Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, October 10, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 “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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
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
2 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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
2 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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
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 us a review on: Yelp
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
6 Exhibit 2.

The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
7 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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
9 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
10 Exhibit 5.

City Council SMO Closure Resolution
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
11 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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
13 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
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.

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.

Page 2 of 8 ends

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023

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.

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.

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 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

Page 3 of 8 ends

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339

Page 4 of 8 ends

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Exhibit 2.

The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot

Page 5 of 8 ends

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list) Exhibit 4.
2014 Charter Amendment LC

Page 6 of 8 ends

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Exhibit 5.

City Council SMO Closure Resolution

Page 7 of 8 ends

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Exhibit 6.

City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport

Page 8 of 8 ends

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
1 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM Diane Sabatini
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
2 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM Lisa Sandbank This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved 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! ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
3 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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 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,
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
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
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
4 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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
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.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
5 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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
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
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
6 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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 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
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
7 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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 re-elect 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
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
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
8 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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. 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
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
9 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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
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.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
Signatories
10 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
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
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.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A. Airport -OPPOSE LOTTERY

EXTERNAL
I oppose hiring Healthy Democracy to be involved in
anything to do with the conversion of the airport
for more than obvious reasons.

The egos involved in people who think they can do anything because they "want it" is dangerous.

This is a serious undertaking .. Healthy Democracy
is involved and associated with Abundant Housing and Leonora Camner who are also involved with major $ funding from developers and a serious lobbyist organization. they are responsible for having our mandated housing numbers doubled.

VOTE NO ON HEALTHY DEMOCRACY ‐ they are anything but that ..and Abundant Housing is anything but housing advocates. Keep them far away
from everything involved in this town with housing.

NO ON THE LOTTERY..

Danielle Charney
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: John Fairweather <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: John Fairweather - Re: Agenda Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I write this letter based on the assumption that you have received broad feedback, including from Airport2Park (of which I am a board member), to remove the phrase “and development” from the framing question put to the panel, and I trust that you see the wisdom of doing so. Therefore I want to point out one final issue, and suggest one final adjustment, that I believe will put much of the controversy surrounding the panel process behind us, and so allow the City to move forward with public support, rather than opposition. This letter represents my personal recommendations.

As this process has moved forward, Airport2Park has suggested, and staff, to their credit, has accepted and incorporated two important requirements into the guidance for the design firms, now narrowed down to Sasaki. The first is that there must be a “day‐1 build plan”, and the second that the firm plans should anticipate “incremental build”, that is we build out the park one bit at a time, as and when the funding becomes available, not all at once. The day‐1 build is plan is simply the initial build increment. The consequence of this approach is that we do not have to find all the funds up front, parts of the area can be allowed to go ‘wild’ until funding is available. Great parks may take decades to complete.

With the removal of the words “and development”, we are still left with just one glaring inconsistency that generates public suspicion and resistance. That is the original staff guidance described three possible approaches based on differing areas used for development to generate funds: small, medium, and large. There was no explicit option that will be presented to the panel that has zero development. Unsurprisingly, we see this same guidance echoed back in the Sasaki response (see below), all images have some development.

This perceived need for some development funding is simply a relic from earlier thinking that did not incorporate the concept of incremental build‐out. Of course if we do in fact build incrementally as funds become available, then there is clearly a viable path than needs no development whatsoever to fund things.

So to correct this problem, and overcome public suspicion, I suggest that you simply instruct staff to mandate that one of the three options presented to the panel (and prepared by the design firm) for consideration be a explicit zero development option as implied by the striking of the words “and development”. This eliminates any inconsistency in panel guidance, and truly allows the panel to consider all options without being misled by presented materials into thinking a “no development” option is not a possible choice. It absolutely is, indeed it is the only option consistent with measure LC and the public vote that led to it.

Please consider guiding staff to require an explicit no‐development, incremental build‐out option be part of the output from the design firm and part of the options presented to the panel. Making this change explicit will do much to allay public suspicion which is currently focussed on the panel process itself.

Sincerely,
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
2 John Fairweather
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Esther Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Council Members,

1. Please reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy

2. Please oppose the proposed lottery system

3. Please continue to move forward with an open process that engages all residents and stakeholders THANK you for your consideration!
‐‐
Esther Hickman
Pico Neighborhood Resident
310.600.7306
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: les gibbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No Lottery

EXTERNAL
Please do not implement a lottery for such an important decision! Thanks..

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for item 7A

EXTERNAL
Dear 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,
Caro Vilain
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:56 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

EXTERNAL
I did not get the automatic reply confirmation.

Please confirm that the email below will be in the public record.

Thank you.

Begin forwarded message:

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023, 1:04 AM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:

Public Comments Submitted for:

PETITION

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
2 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.

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 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
3 3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.

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.

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.

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.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
4 “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.

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 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 To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Exhibit 2.

The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list) To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
5 Exhibit 5.

City Council SMO Closure Resolution To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Exhibit 6.

City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

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 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
6 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 //
 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, voter-approved 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 //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
7  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 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, 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 //
 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 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
8 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 //
 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! ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
9  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 //
 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.

ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
10  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 endrun around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica  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."
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
11  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 re-elect 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
 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 //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
12  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.
 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 ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
13 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
14  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 //
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.

October 10, 2023
15  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 //
 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
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.

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