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 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
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.
4 of 19
Figure 1 – Healthy Democracy’s lottery-selected panel
process.
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. 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 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.
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, 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 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. 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)
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
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
14 of 19
7. Cost
15 of 19
Figure 2 – Healthy Democracy’s Proposed Project Timeline 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:
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. 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
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