financial issues at play will likely be ill‐prepared to know what questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what information they are provided with and what information is accidently (or otherwise) omitted.

A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:

Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of engagement and advocacy.

Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely sidelined in this process.

In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 5 I strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.

Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of choosing random people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing their views publicly and the chance to publicly identify with those views; people put a lot of value in seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees or opposes what. Randomness eliminates the community and the town square and substitutes anonymity. Randomness is un‐democratic and a lottery is inherently unfair.

Thank you
Debbie Mego
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 10/10/23 agenda item 7-A -- Future of Santa Monica Airport -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
October 6, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 10/10/23 agenda item 7-A – “Future of Santa Monica Airport” 1) We oppose the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport, or in any other city decision making.
2) We oppose a “Lottery-selected panel process” in our city’s decision-making. It’s the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council. 3) We oppose the suggested “framing question” on page 16 of the staff report: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?” That framing question points the proposed panel’s deliberations toward development. Missing is the Measure LC language about parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities. Any framing question should include the constraints of LC, distinguishing between what can be done under the LC City Charter Amendment, and what would need further voter approval.

Keep in mind that when aviation interests put Measure D on the 2014 ballot to keep the Airport open in perpetuity, the City Council itself put Measure LC on the ballot to affirm the city’s authority to close the Airport.

It was then left to residents to run the LC campaign. While the National Business Aviation Association and other aviation interests donated $1 million to the D campaign, residents managed to raise $135,000 for 3 LC mailers. Volunteers flyered every city household and phoned 9,000 registered voters. Measure LC won 60 to 40; Measure D lost 60 to 40. Those figures were similar in almost every voting precinct.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 What’s more, LC was endorsed by many public officials, and organizations such as the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, the SM/M PTA Council, Residocracy, SMCLC, the SM Democratic Club, SMRR, the Sierra Club, Santa Monica Next, Santa Monica Spoke, FOSP, NEN, NOMA, OPA, PNA, and Wilmont. Those endorsements are still posted at www.ItsOurLand.org
1) Our opposition to Healthy Democracy (HD) is based on these facts:
a) Cost: Healthy Democracy’s Eugene, Oregon Review Panel on Housing was budgeted at $60,000. The budget discussed on page 16 of the staff report for this process totals nearly $3 million. That amount seems outrageous, and at least a large portion of that could go toward building a park.

Schedule: Page 3 of the staff report discusses “personal barriers to participating” in past planning processes. On page 11 it proposes that the panel convene for six 3-day weekends (Friday to Sunday). How could any single parent, or any parent of young children, who might be interested in parks or other open space for their children on the Airport land, possibly participate in a panel with such a schedule? c) Impartiality: Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, but seems to be aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the Airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for ultra-low-density open space. d) Conflicts of interest: Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:

Healthy Democracy is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/ PAD’s 3-member Coordinating Committee includes Leonora Camner, Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA, a 501c3 which added a 501c4 Political Action Committee (PAC) in 2021. https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
Leonora Camner engineered a huge increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica and advocated for an even higher number.

On 10/11/2019, an attorney for Abundant Housing LA sent a letter to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which resulted in the increase in Santa Monica’s housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 On 10/25/2019, Ms. Camner had an Opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times: "SoCal’s new housing plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for everyone,” in which she wrote “Abundant Housing L.A. research director Anthony Dedousis… recently developed a data-driven methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….” https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-25/housing-crisis-los-angeles-scag-homeless-development On 8/29/2020, Ms. Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an Opinion piece published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro-Housing Future.” She wrote, “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.” https://www.smdp.com/letter-to-the-editor-hope-for-a-pro-housing-future/195952 On 11/16/21, the Abundant Housing LA Blog announced Ms. Camner’s plan to support YIMBY candidates with “Our Own Abundant Housing LA PAC.”
https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing-our-own-ahla-pac/ On 11/18/2021, during Ms. Camner’s term on the Santa Monica Housing Commission, Healthy Democracy was Action Item 3-D on the Commission agenda:
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_11_18_HousingCommissionAgenda.pdf HEALTHY DEMOCRACY -- Follow-up discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation to City Council to adopt a lottery-based selection process for housing-related work groups, panels, etc.

Healthy Democracy Presentation (34 slides):
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentatio n.pdf
Healthy Democracy Handout (18 pages): Eugene, Oregon -- Middle Housing Code Amendments Project -- 2020-21
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_EugeneHB2001ReviewPanelP roposedProjectPlan.pdf
For these reasons, we urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy. Its relationship with political activist Leonora Camner precludes its impartiality. 2) Our opposition to a Lottery-selected panel process:

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 A lottery is most applicable when the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a population. In fact, Sunset Park will be disproportionately impacted by traffic congestion and pollution from any non-park development on the Airport land.

Also, the project involves highly technical financial elements which the average person may not be equipped to understand.

The huge scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City financing capabilities. Significant tax hikes will be required to finance the project and those will fall disproportionately on property owners.

Randomly selected residents, with no technical background in the relevant financial issues, may not know what questions to ask.

A lottery will likely create conflict, as stakeholders will question why they’re left out of the final process. Santa Monicans worked hard to pass Measure LC. The highly disparate impacts of various changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.

The Slippery Slope of “Co-Governance”
The online publication New America described Healthy Democracy’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds issue as “collaborative governance” or “co-governance.” https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/briefs/citizens-assemblies-petaluma-california-cogovernance/ Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co-governance” to Santa Monica, and the Council should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without clear, unambiguous, voter consent. “Democratic lotteries” are not democratic elections, and “random” does not mean “unbiased.” Lottery-selected panels can be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs. City decision-making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 5 In conclusion, we oppose the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport.

We oppose a “Lottery-selected panel process” in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport.

We oppose staff’s suggested “framing question” on page 16 of the staff report: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?” Thank you for your consideration.
__________________________________________________________________ Background:

The Healthy Democracy process and efforts in these two contentious land use projects seems to have led to greater division:

Healthy Democracy at work in Eugene, Oregon
“Fear and Chaos at Eugene City Council Middle Housing Work Session” April 22, 2022 – Eugene Register-Guard
https://www.registerguard.com/story/opinion/columns/2022/04/22/fear-and-chaos-at-eugene-city-councilmiddle-housing-work-session/65351116007/ “This is a column about how Eugene will meet the June deadline to allow more housing flexibility, as required by House Bill 2001 and passed by the Legislature in 2018. Except this is not a column about the policy changes that have been required, proposed or contemplated.

The policies are important but they obscure something that matters more — our societal order. Strip away the policy details and a starker image emerges — one that looks vaguely familiar. It resembles the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Eugene City Council work session this week extended past midnight, because 125 participants gave testimony. Councilor Mike Clark said he’d never seen anything like it.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 6 The city council knew from the start this was a hot potato. It delayed its deliberation for as long as possible. It used that time to extend the public outreach deep and wide. It added extra layers of inclusion with an Equity Roundtable, Healthy Democracy Panel, Middle Housing Review Panel, and other outreach efforts.

The Middle Housing Review Panel was designed to reach beyond “the usual suspects.” These were not policy wonks or growth management experts. They were citizens. They met 15 times over 6 months, carefully weighing how each policy change would affect everyday life. They wrestled with trade-offs, complying with legal requirements, as well as economic changes the policies could invite.

Their hard work was unanimously approved by the Eugene Planning Commission. The planning commission then launched its own process, including robust public comments, before sending to the Eugene City Council its unanimous policy recommendations.

City council will continue to solicit public comment with two more work sessions. That’s an important part of the public process. The testimony that would be most useful to them at this point would be details and data that hadn’t been considered earlier in the process. There wasn’t much of that at Monday’s work session.

Councilors Clark and Alan Zelenka worried aloud about the strident tone in some testimony, as well as the unprecedented volume. Councilors should consider whether the last-minute intensity was evidence not of a failed process but of a deliberate attempt to inject fear and chaos as the decision deadline nears.

Those who stormed our Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 wanted to disrupt the democratic process for certifying the election. They insisted that their voice hadn’t been heard, but their only evidence was they weren’t getting their way. Because that bullying was not immediately and unanimously condemned, it has provided a playbook that imperils democratic values and processes everywhere, including here.

Families of elected officials have been threatened at the front door of their houses. Volunteers have been disparaged and warned to watch their backs. Volunteers are essential to making our democracy work — the everyday citizens on the Middle Housing Review Panel, our planning commissioners, and everyone who made this process as robust and inclusive as possible.

Some will be unhappy with the final decisions. That’s inevitable — and all the more reason we should respect our democratic processes and trust the outcomes they produce.” ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 7 “Eugene Officials Unanimously Pass Middle Housing Rules after Months of Community Feedback” May 25, 2022 – Eugene Register-Guard
https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2022/05/25/eugene-oregon-middle-housing-passed-tweakedplanning-commission-recommendation-hb-2001-duplex/65357451007/ “After voting 7-1 to reduce the maximum lot coverage, City Council unanimously passed a surgically altered version of the planning commission’s recommended ordinance to comply with House Bill 2001. That law, passed during the 2019 session, requires large cities to allow for development of diverse housing types such as duplexes and cottage clusters in historically exclusionary single-family zones. As Eugene has worked to pass regulations complying with the law or else have a model code automatically apply, the city’s proposed ordinance has drawn both praise and ire….”
Healthy Democracy at work in Petaluma, California
“Panel Selected to Help Guide Petaluma Fairgrounds Future” April 18, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/panel-selected-to-help-guide-petaluma-fairgrounds-future/ “Fairgrounds Panel Supports Sticking with Tradition While Considering Other Uses for Property” -- July 14, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/fairgrounds-panel-supports-sticking-with-tradition-whileconsidering-other/ “A park space and year-round farmers market are among other ideas floated for the Marin-Sonoma Fairgrounds property….”
“Design Session Offers Glimpse at Possible Futures for Petaluma Fairgrounds” October 5, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/design-session-offers-glimpse-at-possible-futures-for-petalumafairgrounds/ ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 8 “The future of Petaluma’s Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds is still unknown, but a recent workshop may have provided glimpses of that future by pairing up community members with professional architects in an unusual group design session….Architects had an hour and a half to draw up the design ideas, which will be presented to city leaders later this month….”
“Poll: Majority Rejects City Council’s Takeover of Fairgrounds” November 3, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/poll-majority-rejects-city-councils-takeover-of-fairgrounds/ “Nearly three-quarters of poll responders disagree with recent council action….” “What’s the Plan for the Petaluma Fairgrounds?”
March 2, 2023 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/commentary-whats-the-plan-for-the-petaluma-fairgrounds/ “Fairgrounds Negotiations at a Standstill amid Finger Pointing” March 8, 2023 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/fairgrounds-negotiations-at-a-standstill-amid-finger-pointing/ “Petaluma Fairgrounds Talks Remain in Limbo”
April 6, 2023 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/petaluma-fairgrounds-talks-remain-in-limbo/ Opinion: “Fairgrounds Solution at Hand”
June 15, 2023 – Petaluma 360
“Petaluma’s elected officials are responsible for getting the most efficient utilization of this property for the benefit of its owners, the citizens of Petaluma,” writes Argus-Courier columnist John Burns. https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/community-matters-fairgrounds-solution-at-hand/ ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 9 City update: https://cityofpetaluma.org/fairgroundsupdate/ “The City is negotiating with the 4th District Agricultural Association (DAA) in good faith and remains committed to transforming the Fairgrounds for community use, and further integrating the Fairgrounds into community life, while ensuring that the Sonoma-Marin County Fair can continue. “However, your recommendations for additional City subsidies (referenced in your proposal as “potential funding opportunities”) to backfill the DAA’s operating deficit, including utilizing the voter-approved, locallycontrolled Measure U funds, is not realistic. “The City, cannot in good conscience, reduce the local funding that Petalumans voted to provide for rapid 911 emergency response; fire protection services and firefighting equipment; attracting and retaining well-trained community police officers; accelerating street and pothole repair; keeping our local public areas safe and clean; providing support for local businesses; and other public services essential to our community’s needs and quality of life….”
=
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Santa Monica Rx <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 7:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Santa Monica Residents Cross‐City (smRx) joins Northeast Neighbors and residents throughout the city in opposing (1) the role of the non‐profit, housing advocate organization "Healthy Democracy" (so‐called) (2) the intrroduction of a Lottery system
in the process to determine the future of the Santa Monica Airport for the reasons put forth in their letter to SM City Council Members dated 2023 10 05. For your convenience, that letter is reproduced below.

Your close attention to the points raised in the letter and your action conforming to their logic, which reflects the will of the vast majorioty of residents you represent, are strongly urged.

Thank you.

Derek Altmann, Secretary
Santa Monica Residents Cross‐City (smRx)
***************
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:

HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future” (8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952 The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/ Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political activist Leonora Camner.

Our opposition to a Lottery:

That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.

This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:

Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of engagement and advocacy.

Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely sidelined in this process.

In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.

Slippery Slope
The online publication New America described HD’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds issue as “collaborative governance—or “co‐governance.” https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/ Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica and the Council should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without clear, unambiguous, voter consent.

We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.

Thank you
Northeast Neighbors
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Robb Curtis Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 7:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
In the Council's "framing quesƟon". regarding the future use of SMO land, it MUST INCLUDE language that includes the restricƟons imposed by Measure LC!! The only uses for that land, as dictated by LC, are open spaces, park land and playing fields. ANY ALTERNATIVES must be approved by a vote of the residents. In the spirit of HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY, please amend the "framing quesƟon" to include the TRUTH.

Robert Brown
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Dirk V <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7A

EXTERNAL

1. I live in Sunset Park, near the airport. I urge the counsel to refer back to the language of Proposition LC, and rephrase the framing question to conform with what the voters approved.

2. I strongly disagree with the oppose the current draft “framing question” on page 16 of the staff report: which refers to “the balances of land use and development that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?” The word and concept of “development” should be stricken from the framing question.

3. Thank you.

Dirk van de Bunt
1624 Hill St
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Lisa Sandbank <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 8:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council meeting October 10 Agenda item 7-A

EXTERNAL
Re: Agenda item 7‐A ‐ Study Session regarding using the “democraƟc loƩery process” as the primary public engagement method for determining the Future of Santa Monica Airport This loƩery is a deconstrucƟon of the exisƟng, voter‐approved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by naƟon‐wide aviaƟon organizaƟons and their infamous power lawyers.

A loƩery commiƩee gives City Staff the private power to influence commiƩee members at their discreƟon and undermine the intenƟons voted by City Counsel SMO Closure ResoluƟon.

I strongly support the peƟƟon against such a commiƩee.

Lisa Sandbank
Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Janet.Winikoff Yahoo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 11:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
To whom it may apply:

I vehemently oppose allowing private development in the area to be vacated by the Santa Monica Airport. That area should be maintained as open space for use and enjoyment by all Santa Monica residents not for the aggrandizement of the few.

Thank you for considering this perspective in your upcoming decision about land use at the soon to be former Santa Monica airport.

Thank you.

Janet Winikoff
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Airport2Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Airport2Park - Re: Agenda Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
The board of Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation supports in principle the proposed process described in agenda Item 7(A) of the 10/10/2023 meeting, but with one important modification relating to the proposed "framing question” in the staff report (pg. 16) which currently reads: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?”
The inclusion of the words “and development”, despite the fact that this is expressly forbidden by measure LC (without a general election vote), creates a false premise embedded in panel guidance. We, and the community, feel this development issue was already settled by the voters during the LC/D fight. Inserting the idea of violating this voter decision into panel guidance could reasonably be interpreted as a betrayal of trust, and will understandably engender deep suspicion in many. However, with community trust, the board of Airport2Park feels the process holds the potential to bring real benefits both to the community and the City.

Please simply strike these two words, and you have our full support.

Since the Airport2Park Foundation is the direct evolution of the Measure LC board, if we believed that this process was fundamentally flawed, or in any way an attempt to end‐around LC, we would be the first to oppose it. However, we believe the proposed approach is a genuine attempt by staff and Council to avoid squandering this unique opportunity, and not as others may suspect, a subterfuge.

Big infrastructure projects in this City that follow the standard process, have a long history of bogging down in endless squabbles and as a result, ultimately not coming to fruition. We have just 5 years to get ready for Airport closure, and without a process like this, that won’t happen, and we’ll reach that milestone without a concrete park plan and a day‐1 build strategy. Not having these two things will create an opening and incentive for other forces, both within and outside the city, to intervene and possibly prevail, and it may result in the Great Park slipping through our fingers. We as a City cannot allow that to happen, so all of us need this new process to succeed.

Is the process new and unfamiliar? Yes it is, at least to us! But the approach puts control of the process in the hands of a demographically representative community panel (of 40+), who seek and receive input from all, and we believe that will be a good thing that will generate public trust in what is ultimately presented to City Council (which, of course, retains final authority).

Visibly striking the words “and development” from the framing question at this juncture sends a powerful and much needed signal that motives are genuine. We strongly encourage you do so.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 members will be, but we do trust it will be representative of the community, that all voices will still have ample opportunities to provide input, and of course that the results are still constrained by LC. As always, we thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
The Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation board:

Neil Carrey ‐ Chair
Michael Brodsky
John Fairweather
Frank Gruber
Cathy Larson
Mike Salazar
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 2:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 7-A: REJECT THE LOTTERY PROCESS FOR SMO

EXTERNAL
I oppose the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport. It does not seem impartial and it may have conflicts of interest. I also oppose a “Lottery-selected panel process” in our city’s decision-making. City decision-making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.

Jordan Ellis
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
I oppose signing with "Healthy Democracy" at the Nov. 14 meeting.

I oppose a "Lottery Selected Panel" process in city decisions.

I oppose the"framing Question" on page 16 of the staff report.

Carolyn Hanlin
Santa Monica Resident
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Betsy Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 7(A) 10/10/2023

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Back in 2014 I voted for Measure LC. I was a strong supporter and even campaigned for it. LC passed overwhelmingly with 60% of the vote. Now, however, it appears as though the will of people is being disregarded. We want a great park, not development. We agree with Santa Monica Airport2Park FoundaƟon that the words "and development” should be removed from the “framing quesƟon” in the staff report lest there be any confusion of the voters of Santa Monica.

Thank you for your consideraƟon of this request.

Sincerely,
Betsy Katz
3016 Ruskin Street
Santa Monica, CA
90405
310‐415‐0130
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Edward Greenwalt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 12:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A

EXTERNAL
We support the posiƟon taken by Friends of Sunset Park opposing the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organizaƟon in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport. It is apparent that Healthy Democracy likely is not imparƟal and may have a conflict of interest. We also agree with Friends in opposing a loƩery‐selected panel process in decision making. That is the job of the City Council. We also agree that the “framing quesƟon” is defecƟve in the inclusion of “development”, without other factors.

Edward Greenwalt
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 1:38 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Item 7, 10/10/23 agenda

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
Since you are being asked by staff for feedback on the framing question for the proposed Lottery‐Selected Panel (should you choose to go that route), I suggest now is an excellent opportunity for this Council to affirm its intention to close SMO, as prior Councils have done.

Consequently, the opening text of the framing question "With the anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport after 2028..." should be replaced with stronger language such as "Since the City Council is committed to closing the Santa Monica Airport after 2028..."
Regards,
Ted
‐‐
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: agenda item 7-A

EXTERNAL

1. Please be aware that I and others oppose the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport, or in any other city decision making, as it does not seem to be impartial and it may have a conflict of interest.

2. I oppose a “Lottery-selected panel process” in our city’s decisionmaking. City decision-making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.

3. I oppose the suggested “framing question” on page 16 of the staff report: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?”
Janet Tunick
1224 Grant St.
90405
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 5:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject: Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council members
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 6:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members;
Please oppose hiring "Healthy Democracy" and its "Democracy Lottery Process" as resources for helping you make decisions about the future of our Airport. It is your job to promote the best interests of Santa Monica residents, not to serve the building industry. Political activists like Leonora Camner have no interest in serving the needs of our city.

I urge you to take responsibility for making this urgent decision on behalf of your residents.

Thank you for your attention to my request.

Best,
Katharine Dreyfuss
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Andrew Wilder
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 6:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Rick Valte; Stelios Makrides; Amber Richane Subject: 7-A Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport - Dear City Council and Staff,
The Airport Commission has not yet had a chance to discuss the Lottery‐Selected Panel, but I anticipate we will do so at our October 23rd meeting and provide a recommendation before you revisit this in November. In the meantime, this is my own personal comment:

The proposed question is unacceptable because it is phrased in a way that seems to deliberately encourage new development, which is in direct contradiction to the mandate of Measure LC. This is why you are seeing such strong opposition to this proposed panel by the community.

Adding "without proposing any modifications to Measure LC" and removing the words "and development" will solve this:

With this background, and without proposing any modifications to Measure LC, how should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?
Though that is unnecessarily (and confusingly) wordy. Perhaps you could simplify it to be clearer:

With this background, and without proposing any modifications to Measure LC, what should we do with the Airport land once it closes that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica's long‐term vitality?
If these changes are made to the framing question, I'm optimistic that the focus group could be a useful tool in the planning process.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Andrew Wilder
Santa Monica Airport Commission Chair
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 10:33 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David White
Cc: councilmtgitems; Amelia Feichtner; Alex Parry; Christopher Dishlip; Amber Richane Subject: Oct 10, 2023 Item 7-a

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I usually don’t submit a lengthy public comment. Primarily because I don’t think it will get a thorough read, but in this case, for clarity, I determined an amount of detail is essenƟal. I will aƩempt to make my points as succinct as possible.

There is a significant percepƟon in the community that staff recommendaƟons for the LoƩery‐Selected Panel Process (Item 7‐a) are creaƟng “development” bias in the proposed airport planning process in lieu of the endorsement of the public’s demonstrated (Measure LC) desire for park, open space, and recreaƟonal faciliƟes.

For the community members who keep close tabs on Airport Issues, this is culƟvaƟng and ferƟlizing a sense of mistrust of the staff and the democraƟc loƩery process.
 RecommendaƟon #1 states the democraƟc loƩery should be the “primary” engagement method. It is laudable that the City is aƩempƟng to fold in voices that may normally not be heard to create “equity” in the planning process, but there are many voices that want to be heard that will not be chosen for the panel. These voices should NOT be leŌ out of the decision‐making process of the future of the airport land. You may hear the loudest voices from the residents of Sunset Park. Why? The obvious answer is the airport is in their neighborhood and they will bear the brunt of or, opƟmisƟcally, the benefit of what future airport land uses become. The airport has been their neighbor for decades. These residents have endured noise, environmental polluƟon, and safety risks during that Ɵme. They deserve, along with all the ciƟzens of Santa Monica, an equal opportunity to weigh in—not just a secondary or less—engagement method.

Other avenues of Public Engagement, in addiƟon to the DemocraƟc Panel, must be given equal consideraƟon for true equity in the decision‐making process.
 RecommendaƟon #2 Even though the “framing quesƟon” for the democraƟc panel is menƟoned on page 1, the proposed language for the quesƟon is buried on page 16:
“How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses and development, that will most effecƟvely contribute to Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?” The inclusion of “and development” assumes there will be development but the current City Charter language, an outcome of Measure LC approved by 60/40 margin, specifically states NO new development except parks, open spaces, recreaƟon faciliƟes.

Measure LC language:
“prohibit new development on Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreaƟonal faciliƟes, unƟl the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land” The people have already spoken prioriƟzing park/recreaƟonal/arts use not “development.” ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 The “framing quesƟon” for the democraƟc panel must be modified to remove any development bias language and include acknowledgement of Measure LC limitaƟons.
 RecommendaƟon #3 asks for a “sole source contract” for Healthy Democracy without going through the usual compeƟƟve bidding process. There have been credible claims that this organizaƟon has Ɵes to housing development. It raises the quesƟon in the community whether Healthy Democracy can be entrusted to be an imparƟal moderator of a democraƟc loƩery panel.

Choosing a single organizaƟon without public veƫng or considering other alternaƟve providers, creates a percepƟon of bias: the organizaƟon may influence the democraƟc panel members and, therefore, the outcome of their recommendaƟon.

Other points I would request the council consider in reviewing in the Staff report:
 Having the DemocraƟc Panel serve three‐day weekends will create more “plan” faƟgue than avoid. (page 5 LoƩery Selected Panel Process). It will also discourage a wide swath of potenƟal parƟcipants from taking part and may hinder the goal of equity on the panel. Just because a panel member is being compensated for his/her service on the panel, doesn’t mean that person can ask his/her boss for the Ɵme off work.  The esƟmated cost of $2.5‐3 million seems excessive. It would be informaƟve to see what other CiƟes have invested using this process.

To sum up:
 DemocraƟc LoƩery Panel can be a component of the public input process but not the only component and there should ample opportunity for interested parƟes to be a part of the engagement process.  The Framing QuesƟon needs to be modified to delete the “development” bias.  Council should consider alternaƟves to Healthy Democracy as the facilitator of the DemocraƟc Panel process to dispel potenƟal bias in the process.

I am a Boardmember of both Airport 2 Park and Friends of Sunset Park. This public comment reflects my own personal views. The aforemenƟoned organizaƟons have submiƩed comments on behalf of their respecƟve Boards.

Cathy Larson
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.

We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to inform the process.

City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our democraƟcally elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.

We would be there in person to express our opposiƟon but we are out of town. Thank you for listening to the residents.

Sincerely,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
2520 California Avenue
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Gerda McDonough <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 6:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
>
>> Dear Councilmembers,
>>
>> We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.

We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to inform the process.
>>
>> City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our democraƟcally elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council. >>
>> We would be there in person to express our opposiƟon but we are out of town. Thank you for listening to the residents.

Gerda McDonough
Santa Monica Resident
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 7:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

I oppose the city using the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport, as it does not seem to be impartial, and it may have a conflict of interest due to its connection to a pro-housing advocate.

I oppose using Healthy Democracy's “Lottery-selected panel process” in our city’s decision-making. City decision-making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council, not just a group of randomly-selected people.

Thanks you,

Megan FitzGerald
2437 Pier Ave, Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: HEIDI JO COREY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 7:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Heidi Jo Corey
Subject: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
>
>
> Dear Councilmembers,
>
> We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.

We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to inform the process.
>
> City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our democraƟcally elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council. >
> We would be there in person to express our opposiƟon but we are out of town. Thank you for listening to the residents.
>
> Sincerely,
ᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
310‐656‐0000
[email protected]
1129 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 9:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda Item 7.a, Tuesday, 10 October
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 2:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 7.a, Tuesday, 10 October

EXTERNAL
To the City Council:

SAVE 'THE GREAT SANTA MONICA PARK'
I am writing in opposition to the Council’s adoption of the contract with Healthy Democracy in a consultancy role for the future plans for the airport land.

Over 100 years ago, the then City Council were visionary individuals who supported a bond issue to create The Great Santa Monica Park. It now appears that the city staff is determined to destroy the intent of both these leaders, as well as the legal intent of the bond measure by engaging a non‐objective consultant — Healthy Democracy.

San Francisco has it’s Golden Gate Park and New York City its Central Park and the members of the council now have the opportunity to realize the concept of a Great Santa Monica Park focused on a wide range of athletic facilities and open spaces to serve the city’s 90,000 residents.

Everyone knows Santa Monica is a dramatically “under parked” city.

The City Council should not be faced with a “Yes” or “No” vote on the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy at an estimated cost of $3 million. The council should have had a public hearing of at least three competing consultants who stress their background and capabilities. The council should not relinquish their responsibility to unnamed, unaccountable staff members to decide this critical, long‐term matter.

It is clear that the “lottery” methodology that Healthy Democracy has adopted as their “secret sauce” has not been exhaustively examined by staff, and it seems likely no one on the council could possibly explain it in detail nor defend it to the community. Santa Monica should not be another guinea pig for this unique method that ignores various vested citizen groups. If the city wants to spend such an excessive amount of money on a lottery, perhaps they should buy a PowerBall ticket instead.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 It also is not lost on any informed individual that just because you call something “democratic” does not make it so. In fact, upon further examination the name Healthy Democracy is suggestive of an Orwellian effort to distort the consultant’s true agenda which is to make sure the road is cleared for excessive development of this invaluable public land.

Let’s be honest, Healthy Democracy is arguably influenced by Public Access Democracy, and “PAD" is not independent from Leonora Camner and Abundant Housing LA. Nothing would make "AHLA" happier that to see a dozen, 100‐foot tall market‐rate high‐rises scattered across the land purchased for The Great Santa Monica Park!
If you are truly independent in your decision making, connecting the dots is not at all difficult — AD should have no role in the future determination of the airport land.

Please vote “NO” on Tuesday and reaffirm the city’s intent to create a unique, once in a generation effort that will last for another 100 years.

Roger A. Hill
A 40‐year resident.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 9:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: City Council Meeting Oct 10, 2023 Item 7.A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must ask you NOT to accept a loƩery selected process for the Santa Monica Airport and not to accept the organizaƟon Healthy Democracy to conduct it. A loƩery selected process is clearly undemocraƟc as it excludes input from the people of Santa Monica. Furthermore, Healthy Democracy has plainly shown its bias toward housing and against the objecƟve of preserving the Santa Monica Airport as an open space park and this was the preference of the voters of Santa Monica when they voted for ProposiƟon LC. ProposiƟon LC was sold to the voters of Santa Monica as converƟng the Airport into a park, not housing. I urge you to use the standard review process to decide the future of the Santa Monica Airport in accordance with the wishes of the voters of Santa Monica when they approved ProposiƟon LC. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Sunset Park and live next door to the airport. We were promised we would have total input into the future of the airport. Developing the land was never part of the discussion when the iniƟal count was taken as to whether the airport should stay or go.

There is no Ingres or egress for more than a few people at a Ɵme I do not wish to live near a housing development for years. I’d rather keep the airport.

Thank you
Gail Gordon
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7-A

EXTERNAL
The Santa Monica Airport is in my back yard. I strongly oppose your “Healthy' DemocraƟc loƩery .

It is neither democraƟc and certainly not healthy.

You, as our City Council, are the only authorized body to make decisions about how the land at the airport is used.

We are choking on grid lock already. This space must be preserved for breathing room. The quality of life for the residents of Santa Monica must be respected. That would be “healthy.” Thank you,
carol Joffe
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Cheryl Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Reject Lottery Process

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a long time Santa Monica resident, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the lottery process for Santa Monica Airport for exactly the reasons the Friends of Sunset Park have researched and detailed.

Thank you for your consideration of this extremely important issue, Cheryl Downey
Pearl Street
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Steve Barnett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 11:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Pam Winn Barnett
Subject: Healthy Democracy is not Healthy or Democratic

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Healthy Democracy is not Healthy or DemocraƟc. Neither is a loƩery to guide input.

We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.

We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to inform the process.

Thank you for listening to the residents. We’re who you represent.

Sincerely
Steve BarneƩ and Pamela Winn BarneƩ
2526 California Avenue
Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7.A, 10 October 2023

EXTERNAL
To the City Council:

SAVE 'THE GREAT SANTA MONICA PARK'
I am writing in opposition to the Council’s adoption of the contract with Healthy Democracy in a consultancy role for the future plans for the airport land.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 It also is not lost on any informed individual that just because you call something “democratic” does not make it so. In fact, upon further examination the name Healthy Democracy is suggestive of an Orwellian effort to distort the consultant’s true agenda which is to make sure the road is cleared for excessive development of this invaluable public land.

Please vote “NO” on Tuesday and reaffirm the city’s intent to create a unique, once in a generation effort that will last for another 100 years.

Roger A. Hill
A 40‐year resident.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Lauren de la Fuente <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 12:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I opposed Agenda item 7-A -- Study Session

EXTERNAL
City Council:

Agenda item 7‐A ‐‐ Study Session regarding using the “democratic lottery process” as the primary public engagement method for determining the Future of Santa Monica Airport.

I oppose using Healthy Democracy's “Lottery‐selected panel process” in our city’s decision‐making. City decision‐making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council, not just a group of randomly‐selected people.

I oppose the suggested “framing question” in the staff report: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?”
That question points the proposed panel’s deliberations toward development. Missing is the Measure LC language about parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities. Any framing question should include the constraints of Measure LC, distinguishing between what can be done under Measure LC’s City Charter Amendment, and what would need further voter approval.

I vote. I voted for LC. Votes should COUNT!
Please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Lauren de la Fuente
Lauren de la Fuente
2110 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Founder and Strategic Advisor
Pearl Street Marketing
[email protected]
310.283.8488
www.pearlstreetmarketing.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurendelafuente/

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Bob Sevy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: No SMO Airport? Be Careful What You Wish For! ( Item 7-A )

EXTERNAL

Honorable Council members,
Some of you might recall my efforts to “Save the Cottage” located at 2219 Ocean Ave. a number of years ago.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide some thoughts about the future of SMO, the Santa Monica airport.

Please allow me to summarize my thoughts as follows:

 Noise for all of "us"

 Public space for some of us.

 Emergency Services for None of us.

Noise: I think the noise issue for “All of Us” might be a surprise for the bulk of the residents of our city. Perhaps some of you have already noticed a bit more “Commercial Jet” noise over the city. Especially in the mornings, and later at night? It is my understanding that the FAA regulates height restrictions of LAX jets over cities, including SM. With the existing SMO airport, that height limit currently exists at approximately 5k feet I believe. It was higher before the most recent changes to the airport. Once SMO is gone, the FAA will remove local airport restrictions and LAX’s commercial jets will be able to glide into LAX at a lower level (and take‐offs of course). The reason this will happen is simple, the airlines will save costs. In other words, it’s going to happen and jet liner noise will increase for all of us. Are you aware of this eventuality? Think about the other communities near LAX that have been experiencing noise issues already that are much greater than SMO.

Public Space: We are lucky to have a large public space already, the Beach and the Pier. We also have a number of parks in our city; tennis courts, soccer fields and bike paths. Although a huge amenity for our citizens, not everyone uses them (I’ll hold my tongue on the unhoused use).

Emergencies: This is one of those items you do not appreciate until you do. Another huge earthquake affecting our area? More riots breakout? Some weird fire blows through our area somehow? Who knows with global warming what will come next? I personally believe that our community will need emergency services on a grand scale at some point and the airport will help facilitate saving lives. Our community apparently undervalued SMO and I’m afraid the collective we will regret losing it.

These are my thoughts and I appreciate your consideration.

Bob
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Kathy Zurich-Lunsford <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Daniel Lunsford
Subject: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

City decision-making, and engagement in that decision-making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.

We would be there in person to express our opposition but we are out of town. Thank you for listening to the residents.

Sincerely,
Kathy Zurich-Lunsford
Dan Lunsford
1055 Lincoln Blvd.

Kathy Zurich-Lunsford Julia & Derricks Mom
c: 310-569-1202
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Save The Cottage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: FW: No SMO Airport? Be Careful What You Wish For! ( Item 7-A )

EXTERNAL
Note: I meant to send this from the SaveTheCottage email address and not my personal email. I will resend. Please do not post my personal email into the public record ‐ SORRY Honorable Council members,

Some of you might recall my efforts to “Save the Cottage” located at 2219 Ocean Ave. a number of years ago.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide some thoughts about the future of SMO, the Santa Monica airport.

Please allow me to summarize my thoughts as follows:

 Noise for all of "us"

 Public space for some of us.

 Emergency Services for None of us.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 and LAX’s commercial jets will be able to glide into LAX at a lower level (and take‐offs of course). The reason this will happen is simple, the airlines will save costs. In other words, it’s going to happen and jet liner noise will increase for all of us. Are you aware of this eventuality? Think about the other communities near LAX that have been experiencing noise issues already that are much greater than SMO.

These are my thoughts and I appreciate your consideration.

Bob

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Save The Cottage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No SMO Airport? Be Careful What You Wish For! ( Item 7-A )

EXTERNAL
Honorable Council members,

Some of you might recall my efforts to “Save the Cottage” located at 2219 Ocean Ave. a number of years ago.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide some thoughts about the future of SMO, the Santa Monica airport.

Please allow me to summarize my thoughts as follows:
 Noise for all of "us"
 Public space for some of us.
 Emergency Services for None of us.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 Emergencies: This is one of those items you do not appreciate until you do. Another huge earthquake affecting our area? More riots breakout? Some weird fire blows through our area somehow? Who knows with global warming what will come next? I personally believe that our community will need emergency services on a grand scale at some point and the airport will help facilitate saving lives. Our community apparently undervalued SMO and I’m afraid the collective we will regret losing it.

These are my thoughts and I appreciate your consideration.

Bob
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 2:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: In support of Agenda Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council:

Please support the innovative Lottery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the airport.

The Lottery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:

Inclusiveness and Representation — it ensures participation from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all demographics.

Collaboration — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.

Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to thoughtful and independent outcomes.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Sent from imobile device, please excuse random acts of autocorrect....

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Mark Schubb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 2:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 7-A

EXTERNAL
I live blocks from the airport and stand with Friends of Sunset Part on this one. No to the lottery and no on this contract.

In my many decades living in Santa Monica, one thing I 've learned is that there is NO "participatory process" that city staff or its consultants can conduct with residents that does not lead to MORE egregious overdevelopment and traffic‐‐ confounding every resident who has ever participated in these conversations.

The filter, the framing, the process, the "professional report" ‐‐ the entire game ‐‐ is always driven to the advantage of developers and counter to the actual input from residents. Progressive ideals like public art, sustainability or the latest DEI language are just a distraction.

Lipstick on a pig.

Please vote no.

Thanks,
Mark Schubb
Sunset Park
90405
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Elaine Golden-Gealer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 7-A

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica residents want to control the outcome of what happens to the airport.

A random lottery of SM & LA residents can be influenced more easily than local activists who have educated themselves on the issues around the airport.

A lottery system will most likely lead to a developer's paradise....but a Santa Monica hell hole with thousands of low income apartments, hundreds of multimillion dollar condos, a magnet to out of state & non-Santa Monica California homeless who like warm weather, lax drug laws & all of our multitudinous free services.

Elaine Golden-Gealer
Santa Monica Resident since 1977
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Madi Hertz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7-A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
We need to do beƩer with the airport land. This is the resident’s land, not the developer’s. Please don’t let special interests take our wealth. Land is the only riches we have leŌ, along with the Pier and the Civic Auditorium.

Do not sell our legacy. Also, you might do some research about the Great Park in Irvine. Another former airport site that was well developed .

Thank you,
Madi Hertz
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 12:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David White
Subject: October 10 Agenda item 7A Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
My feedback for the staff's recommended action regarding the Lottery-Selected panel process for the Airport is as follows:
1) While I support looking at ways to make the community engagement process more efficient and effective, I'm concerned that the proposed process will not adequately allow the input from residents and stakeholder groups. These groups must go through the not well defined "Information Committee" to have access to present to the lottery committee.

Given the timetable, I don't see how all the stakeholder groups will be able to adequately provide input. I am also not confident that the people chosen by lottery will be able to adequately represent my interests. 2) The framing question should have the words "and development" removed. The panel should not include business owners or people from West LA. In fact there should be greater representation from the Santa Monica neighborhoods surrounding the airport as they will be most affected by the plans. 3) THIS CONTRACT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE SOLE SOURCED!!!!! For a contract this size ($1.2 to $1.5 million) it should go through the RFP process to make sure the City is not overpaying. If Healthy Democracy is the only company that provides this service, then it makes me even more skeptical about going this route. The City should also evaluate the connection that Leonora Camner has with Healthy Democracy and make sure that her involvement will not influence Healthy Democracy to steer the Lottery-Selected panel to include housing units when Measure LC dictates that it become a park.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Karen Melick
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Steve Mount <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 2:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Healthy Democracy and the Santa Monica Airport property

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing an outsized role to determine the future of the Santa Monica Airport property. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making as they do not represent the citizens of our city but instead represent the special interests of developers instead.

With best regards,
Pamela and Steve Mount
2519 California Avenue
Santa Monica 90403
(951) 323‐1852

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Denise Anderson-Warren
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Rick Valte; Amber Richane; Christopher Dishlip; Amelia Feichtner; Alex Parry
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A. 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy proposal; it violates the City Charter

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Councilmembers:

Please reject the proposal to hire "Healthy Democracy" to conduct the City's community outreach for the Airport-to-park process. Using "Healthy Democracy" will result in a process that is neither healthy or democratic. Why?
Most notably, the proposed process would undercut the controlling impact of the Measure LC directive / City Charter Amendment, and violates the City Charter with respect to the mandates contained within the Charter for participation by the City's Charter-enumerated Boards and Commissions: Planning, Aviation, and Recreation and Parks in a planning process such as this one.

Specifically, any lottery system will violate the City charter by displacing and usurping the "powers and duties" given to the City's advisory Boards and Commissions, which SHALL (not may) advise Council on many matters, including all of those that pertain to turning the Airport into a park. This is why the Civic Working Group process in 2014- 2015 for the Civic Auditorium, as an example, included seats explicitly for representatives from the Landmarks, Planning, Arts, and Recreation and Parks Commissions.

In addition:

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2  "Healthy Democracy" (a misnomer if I've ever seen one - think George Orwell's "1984") has no proven track record - its one main project (the Petaluma Fairgrounds) did not result in a plan acceptable to the community and may trigger litigation.
 The "Healthy Democracy" process will be expensive (likely over $1.5 million dollars) - In contrast, the City paid HR&A somewhere between $300K and $400K to do the 2014-15 Civic Working Group process. Using "Healthy Democracy" would be 5x that cost.  The "Healthy Democracy" proposal initiates a process that is both unnecessarily complicated and also oddly exclusive and limited. So just say 'no'. I am confident that the traditional approach of Staff and the Design and Technical Team working together will be successful in thoroughly engaging community members.
 There are other far less expensive ways to include people who need financial support to participate and for a fraction of the cost Staff can invite them. Noticing local churches and other organized religious groups, non-profits offering supportive services, PTAs, community service organizations, and other community groups of longstanding is a great way to inform and seek volunteers who may need help with babysitting or transportation to planning events. Keep it simple!
 "Healthy Democracy" is irrevocably tainted by association with lobbyist Leonora Camner & the "build, baby, build" housing agenda. Ms. Camner, a paid lobbyist who Council would have (and should have) removed from the Housing Commission had her term not almost been up, agendized "Healthy Democracy" for Housing ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 Commission discussion in 2021 and since that time has promoted "Healthy Democracy" through her tool/mouthpiece on Council, Jesse Zwick. If Council and the City want the Airport envisioning process to be unbiased and achieve broad-based community input, they will not hire a company to conduct the process that is so clearly connected and synonymous with Leonora Camner & the excessive, harmful, politicallydriven, and on-steroids market rate housing development agenda that is funded by the developer lobby & which has caused such acrimony in our town.
 It is not healthy or democratic to cut the obvious stakeholders out of the process. One clear example is the residents and businesses in Sunset Park - they have and will continue to bear the brunt of whatever happens on the Airport land and should have a significant say in the decision-making process. There also are individuals who possess extensive Santa Monica history and institutional knowledge who should unquestionably be part of the process, plus members of the aforementioned the Charter-mandated City Boards & Commissions.  Hiring "Healthy Democracy" unfortunately would confirm to the community that Council aims to undercut the Measure LC
mandate. While any airport envisioning process will flesh out details and answer questions not specifically answered in the language of Measure LC, both Councilmembers such as Mayor Davis in a recent neighborhood group meeting and local organizations such as the Democratic Club have stated that "lots of people have ideas for the airport and we want to bring all of them into the process". Oh really? The community already set forth its vision for the Airport Park in Measure LC. So please remember that trying to ignore or subvert the legitimate results of an election (60% of eligible voters supported LC) is sadly familiar -- quite TRUMPIAN, don't you think?
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4  Hiring "Healthy Democracy" opens the door to the insertion of unknown entities and influences into the planning process. Please see the draft below from "Healthy Democracy" of a proposed breakdown of costs by Payee (at the bottom of the chart). o The proposed flow of money (to whom?) is incredibly opaque and not transparent.
o Who are these "local subcontractors and services"?
o Who are these "other partners and services"?
o 60% of the contract might be paid out to these mystery entities, so in hiring "Healthy Democracy" Council effectively would sanction contracting or subcontracting with entities not yet identified or able to be known at this time or in November. This is the opposite of a transparent process and may raise Oaks Initiative issues.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 5 In short, the proposed use of "Healthy Democracy" - being neither healthy or democratic - is not right for Santa Monica. Accordingly, with respect to the direction Staff seeks tomorrow night from Council:

1. Please reject the democratic lottery process as the primary public engagement method for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project; However -

2. If and only if a majority of Council votes to proceed with "Healthy Democracy", please provide direction to staff that the framing question the Lottery Selected Panel would answer must exclude the words "and development" and that the Lottery Selected Panel should be comprised ONLY of Santa Monica residents and should explicitly exclude non-resident business owners and/or people from the adjacent West Los Angeles area.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 6 Bottom line, I respectfully ask that Council not proceed any further with "Healthy Democracy" and thereby demonstrate your commitment to implementing a community engagement process that is of the highest transparency and integrity, not one that has generated community-wide questions and objections from the very start and which has the potential to result in legal complexities and even litigation for the City.

Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 27 years
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 7 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: David Earl Woodbury <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support the Innovative Lottery in Item 7A for the airport

EXTERNAL
10‐9‐23
Honorable City Council:

Please support the innovative Lottery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the airport.

The Lottery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:

Inclusiveness and Representation — it ensures participation from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all demographics.

Collaboration — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.

Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to thoughtful and independent outcomes.

Sincerely,
David Earl Woodbury
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Remember, I'm never too busy for your GUEST referrals!
[email protected]
Cell: 310‐579‐5058
Arthur Murray Dance Center Santa Monica ‐ FREE PARKING! 928 Broadway
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310‐260‐8886
Upcoming Events!
October - Tournament of Champions Sponsorship
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 November 14 - Medal Ball
December 3 - Murray Christmas Party
December 10 - Holiday Star Ball
November - December - Tournament of Champions
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Member, SQA Winner!
Most Loved Winner for 2023! Best of the West Side Winners Follow us on Facebook
Please write us a review on Google or Yelp
Write usa review on: Yelp
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: SUZANNE ESCOFFIER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council meeting 10/10/23, Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members:

Airport2Park has worked with the community to provide a solid set of goals that have withstood the test of time, budgets, and pandemics. You already have frameworks on which to base a framing question. Don’t ignore the work that has already done. The purpose of LC and its charter section is clear: "Development” should not be inserted into any framing question regarding the Airport land.

Thank you
Suzanne Escoffier
Ocean Park resident
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White; [email protected]; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Gleam Davis; [email protected]; Phil Brock
Subject: Item 7-A. OPPOSE HEALTY DEMOCRACY RE;SMO LOTTERY

EXTERNAL
GET RID OF HEALTHY DEMOCRACY in all ways
but never never let them near the airport decisions.

What in the hell are you thinking?
OPPOSE OPPOSE OPPOSE - both hiring this absurd company that is tied to Abundant Housing -developer lobbyists and to SMF..enablers of it all..

WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU HAVE LET ABDO, SMF AND ABUNDANT HOUSING AND LEONORA CAMNER raise out mandatory units to nearly 9000 units.They were low before that. They also installed Jesse Zwick. They intend to take over this town and are destroying it.
"The three groups also oppose staff's proposal to hire Healthy Democracy, a group Northeast Neighbors linked to former Housing Commissioner Leonora Camner, executive director of Abundant Housing LA, which "engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica."
"Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization," Northeast Neighbors wrote in its letter to the Council, proving links that connect the group to Camner. "That is not the case.
"Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an ultra-low-density open space."
Do it now..please ..stop playing into these people -
and stop destroying what is left of this town -
Danielle Charney
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Katharine King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Yes on Lottery Selected public Engagement Process

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable City Council:

Please support the innovative Lottery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the airport.

The Lottery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:

Inclusiveness and Representation — it ensures participation from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all demographics.

Collaboration — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.

Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to thoughtful and independent outcomes.

Sincerely,
Katharine King
632 Pacific Street Unit1
Santa Monica. CA
Sent from AOL on Android
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Phil Brock
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Bruce Leddy; [email protected] Subject: ITEM 7A. /Council Mtg 10-10-23

EXTERNAL
To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
Re: Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council Members -
As you know, in 2014 Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly approved Measure LC which allows "the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities" on the airport land, and prohibits new development without voter approval. The Executive Board of NOMA therefore urges Council to proceed cautiously with any process that could circumvent the expressed will of voters. Friends of Sunset Park has enumerated many potential problems with the proposed plan for a lottery-selected panel (LSP) coordinated by Healthy Democracy. We support their concerns and have the following additional thoughts.

While an LSP is appealing in that it encourages participation by a wide cross-section of randomly selected residents, the proposal in the Staff Report falls short of that ideal. If Council insists on this process, we recommend the following changes:
1)REVISE THE FRAMING QUESTION - the framing question for the panel to consider must be neutral.

Currently, the suggested question in the Staff Report suggests the panel must find a "balance of land-uses and development," (p10) which pre-supposes the inclusion of development at the airport, in direct contradiction to Measure LC. We recommend striking that clause so the question remains neutral and open-ended, such as, "How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land in a way that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica's long-term vitality?" 2)VET THE PANELISTS - the Staff Report describes the LSP function as, "analogous to a jury trial" (p9) where impartial jurors are presented evidence and reach a conclusion. This is not an accurate comparison:
after random selection, jury members go through vois dire which removes people with vested interests in a particular outcome, or other relevant experiences or biases that would predispose them to certain conclusions.

A process must be added so that potential panel members who have a conflict of interest or any potential financial gain from a certain outcome in the airport plan are disqualified. 2)MAKE THE SCHEDULE WORK FOR MORE PEOPLE - In order for the LSP to be broadly representative of Santa Monica residents, it needs to be structured so the maximum number of people will agree to enter the lottery. The proposed schedule of full-day meetings, over three day weekends, for six weekends, eliminates anyone who works regular hours, anyone who has children that need care on weekends, anyone who has a job that includes weekends, etc. It leaves a narrow, unrepresentative pool of potential applicants. This could be mitigated by making the meetings once a week, only in the evening or on weekends, only a few hours at a time, holding them on Zoom... anything to make the meetings as easy as possible for a broader group of people to say "Yes" to entering the lottery.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 3)HOLD SEATS FOR FOSP- The Staff Report mentions potentially holding two seats for residents of West LA as they are likely to be impacted by airport changes. But Sunset Park residents will be far and away the most impacted. A purely random lottery might result in a panel with no residents from Sunset Park, leaving the fate of their neighborhood in the hands of non-residents. It is essential that some percentage of seats be reserved for Sunset Park residents to ensure they have a voice at the table. 4)DEFINE "DIVERSITY" - The report states that Healthy Democracy will take the respondents who enter the lottery and create a panel that "reflects the diversity of Santa Monica." (p7) But it doesn't define what the criteria are for diversity: is it racial, economic, geographic, age, gender, renter/homeowner/business owner...? Council should require a specific definition of "diversity" in this context so that the most relevant criteria are being considered in forming a representative panel.
5)VET THE GATEKEEPERS - The panel will only be as unbiased in its assessment of the airport land options as the people they hear from and the information they are given. Therefore, it is crucial that whoever administers the panel be impartial. Friends of Sunset Park raises concerns about Healthy Democracy's neutrality that should be carefully investigated. Further, the Staff Report mentions an Information Committee (IC, p10) which will control what is presented to the panel, ostensibly to ensure unbiased information flow. But it does not define who is on the IC and how they are chosen. This needs to be defined before going to contract.
6)MAXIMIZE TRANSPARENCY - as with any City Commission that functions in an advisory capacity to City Council, all meetings of the LSP should be open to the public via teleconference and recorded for the public's benefit. This will allow public scrutiny of the information presented to the panel and help ensure its accuracy. 7)QUESTION THE COST - nearly $3 million for this process seems egregious, particularly compared to other city projects run by Healthy Democracy. The cost needs to be justified, and if possible, the process opened to other potential bidders. Given the fact that residents have already explicitly indicated their desire for a park at the airport through Measure LC, one has to wonder whether this entire process, and the expense of running it, makes any sense at all.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bruce Leddy
Chair, NOMA
smnoma.org
[email protected]
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Jan-Peter Flack <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jan-Peter Flack
Subject: Reject the Lottery Process for Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear City Counci.

As a resident and homeowner near the airport of 25 years, I urge you to respect the real democraƟc process that we fought for long before you served in the City Council.

Namely Measure LC.

We understand how vulnerable members of the City Council have been in the past to Developer’s interests.

The park on which an airport was placed should now go back to serve the public as a park, its original designaƟon.

Don’t endanger our democraƟc accomplishment with the “democraƟc loƩery process”. It’s a smokescreen to confuse the ciƟzens of Santa Monica,
Plain and simple.

Thank you.

Jan‐Peter Flack
2522 32nd Street
32nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:46 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMCC 2023-10-10 Item 7.A. - Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose every aspect of staff’s Item 7.A. recommendations, specifically:

1. The use of a staff proposal to change the fundamental structure of City governance, especially one described as “Co‐governance” within the context of involvement by the organization known as Healthy Democracy[a]

2. Use of a lottery process as the primary public engagement method for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project

3. Suggestion that any non‐Santa Monica resident and taxpayer should be involved in the decision

4. Framing of any question on the Airport’s future to include development

1. The use of a staff proposal to change the fundamental structure of City governance, especially one described as “Co‐governance[a]” within the context of involvement by the organization known as Healthy Democracy
Council should not countenance any staff proposal to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica. The fact that this has been allowed to proceed onto the Council agenda is extraordinarily troubling. It is entirely unclear how Council has failed to recognize that in its implied contract with the voters of this city, such a fundamental disenfranchisement of the key stakeholders in this city is entirely unacceptable, and in bad faith. Most troubling is the precedent this would set, opening up all future contentious issues to core stakeholder disintermediation.

Any Council contemplation of such a fundamental change in representative structure should only be manifested by a ballot initiative presented to the residents to ensure clear and unambiguous voter consent, if such consent is ever given.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 2. Use of a lottery process as the primary public engagement method for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project
Given the highly disparate and immensely consequential impacts of any Santa Monica Airport decision on the different stakeholders in the city, there cannot be a more inappropriate public engagement method than a lottery. That this is not self‐evident to the staff and Council is inexplicable.

Options for the future of the Santa Monica Airport all have highly disproportionate impacts to the various stakeholders in the city, on multiple dimensions. Sunset Park would be disproportionately impacted from traffic, congestion, and pollution from the impacts of permanent development.

Moreover, a random selection process would include its own biases by reflecting the highly skewed demographics of the city which in turn are highly divergent from the distribution of burdens for each option. Approximately 70% of the city’s housing units are multi‐family rental while single family parcels are over 70% of the taxable parcels. Single family parcels comprise 45% of the city’s assessed property tax base while multi‐family parcels comprise 17%. So, it will be primarily single‐family homeowners that would bear the brunt of any new parcel taxes that would be necessary to finance the towering costs of construction alternatives of either a park or development.

As a rough example of the potential disproportional impacts, and using the City’s Memorial Park Plan[b], a 187‐acre Airport park could cost over $2 billion with inflation. That would average out to between $60,000 and $98,000 per taxable single‐family parcel. Including bond interest could double that liability.

The land use environment is also much more complex than when Measure LC was passed, with state usurpation of much of the City’s land use authority since LC’s passage in 2014. It is highly likely that elements of 2014’s Measure LC are now impacted by the state legislation introduced since 2016. Eliminating federal protection against development that accompanies an aviation facility may open up the airport parcels to subsequent development that is not even within the control of the city. These issues need to be thoroughly understood, viable mitigating alternatives developed, with clear presentation to the Council and the voters.

A randomly chosen, non‐technical group will struggle with the critical analysis capabilities required for ensuring cost estimates and financing alternatives are correct and adequately reflect the economics of each alternative. Understanding all the implications of the state land use constructs and legislation on the long‐term parcel outcomes will add further analytical complexity.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 Residents on all sides of this issue have fought hard to present their case. Disenfranchising all these city stakeholders in one swoop is one of the most anti‐democratic and anti‐ representative actions the Council can take.

3. Suggestion that any non‐Santa Monica resident should be involved in the decision The mere suggestion that any representation would be given to any individual or group that will have absolutely no obligation to assume any funding burden for the towering once‐in‐a‐lifetime costs of any post‐airport plan is absurd and a non‐starter. The City of Los Angeles would never allow non‐city stakeholders to dictate cost burdens to its residents.

4. Framing of any question on the Airport’s future to include development Staff’s suggested framing includes “…how should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses and development…” Staff seems to have completely forgotten that the entire Measure LC / Measure D contest in 2014 was about competing visions for open space. LC even stipulated that any development other than existing cultural had to be submitted to the voters. Since 2014, LC proponents have vigorously denied any room for contemplation of development on the airport parcels. Why staff believes that it is now OK to formally introduce development in any post‐Airport visioning is in direct contradiction of all residents’ and stakeholder expectations. This is beyond incomprehensible.

It should be noted that Santa Monica has received an approved Housing Element from the state for the (absurd) allocation of 8,895 units it received in the state’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) 6th Cycle without, it should be noted, contemplation of the use of the Airport parcels. That means that contemplation of development at the airport is completely unnecessary.

It should also be noted that the current 8,895‐unit mandate includes a completely subjective and arbitrary 4,066 / 84% unit add‐on that was strongarmed into Santa Monica’s allocation during a four week period in 2019, due entirely to an October 11, 2019 letter sent to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) by the Abundant Housing LA lobby group where Ms. Camner served as Executive Director. In the December 10, 2019 Council meeting, Ms. Camner essentially threatened to send another letter to SCAG pushing for 14,155 units if the Council objected to the grossly inflated 9,058 total she and her group achieved in the SCAG drafting. Ms. Camner is currently a Director of Public ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 Access Democracy (PAD) and is on its Steering Committee. PAD is an organization that has identified Healthy Democracy as a project partner on PAD’s website. Ms. Camner has repeatedly pushed to involve Healthy Democracy in city land use and housing development issues while on Satna Monica’s Housing Commission. The conflicts and bias represented by these relationships, and the damage to Santa Monica these related groups have already inflicted is beyond mere optics.

There is also no basis for any future contemplation of development at the airport (or anywhere else in the city) in any future RHNA housing unit allocations. All assumptions used in allocating the 8,895 units Santa Monica in the 6th Cycle have proven to be either grossly overstated or highly flawed or both. Since the start of the 6th Cycle, LA County’s population projections prepared by the state’s Department of Finance have dropped at least 10% from the 2030 assumptions and 22% for the 2045 assumptions. This means that Santa Monica should not receive any higher allocation in the upcoming 7th Cycle (that starts in 2029) than it received in the 6th Cycle. In fact, the allocations should decline! That means that contemplation of development at the airport is completely unnecessary.

Finally, if the state attempts to further inflate any unit allocation to Santa Monica in the drafting of the 7th Cycle, perhaps to push for development at the airport, it will be the Council’s absolute obligation to strenuously object to, and deny, any such additionally inflated state allocation as completely arbitrary, unsound, and manipulative.

Going Forward
It is imperative that the Council devise a fully inclusive and competent stakeholder process to determine the future of the Airport parcels. In addition to city stakeholders, this process should also include nationally recognized, impartial consultants to assess the cost and land use implications of any alternatives, both in the aggregate and to the various city stakeholders that would end up footing the bills.

I strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes. I also strongly advocate for the City to fully embrace all Santa Monica, and ONLY Santa Monica, stakeholders. In disenfranchising the City’s stakeholders from representation, Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic.

Respectfully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 5 [a] Building the Future of Democracy in Petaluma, California – New America 04‐20‐2023 https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/ [b] First phases of Memorial Park redesign approved
https://smdp.com/2019/10/18/first‐phases‐of‐memorial‐park‐redesign‐approved/ ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject: Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
BACKING UP NEN.. TOTALLY AGREE

OPPOSE HEALTHY DEMOCRACY AND ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THEM IN OUR CITY To: Santa Monica City Council
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:

HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.

PAD has on its coordinating committee Leonora Camner, a self‐professed YIMBY and Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA political action committee. https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
But Leonora Camner’s singular focus on a housing outcome does not stop there. Her organization, Abundant Housing LA (supported by the housing lobby group California YIMBY among others) engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica. An attorney for Camner’s Abundant Housing LA sent a letter dated 10/11/19 to Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG) and that letter resulted in the increase in Santa Monica’s housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607 Leonora Camner boasted about the role she played in lobbying SCAG to increase the housing requirement for Santa Monica in an LA Times 10/25/2019 Opinion piece: "SoCal’s new housing plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for everyone.” “Abundant Housing L.A. research director Anthony Dedousis, along with UCLA urban planning professor Paavo Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….” https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future” (8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952 The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/ Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political activist Leonora Camner.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 Our opposition to a Lottery:

The lottery would surface the different perspectives on that outcome.

That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.

This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.

A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:

Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of engagement and advocacy.

Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely sidelined in this process.

In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.

FROM TRICIA CRANE AND NEN
and
I agree‐
Danelle Charney
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 6:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; David White
Subject: CC item 7A—Oppose “Healthy Democracy” & lottery approach to SMA future

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and esteemed Councilmembers, I oppose the “Healthy Democracy” and lottery approach to determining the Santa Monica Airport’s future for reasons detailed below by Northeast Neighbors and elsewhere by Friends of Sunset Park.

Vested interests driving public policy do not create a healthy democracy. Santa Monica must not empower any more people serving unchecked conflicting interests at residents’ expense.

Please vote to oppose this newest thinly veiled effort to exploit Santa Monica for the benefit of private interests.

Thank you,
Michelle Gray
Santa Monica resident
__________
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.

We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based on the rationale that they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed to the Housing Commission noting HD’s housing issue experience in their project “City of Eugene Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during Nov. 2020 through April 2021. Housing is NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing Element has been certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does not need the airport for housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:

HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.

PAD has on its coordinating committee Leonora Camner, a self‐professed YIMBY and Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA political action committee.
https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
But Leonora Camner’s singular focus on a housing outcome does not stop there. Her organization, Abundant Housing LA (supported by the housing lobby group California YIMBY among others) engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica. An attorney for Camner’s Abundant Housing LA sent a letter dated 10/11/19 to Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG) and that letter resulted in the increase in Santa Monica’s housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607 Leonora Camner boasted about the role she played in lobbying SCAG to increase the housing requirement for Santa Monica in an LA Times 10/25/2019 Opinion piece: "SoCal’s new housing plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for everyone.” “Abundant Housing L.A. research director Anthony Dedousis, along with UCLA urban planning professor Paavo Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….” https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future” (8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.” https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952 The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/ Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org
We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political activist Leonora Camner.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 Our opposition to a Lottery:

That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.

This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.

A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:

Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of engagement and advocacy.

Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely sidelined in this process.

In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.

Thank you
Northeast Neighbors
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Ruthann Lehrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 7:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Public input on the Study Session Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Oct. 9, 2023
Item 7A: Study Session Discussion on the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport

Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,

As a long‐time resident of Santa Monica and a participant in many community engagement planning activities here, I feel compelled to share some concerns about the proposal to engage Healthy Democracy for the public engagement process for Airport planning. These issues are on the table as items 1 and 3 of your study session.

Sticker‐shock ‐ The price tag of $3 million:
 SM is in dire financial straits due to litigation payouts and pension liabilities.  Our libraries are not yet open.
 Our historic preservation program is moribund due to the termination of City financial support.  Our iconic landmark Civic Auditorium is being offered for sale.

How can we afford this new expense?
Elimination of controversy:

Land use planning always involves controversy due to the complexity of the issues, trade‐offs and differing views of stakeholders. It is not realistic to believe that the proposed new process, or any planning process, will eliminate controversy. Simply establishing Healthy Democracy as the lead team has stoked controversy at the outset, with neighborhood organizations believing that this team is not impartial.

Whatever process is established moving forward, transparency and public access needs to be embedded so that every community voice and point of view can be heard. The outcome is likely to require voter support.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Goals:

Outreach to constituencies and minority communities that have not been active in civic affairs is a worthy objective, and offering stipends, reimbursements and translation services are great ideas to facilitate that effort. This element should be retained in whatever process is established.

However, there are some barriers in the existing proposal because the workshop structure of three‐day meetings (Friday – Sunday) will eliminate many families with children from participating. Who will be available to meet on such a schedule should be considered. Not mothers with young or school‐age children, or many such fathers.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 The Lottery System
The Healthy Democracy model is based upon jury selection. However, we know that juries sometimes convict innocent people because of the biased information supplied to them by prosecutors. The burden therefore shifts to the Information Committee and other information channels, which are very tightly controlled in this process:

9. There is a strict process/content delineation over what and how the Panel receives information and then delivers recommendations. (p. 10 staff report)

Are there indicators that this process leads to better outcomes than the many other community engagement processes that have been managed by staff, with consultants used as technical support?

These are my personal observations, and I am not speaking on behalf of any organization.

Many thanks for your service to the City.

Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Nancy Duresky <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 8:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: input for December 10 city council meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,

Thank you for reading this letter and considering what I have to say.

I understand that at the city council meeting on October 10, 2023, you will discuss using a process called Democratic Lottery process, which is supposed to be a public engagement method for what should be done with the airport land. It is sold to us by a company called Healthy Democracy.

First, the citizens of Santa Monica have already determined what should be done with the airport land. It should be a park. I took time off of work to collaborate with the citizens of Santa Monica to help decide what should be done with that land. The voting citizens of Santa Monica, the ones that you represent because they voted you into office, decided that 100% of every inch of the current airport should be devoted to a park. I do not know why the staff of Santa Monica is suggesting that there is any room for discussion about what should be done with the airport land. It has been decided that 100% of every inch of the current airport should be a park.

Second, I am strongly NOT in favor of using the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport Land. I am a professor who has conducted scientific research and has supervised about 20 doctoral candidates during my time teaching. I read their material and listened to their videos. The methods used by Healthy Democracy that I have heard discussed by an employee of Healthy Democracy, and that I have read about are not in keeping with unbiased sound research principles. In particular, I am referring to their random process framing question. The framing question presupposes the answer. They are not unbiased researchers. Maybe Healthy Democracy is great at a sales pitch, but we will not get unbiased data from this organization. They use all the ‘buzz’ words in their website without defining even one variable.

Third, I am strongly opposed to the lottery selection panel. Our state runs a lottery. It is open to any citizen. There is a possibility of winning a million dollars. However, you have to ‘step up’ and buy a ticket to win. I will not win the state lottery because I do not buy a ticket.

The lottery process that Healthy Democracy is suggesting does not require wanting to be involved. In the past, the city has invited all of the citizens to participate (buy a ticket). The ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 city took the responsibility of holding discussion and information sessions to present an issue and gather feedback. I participated in many of those meetings. If a citizen of Santa Monica wants to have input into a city decision, she or he could attend a city-sponsored discussion. That is one of the principles of gathering information by city councils. I have no confidence that they have any understanding of the outcome of the previous work done by the citizens. I believe the previous vote of the citizens of Santa Monica should inform any further data gathering. I have no confidence that Healthy Democracy has an interest in Santa Monica’s future.

Please do not use Healthy Democracy. If the city staff wants to opt out of its job, there are several Santa Monica based organizations could be used to suggest a process for further citizen discussions for our future park.

Finally, I do want Santa Monica to provide housing, low and extremely low cost housing. However, if there are any housing projects north of Wilshire, I am unaware of them. If there are some low-income housing north of Wilshire, what percent are north of Wilshire and what percent are south of the 10 Freeway? The land in question is supposed to be used for a park. Let’s find another place for low income housing.

Thank you
Nancy J Duresky
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 8:27 PM
To: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I must confess after reading the letter to Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council from Bruce Leddy of the Members by the North of Montana Association the following seems to sum up the whole issue:
"Given the fact that residents have already explicitly indicated their desire for a park at the airport through Measure LC, one has to wonder whether this entire process, and the expense [three million dollars] of running it, makes any sense at all. "

It would seem the three million dollars could be better spent in park development ideas and implementation. Possibly even hiring someone to write for grant applications to the federal government and other non-profit environmental agencies.

Warm Regards,
Charles
Dr. Charles L. Blum
[email protected]
1752 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-392-9795
www.drcharlesblum.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail communication (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18, U.S.C 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received this message in error, and then delete it. Thank You.

These records must be maintained confidentially and may not be re-disclosed. They must be destroyed when your legitimate educational interest no longer exists.

Dr. Charles L. Blum
[email protected]
1752 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 310-392-9795
www.drcharlesblum.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail communication (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18, U.S.C 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received this message in error, and then delete it. Thank You.

Ferpa Notice: Additionally, these records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and are provided to the intended recipient under an exception to the Act found in Section 99.32. These records must be maintained confidentially and may not be re-disclosed. They must be destroyed when your legitimate educational interest no longer exists.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 8:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Agenda Item: 7.A: Re-Frame the "Framing Question" for the Lottery-Selected Panel Process

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please provide clear direction to staff about the framing question to the Lottery Selected Panel.

The framing question should be clearly written:
"What kind of Park, Recreational and Open Space do we want without proposing any additional, development, land use changes, and modifications to Measure LC?”
In 2014, Santa Monica residents overwhelmingly voted for “parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.” Our residents voted first in 1926 and then again 2014 to meet our future park needs and to insure that future generations will have access to much needed park space.

Yet today, our urban park space still remains among the lowest in the county and the state.

We need to reclaim the original Clover Field Park that was located where the airport is today but was lost.

Let us honor those votes and our commitment to Measure LC, and make clear that the “the framing question” meets our community needs.

Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Robin Shakeshaft <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 9:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: airport closure

EXTERNAL
Regarding the Council's upcoming meeting on 10/10/2023, I am writing to a request a small change, one with a potentially significant consequence, in the language on p. 16 of the staff report. Specifically, I believe that the words “and development” should be deleted from the question: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?” These words convey disregard for Measure LC, which was passed to ensure that no development will take place once the airport is closed. Furthermore, these words give the impression that the Council is not sincere in its stated support for Measure LC and the goal to turn the land that will be freed once the airport closes into a public park space.

Robin Shakeshaft
1325 Maple St., Santa Monica 90405
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: sally allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 9:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
I support the positions that FOSP have taken in regards to the development of the airport land.  Firstly, I oppose giving a nonpartial org like Healthy democracy a significant role in the decisions about the airport land.
 Secondly DO YOUR JOB city council! YOU WERE ELECTED FOR A REASON. ‐ a lottery to decide a decision as momentous as this is truly absurd.
 Especially do I oppose the “framing question” in which the development of the land (presumably by developers wanting to enrich themselves at the expense of citizens of Santa Monica) is given equal weight with land use for the community.

Sincerely,
Warren & Sally Allen
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:03 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 – OPPOSE Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining the Future of the SM Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

I OPPOSE approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the future of the Santa Monica Airport and OPPOSE the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

Please reference the Northeast Neighbors’ recent letter to the Council pertaining to this subject.

Thank you for allowing me to express my view.

John Dahl
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Robert Lipman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: John Fairweather
Subject: Agenda Item 7(A)

EXTERNAL
Hello- I am in absolutely full agreement with the board of SM Airport2Park Foundation. Please remove the words, “and development, “ per the information below. I live in Santa Monica and am an active voter. Thank you! robert lipman.

The board of Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation supports in principle the proposed process described in agenda Item 7(A) of the 10/10/2023 meeting, but with one important modification relating to the proposed "framing question” in the staff report (pg. 16) which currently reads: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land-uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?”
The inclusion of the words “and development”, despite the fact that this is expressly forbidden by measure LC (without a general election vote), creates a false premise embedded in panel guidance. We, and the community, feel this development issue was already settled by the voters during the LC/D fight. Inserting the idea of violating this voter decision into panel guidance could reasonably be interpreted as a betrayal of trust, and will understandably engender deep suspicion in many. However, with community trust, the board of Airport2Park feels the process holds the potential to bring real benefits both to the community and the City.

Please simply strike these two words, and you have our full support.

Since the Airport2Park Foundation is the direct evolution of the Measure LC board, if we believed that this process was fundamentally flawed, or in any way an attempt to end-around LC, we would be the first to oppose it. However, we believe the proposed approach is a genuine attempt by staff and Council to avoid squandering this unique opportunity, and not as others may suspect, a subterfuge.

Big infrastructure projects in this City that follow the standard process, have a long history of bogging down in endless squabbles and as a result, ultimately not coming to fruition. We have just 5 years to get ready for Airport closure, and without a process like this, that won’t happen, and we’ll reach that milestone without a concrete park plan and a day-1 build strategy. Not having these two things will create an opening and incentive for other forces, both within and outside the city, to intervene and possibly prevail, and it may result in the Great Park slipping through our fingers. We as a City cannot allow that to happen, so all of us need this new process to succeed.

Visibly striking the words “and development” from the framing question at this juncture sends a powerful and much needed signal that motives are genuine. We strongly encourage you do so.

We look forward to working with the City, staff, and community to make a “Park for the Ages”, as we trust all parties in this matter do also. We understand that neither we nor others can control the process, nor can we know who the panel members will be, but we do trust it will be representative of the community, that all voices will still have ample ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 opportunities to provide input, and of course that the results are still constrained by LC. As always, we thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Grace Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7A: I support the Lottery Selected process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As someone who has aƩended mulƟple City outreach meeƟngs over the years, I believe the current City process is heavily Ɵlted in favor of people who have the Ɵme and bandwidth to come to the meeƟngs. The people who do not have Ɵme to come are almost, without fail, those who are actually most impacted by the outcomes of the meeƟngs. WaiƟng for hours to speak at an evening public meeƟng aŌer a full day of work is just not an opƟon for most Santa Monicans.

Therefore I support the DemocraƟc LoƩery public engagement process for the development of an equitable Airport plan.

The process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups — especially those who do not have the luxury to haunt public meeƟngs ‐‐ and has led to inclusive and transparent outcomes in ciƟes where it was used.

Please support the LoƩery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A.

Sincerely,
Grace Phillips
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 7:38 AM
To: Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Attorney Mailbox; [email protected] Subject: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We are writing this letter to oppose the approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.

City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our democratically‐elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.

Our Opposition to Healthy Democracy:

We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias of the organization. Rather, the City of Santa Monica should work with the neighborhood associations and residents that will be directly impacted by the development that will occur at the SM Airport.

Our Opposition to a Lottery:

A lottery is most applicable where the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a population. In such a case the selection process would only apply to divergent views of a universally‐experienced impact. No one group would have more or less stake in the outcome. The lottery would help surface different perspectives on a broadly‐shared outcome. In this case, the use of a lottery would result in the undermining the input of stakeholders and residents of Santa Monica that will be directly impacted by what happens at the Santa Monica Airport.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate impacts. The burdens of the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park will be disproportionately impacted by traffic, congestion and ongoing pollution from a non‐park development on Airport land. Proportional representation of the many stakeholders is not part of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.

The Airport project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.

We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.

Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of choosing random people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing their views publicly and the chance to publicly identify with those views; people put a lot of value in seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees or opposes what. It is clear that City staff want to undermine resident voices by creating a system that circumvents knowledgeable stakeholders that understand the technology and know the history of advocacy regarding the SM airport that has taken place.

Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: ziba soroudi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No lottery

EXTERNAL
On airport
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: MICHAEL DE VILLIERS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMO redevelopment public engagement process

EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council:

Please support the innovaƟve LoƩery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the airport.

The LoƩery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:

Inclusiveness and RepresentaƟon — it ensures parƟcipaƟon from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all demographics.

CollaboraƟon — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.

Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to thoughƞul and independent outcomes.

Sincerely,
Michael de Villiers
1115 Arizona Ave
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 1 Xavier Mota
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Santa Monica City Council Meeting - 10/10/23 - Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Attachments: SMO - Reject the Lottery Petition - Signatures and Comments 10-10-23.pdf From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting ‐ 10/10/23 ‐ Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Public Comments Submitted for:

Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport 300+
Authors and signatories submit the petition below
and attached as a PDF for easier readability.
===============
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 2 E-mail: [email protected]

PETITION

We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.

We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.

To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.

Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:

We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would substitute an untested, nondemocratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on information largely provided by that same Staff. The elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution.

A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the purposes of a public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was no mention of an airport or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end of World War 2, and far past Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s. (See Exhibit 1.) B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities, until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.” (See Exhibit 2.) In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national aviation lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements). (See Exhibit 3.) Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“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.” (See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:

1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,

2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and

3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 3 The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters regarding the Airport.

C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” (See Exhibit 5.) Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.

D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:

1. Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.

2. No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions and recommendations.

3. Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual motivations will be unclear.

4. Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).

5. Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.

6. Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.

7. Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete, inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.

8. Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.

9. Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability, discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.

10. Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or underrepresented groups.

Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs. As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A process that is untested, is by definition not cautious. (See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 4 The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, which have been consistently supported by the electorate and through broad public input.

We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:

1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.

2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.

3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.

Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.

Please honor the residents and the democratic process.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 5 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 6 Exhibit 2.

The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 7 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 8 Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list) ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 9 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 10 Exhibit 5.

City Council SMO Closure Resolution
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 11 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 12 Exhibit 6.

City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 13 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 14 Signed (with additional comments),
 10-05-23 at 05:50 AM // Alan Levenson // Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now.
 10-06-23 at 01:40 PM // Charles Blum // Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.  10-06-23 at 04:21 PM // Tanya Troglin //
 10-06-23 at 04:45 PM // Elizabeth Van Denburgh //
 10-06-23 at 05:08 PM // David Klass // The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of residents.
 10-06-23 at 07:32 PM // David Goddard // The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far.
 10-06-23 at 07:55 PM // Christine Hardin // We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
 10-06-23 at 09:55 PM // Joseph Hardin // "Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially children and the elderly.

Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO. It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor Measure LC. Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors."  10-06-23 at 10:41 PM // Quynh Nguyen // Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
 10-07-23 at 01:09 AM // John C Smith // I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.”
 10-07-23 at 02:04 AM // Joseph Schmitz // "As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights. Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport. Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes at SMO. "  10-07-23 at 02:56 AM // Joan Schmitz // Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
 10-07-23 at 06:02 AM // River Huston //
 10-07-23 at 07:17 AM // Allyson Dworkin //
 10-07-23 at 07:21 AM // Susan Vandebunt //
 10-07-23 at 07:33 AM // Robert Brown //
 10-07-23 at 07:39 AM // Dirk W van de Bunt //
 10-07-23 at 07:42 AM // Charles Gibson //
 10-07-23 at 08:01 AM // Elizabeth Lerer //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 15  10-07-23 at 08:04 AM // Diane Sabatini //
 10-07-23 at 08:19 AM // Lisa Sandbank // "This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voterapproved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers. A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution. "  10-07-23 at 08:39 AM // Victor Fresco //
 10-07-23 at 08:45 AM // Sean Meehan // The question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green space.
 10-07-23 at 09:47 AM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our wishes!
 10-07-23 at 10:13 AM // Constance Stewart //
 10-07-23 at 10:43 AM // William Schoene // Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!  10-07-23 at 10:50 AM // Jack Drutz //
 10-07-23 at 11:59 AM // Asa Greenberg //
 10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Gregg Chadwick //
 10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Flavia Baptista //
 10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Chris Waller // The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park. Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already conjested area.
 10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Jeffrey Felz //
 10-07-23 at 12:03 PM // Andrea hricko //
 10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Alvin Crown //
 10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Benjamin Shore // Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park no other use.
 10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jennifer // "Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people. Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon."  10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jacqueline McDonald // do your job!  10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Se Jong Ding //
 10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Jeffrey Rosenfeld //
 10-07-23 at 12:12 PM // Gerard Raether //
 10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // David Konell //
 10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // Andrea Maitra //
 10-07-23 at 12:14 PM // Richard Drapkin // Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs
 10-07-23 at 12:17 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport  10-07-23 at 12:20 PM // Roberto Schaefer //
 10-07-23 at 12:22 PM // David Abramis // "My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D: Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, David Abramis"  10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!  10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Weber // Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the people affected.  10-07-23 at 12:25 PM // Iris Souza // "Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and homeowner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, Iris Souza"
 10-07-23 at 12:26 PM // David Ginsburg //
 10-07-23 at 12:27 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!  10-07-23 at 12:28 PM // Patricia Braun //
 10-07-23 at 12:29 PM // Jason McClaren //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 16  10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Karen Croner //
 10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Susan Hartley //
 10-07-23 at 12:31 PM // theo swerissen // We want a park.  10-07-23 at 12:32 PM // Victor davich // The fish stinks from the head  10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // John C Smith // Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.  10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // William Sadler // Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided. Elections have consequences
 10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Annie Sabroux //
 10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Paola Levenson // We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were promised a park!
 10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Margot mcleay // We already voted on this issue  10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Will Pirkey //
 10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Devon Pothier //
 10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Sandra Casillas // I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it. Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there and fulfill the edict of the voters
 10-07-23 at 12:37 PM // carrie davies //
 10-07-23 at 12:42 PM // Nurit Pereh // We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether. Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.  10-07-23 at 12:48 PM // Ingrid Mueller // "Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support. Please check history and create a better future."  10-07-23 at 12:49 PM // Yvonne Guy //
 10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Betsy Katz //
 10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Jessica Tracy //
 10-07-23 at 12:58 PM // Michael Jerrett // Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the company.
 10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Joy Abbott // Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
 10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Ed Arias //
 10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Jason Knapp //
 10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Chutney li //
 10-07-23 at 01:12 PM // Alison Buell // The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
 10-07-23 at 01:18 PM // Eileen Tunick // Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition. Our votes will count.
 10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // igor meglic //
 10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // Brenda Goodman //
 10-07-23 at 01:31 PM // Stephen Hewitt //
 10-07-23 at 01:42 PM // Jamie Dunham //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 17  10-07-23 at 01:48 PM // Joseph Lutz // Close the airport and build a park.  10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Kevin Kinigstein //
 10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Andrea Lieberman // I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected by the noise and air pollution for decades.  10-07-23 at 01:55 PM // Gary Glickman // We have been asking for your representation for many years.

Are you abandoning us?
 10-07-23 at 01:59 PM // barbara whitney // I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft.  10-07-23 at 02:02 PM // Randall Klarin //
 10-07-23 at 02:09 PM // Jordan Ellis //
 10-07-23 at 02:10 PM // William Josephs //
 10-07-23 at 02:12 PM // Mara Thompson //
 10-07-23 at 02:20 PM // Suanne Ware-Diaz // Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors.

What the Westside lacks us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large developments already underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
 10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
 10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
 10-07-23 at 02:40 PM // Alex Gardos // Close the airport please!  10-07-23 at 02:55 PM // Hal Bogotch // A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)  10-07-23 at 03:16 PM // Chris Toussaint //
 10-07-23 at 03:18 PM // Ann Bowman // Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge.
 10-07-23 at 03:23 PM // ALAN KERNER // A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM airport. The City Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass this resolution.
 10-07-23 at 03:24 PM // Jilla sardashti // Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the future of SMO. Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!  10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // List to the residents NOT the developers  10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Anita. Byrd //
 10-07-23 at 03:28 PM // Tracy Orloff // Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to do.  10-07-23 at 03:30 PM // David Krauss //
 10-07-23 at 03:50 PM // Maureen Jacobson // This is shameful.  10-07-23 at 03:55 PM // Justin Braun //
 10-07-23 at 03:58 PM // Mia Levenson //
 10-07-23 at 04:28 PM // Philip Baily //
 10-07-23 at 04:42 PM // Mary Duprey // It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
 10-07-23 at 04:51 PM // Rebecca Nelson //
 10-07-23 at 04:54 PM // Stephen Unger // Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public park.
 10-07-23 at 05:20 PM // Adrian Harewood //
 10-07-23 at 06:03 PM // John Campisi //
 10-07-23 at 06:17 PM // Jason McClaren //
 10-07-23 at 06:37 PM // Donna Rosescu //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 18  10-07-23 at 06:38 PM // William Arbenz //
 10-07-23 at 06:59 PM // Roy Rico // Please honor the will of the people.  10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Will von Bernuth //
 10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Kelly Hsiao //
 10-07-23 at 08:48 PM // Will Guston //
 10-07-23 at 09:03 PM // SULINH Lafontaine //
 10-07-23 at 09:29 PM // Elin Katz // I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public park in it's place.
 10-07-23 at 09:35 PM // Megan FitzGerald //
 10-07-23 at 09:41 PM // Jeanne Laurie // Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to the developers.
 10-07-23 at 10:28 PM // hal lindes //
 10-07-23 at 10:51 PM // Elizabeth Estrup //
 10-07-23 at 11:51 PM // Jan Simonovic //
 10-08-23 at 06:00 AM // Tim Whalen //
 10-08-23 at 07:38 AM // Kurt Gary //
 10-08-23 at 07:42 AM // Sarah Braff // Park now!
 10-08-23 at 07:49 AM // Allison Greene // Honor the original LC vote.  10-08-23 at 08:26 AM // Susan Kirch //
 10-08-23 at 09:02 AM // Phyllis Chavez //
 10-08-23 at 09:12 AM // Dorinne Tye // "The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding principals and future. Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and future. "
 10-08-23 at 09:21 AM // Miki Barnes //
 10-08-23 at 09:23 AM // Mathew Millen // Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
 10-08-23 at 09:34 AM // Peter Spelman //
 10-08-23 at 09:37 AM // Larry Graber //
 10-08-23 at 09:45 AM // Jon Casazza //
 10-08-23 at 09:58 AM // Kenny Fields // We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.  10-08-23 at 10:00 AM // Amanda McConnell // We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures.  10-08-23 at 10:03 AM // hep ingham // Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!  10-08-23 at 10:12 AM // Jen Murray //
 10-08-23 at 10:53 AM // Sharon Rubin // "How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us. Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property daily! Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!"  10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // Max Greene //
 10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // John Greenwood //
 10-08-23 at 11:23 AM // Kirsten Campisi //
 10-08-23 at 12:03 PM // Clare Thomas // A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues, and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 19  10-08-23 at 12:36 PM // Natalie Greenberg // Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our families and community
 10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Luana Rubin //
 10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Jill Rosen // Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.  10-08-23 at 12:39 PM // Leslie Seki //
 10-08-23 at 12:42 PM // Brian Kelly //
 10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Haily Jovich // "The voters decided SMO would be a park. The conversation is finished. Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals. Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and education."
 10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Alessio Burgio //
 10-08-23 at 12:46 PM // Natalie McAdams // Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again.

Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.  10-08-23 at 12:49 PM // Lauren wallenstein //
 10-08-23 at 12:50 PM // Jacquie Jordan // Seriously ?!?  10-08-23 at 12:52 PM // Zina Josephs //
 10-08-23 at 12:57 PM // Matthew Muranaka //
 10-08-23 at 12:58 PM // Toby Berlin // Stop this madness  10-08-23 at 01:00 PM // Patrick Ney // Reject Lottery  10-08-23 at 01:07 PM // Jonny Pray //
 10-08-23 at 01:10 PM // Grady Hall // Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public -- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community.  10-08-23 at 01:14 PM // Frans Klinkenberg //
 10-08-23 at 01:16 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport  10-08-23 at 01:17 PM // Vic NoRMAN // Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry. Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us to reelect you.  10-08-23 at 01:18 PM // Bonnie smith //
 10-08-23 at 01:20 PM // Marta Vago //
 10-08-23 at 01:24 PM // Donna Urban //
 10-08-23 at 01:25 PM // Stephen Mark // I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been made.

The only question is its implementation.
 10-08-23 at 01:28 PM // Patrick Davenport //
 10-08-23 at 01:33 PM // John Humble //
 10-08-23 at 01:34 PM // Joey Reynolds //
 10-08-23 at 01:40 PM // MICHAEL OSMENT // Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand Park
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 20  10-08-23 at 01:41 PM // Flynn Osment // Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old.
 10-08-23 at 01:42 PM // Ava Osment // Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old
 10-08-23 at 01:43 PM // Lara Osment //
 10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Nora Foran //
 10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Lucia Klass //
 10-08-23 at 01:52 PM // Fae Horowitz //
 10-08-23 at 01:54 PM // Jonathan Stein // This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask.

Utterly detestable.
 10-08-23 at 01:58 PM // Patrick Reardon //
 10-08-23 at 02:05 PM // Lauren de la Fuente // Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.  10-08-23 at 02:09 PM // Melanie Merians // All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful lottery!
 10-08-23 at 02:10 PM // Ellen Mark //
 10-08-23 at 02:18 PM // Jay Abramowitz // The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.  10-08-23 at 02:22 PM // James Wilson // Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of Santa Monica.
 10-08-23 at 02:24 PM // Louis Bon //
 10-08-23 at 02:34 PM // Karen Blechman // Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
 10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Lealani Ranch Dawes //
 10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Richard Moore //
 10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Patrick De Feo //
 10-08-23 at 02:44 PM // Erin Ferro //
 10-08-23 at 02:46 PM // Jan Simonovic // Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!  10-08-23 at 02:59 PM // John Greene // Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
 10-08-23 at 03:00 PM // Leona marolo // Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business.
 10-08-23 at 03:07 PM // Eric Garner //
 10-08-23 at 03:09 PM // Adam Simon // Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.  10-08-23 at 03:14 PM // H. Martin // The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.  10-08-23 at 03:19 PM // Laura Lacamara // Close the airport; build a great park.  10-08-23 at 03:20 PM // Brian Stecher // I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
 10-08-23 at 03:29 PM // Cynthia //
 10-08-23 at 03:34 PM // Laura Kaiser //
 10-08-23 at 03:57 PM // Olivia Kelly //
 10-08-23 at 04:00 PM // Beverly Haas //
 10-08-23 at 04:02 PM // Ilene Weingard //
 10-08-23 at 04:05 PM // Kristina Hagman //
 10-08-23 at 04:47 PM // Alice Ellis // Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do.  10-08-23 at 05:00 PM // Alex Novakovich //
 10-08-23 at 05:26 PM // Scott Weiss //
 10-08-23 at 05:27 PM // Scott Weiss //
 10-08-23 at 05:45 PM // Ofer Grossman //
 10-08-23 at 05:53 PM // Mimi Wheeler //
 10-08-23 at 06:01 PM // Marla Eby //
 10-08-23 at 06:18 PM // Michael katz // The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 21  10-08-23 at 06:22 PM // Lorri Benson // This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank you.  10-08-23 at 06:25 PM // Simona Garon // Please stop this lottery process  10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Patty //
 10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Nicola Goode // Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the Proposed Lottery!
 10-08-23 at 06:28 PM // Katharine Dreyfuss //
 10-08-23 at 06:36 PM // Min Shi //
 10-08-23 at 06:38 PM // Makoto Kato //
 10-08-23 at 07:31 PM // Joan Wilder // The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
 10-08-23 at 07:41 PM // Matt Schlegel //
 10-08-23 at 07:57 PM // Michael Jerrett //
 10-08-23 at 08:15 PM // Jennifer Josephs // Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage
 10-08-23 at 08:31 PM // Nancy Owens //
 10-08-23 at 08:34 PM // John Ventura //
 10-08-23 at 08:36 PM // Denise Gerber //
 10-08-23 at 10:00 PM // Jan-Peter Flack // We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
 10-08-23 at 10:11 PM // Steven T Benson // This needs to be a park  10-08-23 at 10:20 PM // Dawn Joyal // No changes to Measure LC  10-08-23 at 10:29 PM // Howard Wolfe //
 10-08-23 at 10:49 PM // Mazi Lombard //
 10-08-23 at 11:07 PM // Mindi Shank // One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the vote! We voted.
 10-08-23 at 11:39 PM // Carol Joffe // 90405
 10-08-23 at 11:55 PM // Cathy Hillman //
 10-09-23 at 12:17 AM // carol joffe // This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health. Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
 10-09-23 at 12:27 AM // Stacey Abrams-ShericK // The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park.
 10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Ose Dalldorf //
 10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Robert Sherick // The City already voted on this with Measure LC.  10-09-23 at 12:30 AM // Jack Sherick //
 10-09-23 at 02:02 AM // Fariba Weiss //
 10-09-23 at 04:43 AM // Ursula Fox //
 10-09-23 at 05:25 AM // Marla Eby //
 10-09-23 at 05:37 AM // Elaine Miller //
 10-09-23 at 05:56 AM // John Reynolds // "WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY  votes to undue the 60/40 decision "
 10-09-23 at 05:58 AM // Suzanne joffe // Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.  10-09-23 at 06:31 AM // Karla Klarin // We want and need a PARK!  10-09-23 at 06:33 AM // Dorothy Chapman //
 10-09-23 at 06:39 AM // Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola // Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 22  10-09-23 at 07:04 AM // Tracey Hennessey // I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless and crime out of control.
 10-09-23 at 07:28 AM // Val Davidson // CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.  10-09-23 at 08:10 AM // Ashley Simonsen //
 10-09-23 at 08:11 AM // Ann Lewis // We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you.  10-09-23 at 08:14 AM // Sarah Lewis // Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote. Respect their decisions.
 10-09-23 at 08:15 AM // Chuck Mason // 3480 Maplewood Ave  10-09-23 at 08:38 AM // Stephanie Tainsky // Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!!
 10-09-23 at 08:42 AM // Eddy Winston //
 10-09-23 at 08:45 AM // Steven Brady //
 10-09-23 at 09:09 AM // John Reynolds //
 10-09-23 at 09:27 AM // Tregg Rustad // Let's build a park, and only a park!  10-09-23 at 09:49 AM // Dennis WIlder // Stick with LC as you should.  10-09-23 at 09:50 AM // bea nemlaha // Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection irrational.
 10-09-23 at 09:52 AM // Chuck Hoover //
 10-09-23 at 10:16 AM // daniel funk // i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.  10-09-23 at 10:22 AM // Lisa Detamore // Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.  10-09-23 at 10:34 AM // Shawn Barry // we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings  10-09-23 at 10:40 AM // Brian Barry //
 10-09-23 at 10:44 AM // Emily Dawe //
 10-09-23 at 10:53 AM // Ronette Barry // WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror. Let me know when the city council meeting is?
 10-09-23 at 10:56 AM // Barry Friesen //
 10-09-23 at 11:16 AM // mark ford //
 10-09-23 at 11:32 AM // Mark Abdou //
 10-09-23 at 11:36 AM // Joy Abbott // Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing development concerns.
 10-09-23 at 11:53 AM // Susan Jain //
 10-09-23 at 12:17 PM // Dorothy Cramer // The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice!
 10-09-23 at 12:55 PM // lois banner // I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the beautiful residential community 8it has always been.  10-09-23 at 01:14 PM // Sarah Bryce // This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it
 10-09-23 at 01:27 PM // Ellen Hannan //
 10-09-23 at 01:44 PM // Margaret Hannan // I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
 10-09-23 at 01:55 PM // Mark Schubb //
 10-09-23 at 02:06 PM // Kenneth Abbott //
 10-09-23 at 02:25 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
 10-09-23 at 02:27 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
 10-09-23 at 02:32 PM // Lynn Robb //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) 23  10-09-23 at 03:17 PM // Darlene Yaplee //
 10-09-23 at 03:36 PM // Deborah // We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.  10-09-23 at 03:58 PM // Tom Lynch // The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to many.
 10-09-23 at 04:22 PM // Christine Lynch // Keep your agreements  10-09-23 at 04:39 PM // ARTHUR BARROW //
 10-09-23 at 05:13 PM // Danielle Litak // I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.  10-09-23 at 05:14 PM // Frederick Pringle //
 10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Kenneth Kirschbaum //
 10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Elizabeth Oakes // Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens. Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica residents. Keep your promises.
 10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Gavin Scott //
 10-09-23 at 05:30 PM // Andrea Ware // The land needs to be ALL park!  10-09-23 at 05:35 PM // Dawn Bailey //
 10-09-23 at 06:09 PM // Nicola Scott // We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be overturned.
 10-09-23 at 06:36 PM // Francine Duran //
 10-09-23 at 06:53 PM // David Kimball //
 10-09-23 at 07:16 PM // Kathy Knight // Please support an open, democratic process in our city government.
 10-09-23 at 08:59 PM // Stephen Molstad // This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
===============
-------------------------------
Ben Wang
Mobile: 310-663-9264
-------------------------------
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) Public Comments Submitted for:

We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.

We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor:

1. the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park,

2. the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and

3. reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.

To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins)) Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: [email protected]

PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.

To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.

Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:

We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would substitute an untested, non-democratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on information largely provided by that same Staff. The elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution.

Page 1 of 8 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilOctober 10, 2023

Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2023