Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, January 28, 2025 (part 5 of 6)

Thank you for your consideration.

Diana Hinek
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
SMMUSD/ parent
Birth Doula and Photographer
www.dearbirth.com
www.facebook.com/dearbirth
https://www.instagram.com/dearbirth
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 51 David Yakobson
From: Rebecca hogan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
Your leadership during the crisis and trauma caused by the devastating Palisades fire, was exemplary.

For 25 years I’ve lived in my current home, which is less than one block from our SM Airport. I’ve raised 3 children here and over that time we have seen how vital this airport is. We’ve had friends fighting cancer that were flown to alternative therapy by a company that flew in and out of SM Airport.

We also had a friend years ago that received a kidney transplant with an organ flown into SM Airport in order to get it too the hospital much faster than flying into LAX or Burbank ever could. We have had the privilege of watch many motorcades drive down Centinela after vehicles and personnel land at SM Airport - such an honor for our city of Santa Monica.

And over the last two weeks we watched first responder aircraft lift off from Santa Monica Airport to fight the catastrophic fires, I’ve never doubted how critical this space is for our city’s survival, but that fact was so much more evident during this fire crisis.
190 acres is an area large enough to incorporate such multifaceted the use. The idea of converting the airport into a much richer and varied experiential space is an exciting idea, especially if envisioned as a sustainable, inclusive and financially prudent space that benefits the residents of Santa Monica, since they will be paying for it. But the idea of converting the airport only into a park simply does not seem prudent for Santa Monica either financially or practically, and there are already large space parks on both sides of the airport.

While the Great Park concept may seem exciting, is worth sacrificing an airport that has proven to be a source of security, safety and service to our city? Would this fire disaster been even worse had we not had the airport as our command center and a base for firefighting aircraft? And, is adding a park economically viable?
It seems that we’ve been given a shocking wake-up call about the necessity of our airport.

It’s seems clear that it’s time to take another look and reconsider possibilities for this land that include maintaining something as vital as an airport.

The impact of these plans and the motivation behind them should be made completely transparent to Santa Monicans. Please reconsider any plans that have been presented.

Besides losing something that may have been the saving grace of our city just over a week ago, our city has no money to develop or maintain a park of this scale. A bond measure is unviable as there would be insufficient sources of revenue to repay the bond. Santa Monica property owners would Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 52 reject property tax increases. There are no philanthropists who will donate billions of dollars to build the park.

Closing the airport at the end of 2028 with no economically viable path forward seems unwise and a path toward disaster.

No study of the potential unintended consequences has been conducted. How will our police department ensure safety and security of such a large unattended area, especially when they are already struggling to keep DTSM and our existing parks safe? How will the FAA change the routes and altitudes of large aircraft landing at LAX, and will those changes cause even more noise and pollution in Santa Monica? How will Santa Monicans manage the operational expenses of managing a park that caters to 10 million plus LA County residents coming to visit when we already struggle with managing the operational costs of overseeing the Promenade and the beaches? More than ten years have passed since Measure LC passed, and a lot has changed in that decade.  Jet aircraft traffic and associated noise have decreased by 81%.  Electric training aircraft have begun operating at Santa Monica Airport, with zero noise and zero pollution.
 Electric passenger aircraft are nearing certification. Well before December 31, 2028, clean, quiet, electric flights will routinely operate from Santa Monica Airport to destinations throughout the region, with seats available and affordable for almost everyone in our community.  We experienced wildfires very close to our city, with the airport serving as an important base for firefighting aircraft.
 We experienced a pandemic, which led to significant lost revenue for the city.  The city’s financial condition is precarious.

It is also important to note that Measure LC did not mandate that the airport be converted to a park. Measure LC merely mandated that no development happen at the airport site without voter approval, with certain limited exceptions including park and cultural spaces. The people voted to take local control of the land, not to turn it into a park. This very nature of Measure LC has been widely misunderstood or mischaracterized by city staff.

There is a better way. The Santa Monica Airport can remain an airport and also evolve into a place that is sustainable in all respects - ecologically, socially, and economically - a place that offers more recreational, educational, and entertainment opportunities, a place that can be a beacon of pride for our innovation community, and yes, even a place where people can live. 190 acres is a lot of space. The Luxembourg and Tuileries Gardens in Paris are 110 acres combined. We can have a beautiful park and promote economic development at the Santa Monica Airport site.

I ask that you keep an open mind and encourage alternative proposals. Sasaki is great, but they were given a very specific mandate to design a Great Park. Let’s not turn a blind eye to the realities of recent events. Let’s be teachable and learn from the crisis we have been and still are enduring, let’s continue to protect our city by having an airport, while also incorporating other Great ideas.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Hogan
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 53 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:39 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council –
I am writing to ask if you could halt the Airport Conversion process until an outside legal opinion is obtained regarding the fate of the airport land when the airport closes. Please do not adopt the Guiding Principles and do not have staff develop scenarios for developing the airport land.

While we all would love to see a park, the staff report indicates that state law preempts local land use decisions and, based on the airport closing, Santa Monica will be assigned RHNA housing targets because the airport becomes “developable land.” This is an unacceptable result that will destroy Santa Monica. This risk and potential outcome was NOT presented in the City process or any of the supporting organizations’ materials.

Please instruct staff to immediately seek an outside legal opinion that definitively answers the following questions.

1. Is the airport “developable land” under state law (SB7) that will be assigned RHNA units?

2. Did the 2017 city council resolution count as a closure decision, or was another city council vote required to close the airport?

3. Does the staff report assertion that no further vote is needed mean that the airport land will be included in the next RHNA cycle?

4. If Santa Monica were to build a park on some or all of the airport land, would it have to increase density in the rest of the city to accommodate the RHNA allocation? Absent a clear answer to all of these questions confirms local control, it is reckless and irresponsible for the city council to continue to move forward with a conversion process that could cause irreparable harm to Santa Monica and its residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Wilmont Board Member
SAMO Parent
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 54 David Yakobson
From: Ann Bowman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 55 David Yakobson
From: Nathan Siahpush <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of our City Council,
The past few weeks have been extremely unpredictable, terrifying, and saddening to see what has happened to so many in our community. Your swift and professional response has brought muchneeded clarity and comfort during these challenging times.

I am a civil engineer who is all too aware about the threat of significant disasters such as earthquakes which pose a sizable and real risk to all of us. The ability for the City to respond to disasters depends entirely on the resources and infrastructure it has available to it. These past few weeks has shown me clearer than ever how the Santa Monica Airport is instrumental for emergency response as a major part of our city's infrastructure. This experience has also reminded us of the potential for the 190 acres to serve in diverse, beneficial ways. Transforming this area into a multifaceted space that is sustainable, inclusive, and financially responsible would serve Santa Monica well, given the residents' investment.

However, converting it solely into a park seems neither financially nor practically sound.

The concept of a Great Park faces significant economic hurdles. We must confront the reality that funding such a project is beyond our current capabilities. No viable bond measure exists due to insufficient revenue sources for repayment, and property tax increases would likely be rejected by local owners. The expectation of billionaire philanthropy for this scale of project is unrealistic.

Shutting down the airport without a solid plan could lead to disastrous consequences, including:
 Increased noise and pollution from rerouted flights.
 Security concerns over large, unmonitored spaces.
 Overwhelming operational costs of managing a park that would attract millions from LA County.

Since the passage of Measure LC over a decade ago, much has evolved:
 Noise from jet aircraft has reduced by 81%.
 Electric training aircraft, which produce no noise or pollution, are now in operation.  We're on the brink of introducing clean, quiet electric passenger flights, which could soon be a regular, affordable option for our community.
 The airport has proven vital during wildfires and other emergencies.  The city has faced financial strain from a recent pandemic.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 56 It's crucial to clarify that Measure LC does not mandate turning the airport into a park. It requires voter approval for any significant development, with exceptions for parks or cultural spaces. The intent was to give control back to the community, not to predetermine the land's use as a park, a point often misrepresented.

There's a viable alternative: evolve the Santa Monica Airport site into a space that is ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. It could offer a mix of recreational, educational, and entertainment facilities, become a hub for innovation, and potentially include residential areas. With 190 acres, we have more space than Paris's Luxembourg and Tuileries Gardens combined, allowing for both parkland and economic growth.

My request is straightforward: keep an open mind. Sasaki's work on the Great Park is commendable, but we should also be open to other innovative proposals that could better serve Santa Monica.

Thank you,
Nathan Siahpush
Santa Monica Resident
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 57 David Yakobson
From: Jerry Rubin <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Council Members:

I’m not sure I will be able to attend Tuesday’s meeting due to some health concerns but I will try my very best (nothing serious). I want to personally urge all of you to unite in your support of the process, the guiding principles (I’m certain Mother Nature would love those principles) and the timely creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park.
걭걮걯거바밐밑밒박놅놆밓Thank you so much,
Jerry Rubin
Co-founder, Tree Hugging Friends
Member, Santa Monica Urban Forest Task Force
310-399-1000
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 58 David Yakobson
From: Samantha <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: SAMO City Council Meeting 1/28/25 - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I am a SAnta Monica resident. I live (and vote!) in Santa Monica. A Great Park is important to me because I am personally and deeply affected by the air and noise pollution from the Santa Monica airport. I urge you to decide to close it and turn it into a park to keep aircraft away from our. Now more than ever, we need fresh air to breathe and green space to explore. We need green space to be available to us all for generations to come.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Your neighbor,
Samantha Buckingham
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse any typos. They are unintentional.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 59 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

On Sept. 29, 2013, I was riding my bicycle around the southern loop of Clover Park, when a jet crashed just yards away, killing 4 people. It was horrifying. I live nearby with my children, as do many friends, and from that moment on I felt the airport was too dangerous to exist in our heavily populated area, and had to close. As it turns out, all the data supports this.

I am very heartened that we are now so close to closing the airport. We have a monumental opportunity to build a stunning and inspirational natural refuge for all to enjoy, restore the Great Park, and give Santa Monica (and the west side) the green space it so lacks.

I thank you in advance for your support of the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, publicly-owned, and can be opened for public use on Day One, January 1, 2029.

It will be a treasure for generations to come!
All the best,
Paula Mazur
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 60 David Yakobson
From: Ben Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of our City Council,
Firstly, thank you for your leadership during the past couple of weeks of crisis. The entire city team reacted promptly and professionally, bringing clarity and comfort to our community in a very uncertain and devastating time.

Over the past couple of weeks as we watched first responder aircraft lift off from Santa Monica Airport to fight the catastrophic fires, I was reminded how critical this space is for our city’s livelihood. I was also reminded how multifaceted the use of these 190 acres can be. The idea of converting the airport into a much richer and varied experiential space continues to make compelling sense—a newly envisioned area which is sustainable, inclusive and financially prudent and benefits the residents of Santa Monica, as they will be paying for it. However, the idea of converting the airport only into a park simply does not seem prudent for Santa Monica either financially or practically.

Closing the airport at the end of 2028 with no economically viable path forward is a bad idea. No study of the potential unintended consequences has been conducted. How will our police department ensure safety and security of such a large unattended area, especially when they are already struggling to keep DTSM and our existing parks safe? How will the FAA change the routes and altitudes of large aircraft landing at LAX, and will those changes cause even more noise and pollution in Santa Monica?
More than ten years have passed since Measure LC passed, and a lot has changed in that decade.  Jet aircraft traffic and associated noise have decreased by 81%.  Electric training aircraft have begun operating at Santa Monica Airport, with zero noise and zero pollution.
 Electric passenger aircraft are nearing certification. Well before December 31, 2028, clean, quiet, electric flights will routinely operate from Santa Monica Airport to destinations throughout the region, with seats available and affordable for almost everyone in our community.
 We experienced wildfires very close to our city, with the airport serving as an important base for firefighting aircraft.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 61  We experienced a pandemic, which led to significant lost revenue for the city.  The city’s financial condition is precarious.

It is also important to note that Measure LC did not mandate that the airport be converted to a park.

Measure LC merely mandated that no development happen at the airport site without voter approval, with certain limited exceptions including park and cultural spaces. The people voted to take local control of the land, not to turn it into a park. This very nature of Measure LC has been widely misunderstood or mischaracterized by city staff.

There is a better way. The Santa Monica Airport site can evolve into a place that is sustainable in all respects - ecologically, socially, and economically - a place that offers more recreational, educational, and entertainment opportunities, a place that can be a beacon of pride for our innovation community, and yes, even a place where people can live. 190 acres is a lot of space. The Luxembourg and Tuileries Gardens in Paris are 110 acres combined. We can have a beautiful park and promote economic development at the Santa Monica Airport site.

Few people know the extent of the economic development activities already happening at the airport site. One example is the venture capital firm I cofounded, UP.Partners, which invests in innovative sustainable transportation technology companies. We are based at Santa Monica Airport and invest approximately $75M per year into inspiring entrepreneurs and their small teams who are making mobility cleaner, safer, and more affordable. We could choose to base our business anywhere. We chose to locate at Santa Monica Airport because we and our portfolio companies are inspired by Santa Monica's unique industrial innovation heritage. We want to see Santa Monica continue to lead the world in this category. I was born and raised in Sunset Park, and continue to live in Sunset Park with my wife and daughter. Nothing would excite me more than to know that my daughter, her peers, and the generations that follow stayed in Santa Monica because this innovation ecosystem continued to be the best place in the world to make a positive impact on our planet.

My ask is simple - keep an open mind and encourage alternative proposals. Sasaki is great, but they were given a very specific mandate to design a Great Park. Let’s be receptive to other Great ideas.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Kind regards,
Ben Marcus
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 62 David Yakobson
From: Marc Buhaj <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

We are a family of 5 x who live in and love Santa Monica. We are active members of the local school and sports community. My work office is also located in Santa Monica.

Both the local community and the data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

We are hoping you will please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, publicly-owned, and can be opened for public use on Day One, January 1, 2029.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Marc Buhaj
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 63 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
To My City Council,
The data gathered so far from the City's Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, publicly-owned, and can be opened for public use on Day 1 after the Airport closes, January 1, 2029.

Adrian Harewood
2437 Pier Ave, 90405
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 64 David Yakobson
From: Uproar LA <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
Studio City For Quiet Skies and UproarLA support The Great Park.

We oppose development of electrification for, and accommodation of, any infrastructure intended for aviation use by Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), including Air Taxis, at Santa Monica Airport (SMO), as well as any AAM operations to and from SMO.

People overwhelmingly prefer a park on the current airport land! Residents bought the land in 1926 for a park, reconfirmed the will for a park by voting for measure LC, and affirmed a park in the recent visioning process.

Aircraft operations, including eVTOLs or Air Taxis, are incompatible with park usage.

The aviation industry has promised to transform aviation by flooding the congested air above us with many thousands of low-flying Air Taxis, all over Southern California. We are all affected by operations at SMO. What happens at SMO doesn’t stay in SMO. The aviation industry provides unsupported claims that Air Taxis are safe, have no significant negative impacts, and will reduce traffic on the ground. This is all industry speculation. They have also spent more than $22B developing and lobbying for Air Taxis, cloaked in secrecy, and with not one shred of evidence that people on the ground want or need them.

SMO is the key to the beginning of AAM implementation. Agreeing to move forward in any way would have wide reaching impacts throughout the region! It would also make the intended use of the former airport land, a public park, unbearable for visitors.

You must not act counter to the vote for The Great Park to REPLACE the airport! Please consider your community who has waited years for their park, the democratic process of voting, and the larger Los Angeles/SoCal community on the ground by firmly rejecting any accommodation or implementation of AAM/Air Taxis at SMO.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 65 Sincerely,
UproarLA
http://www.uproarla.org
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 66 David Yakobson
From: BARRIE LEVY <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #7

EXTERNAL
To Members of the SM City Council,
I am one of many concerned neighbors of the Santa Monica Airport who feel that the conversation about affordable housing (from very low to middle income) has been excluded from the community process for the airport reuse. We know that almost 200 acres of airport land allows plenty of space for a great park AND below market rate housing accessible to people who are priced out of the Santa Monica market.

As someone who has worked in Santa Monica since 1982, as well as a neighbor who lives across from the airport, I know that many people who work in Santa Monica - nurses, teachers, police officers, hotel and restaurant workers - keep our Westside businesses and institutions able to thrive, but they cannot afford to live near their work. I have spoken with people who have to live in cars or RVs, or who have to drive 4 hours a day to get to and from work in Santa Monica. I met a family with 2 small children who take their children to school each day on their way to work, from an RV parked in the area. They need the work, but there is NO HOUSING that they can afford. This is not sustainable! Like many neighbors, I worry about traffic and congestion that can be caused by development of the airport, but I know that the majority of the traffic (and resulting pollution) is from commuters who live far away from their Santa Monica jobs. It is clear that local below market rate housing on the airport land (accessible to local public transportation) will REDUCE traffic and pollution, NOT make it worse.

Because I live close to the airport, I have also been concerned about the planning process for its reuse after it closes in 2028. As you know, the City Council requested three reuse options to be studied, one of them being 100% open green space (a park). The other two options are up to the staff and consultants to propose based on the community input process that is currently under way. I have attended all of the community meetings/displays, etc, and responded to both surveys, and they continue to focus only on a park, even after many people like myself have requested that affordable workforce housing be part of the plan. The Sasaki process makes it hard to include housing, or anything other than a park, and their reporting of survey results doesn’t indicate that housing was listed as a priority for a significant number of respondents. We informally learned that one third of respondents prioritized housing, but that hasn’t been reflected in reporting and in obtaining more community input.

As the consultants head into Phase 3 of the community engagement process (determining three reuse options), we ask you to direct them to look at affordable housing options in an earnest way, engage with housing advocates in a serious way, and study the economic feasibility in a creative way.

Thank you,
Barrie Levy
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 67 David Yakobson
From: BARRIE LEVY <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Iten#7

Thank you,
Barrie Levy
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 68 Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 69 David Yakobson
From: Justin Ferriman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: Great Park Coalition
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

My name is Justin Ferriman. I'm new to this area of Los Angeles, having moved from San Clemente. I don't miss much about San Clemente, but what I do miss are the parks and green spaces. You can imagine that I was quite pleased to know that the data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

I ask you to do your part as an elected official (the voice of the people) and support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, publiclyowned, and can be opened for public use on Day One, January 1, 2029.

Thanks,
Justin
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 70 David Yakobson
From: Peter Shultz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

The idea of converting the airport into a much richer and varied experiential space continues to make compelling sense— a newly envisioned area which is sustainable, inclusive and financially prudent and benefits the residents of Santa Monica, as they will be paying for it. However, the idea of converting the airport only into a park simply does not seem prudent for Santa Monica either financially or practically.

While the Great Park concept is exciting, it is not economically viable because:
 The city has limited resources to develop or maintain a park of this scale.  A bond measure is not feasible as there would be insufficient sources of revenue to repay the bond. Santa Monica property owners would likely reject property tax increases.

Closing the airport at the end of 2028 with no economically viable path forward is a path to disaster. No study of the potential unintended consequences has been conducted. This raises some questions:
 How will our police department ensure safety and security of such a large unattended area, especially when they are already struggling to keep DTSM and our existing parks safe?  How will the FAA change the routes and altitudes of large aircraft landing at LAX, and will those changes cause even more noise and pollution in Santa Monica?
 How will Santa Monicans manage the operational expenses of managing a park that caters to 10 million plus LA County residents coming to visit when we already struggle with managing the operational costs of overseeing the Promenade and the beaches?
More than ten years have passed since Measure LC passed, and a lot has changed in that decade:
 Jet aircraft traffic and associated noise have decreased by 81%.  Electric training aircraft have begun operating at Santa Monica Airport, with zero noise and zero pollution.  Electric passenger aircraft are nearing certification. Well before December 31, 2028, clean, quiet, electric flights will routinely operate from Santa Monica Airport to destinations throughout the region, with seats available and affordable for almost everyone in our community.
 We experienced wildfires very close to our city, with the airport serving as an important base for firefighting aircraft.
 We experienced a pandemic, which led to significant lost revenue for the city.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 71 There is a better way. The Santa Monica Airport site can evolve into a place that is sustainable in all respects - ecologically, socially, and economically - a place that offers more recreational, educational, and entertainment opportunities, a place that can be a beacon of pride for our innovation community, and yes, even a place where people can live. 190 acres is a lot of space. The Luxembourg and Tuileries Gardens in Paris are 110 acres combined. We can have a beautiful park and promote economic development at the Santa Monica Airport site.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Peter
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 72 David Yakobson
From: Robb Curtis Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
The struggle for the land at SMO has been long and costly. Thousands of residents have fought for decades to win back control of our land. We are beyond grateful to this council and councils past for being so responsive to the residents desire to close SMO. The visioning process now underway is the culmination of so much effort. We are grateful now for the guiding principles the residents have been asking for. Thank you for your unflagging efforts to build toward an LC compliant Great Park. Generations will celebrate your vision and your commitment to this great cause.

Onward!
Robert Brown
Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 73 David Yakobson
From: SUELLEN WAGNER <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 The Great Park

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I support The Great Park! We oppose development of electrification for and accommodation of any infrastructure intended for aviation use by Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), including Flying Taxis, at Santa Monica Airport (SMO), as well as any AAM operations to and from SMO.

People overwhelmingly prefer a park on the current airport land! Residents bought the land in 1926 for a park, reconfirmed the will for a park in Measure LC, and affirmed a park in the recent visioning process.

Aircraft operations, including eVTOLs or flying taxis, are incompatible with park usage.

You must not act counter to the vote for The Great Park to REPLACE the airport! Please consider your community who has waited years for their Great Park, the democratic process of voting, and the larger Los Angeles/SoCal community on the ground by firmly rejecting any accommodation or implementation of AAM/Flying Taxis at SMO.

Thank you for your consideration!
Suellen Wagner
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 74 David Yakobson
From: Jamie Dunham <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I would like to reiterate that a Great Park at Santa Monica Airport is critical to our neighborhood. It is also what we voted on and passed.

The reduction in noise and pollution has been much improved compared to when we moved in. After the shortening of the runway, there are no longer jets spewing toxic chemicals straight into our backyard (we had engines literally pointed at us) - and with full closure of the airport, will be a wonderful, peaceful return to nature.

Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC. I look forward to the airport closure in 2028, and visiting our new park in 2029.

Thank you,
Jamie Dunham
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 75 David Yakobson
From: Daphne Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A airport re-use study session

EXTERNAL
> Honorable Mayor and City Council members,
> I am a 50-year resident of Santa Monica. I lived in an apartment in the Montana neighborhood for five years and then was lucky enough to move into home ownership in Ocean Park. >
> Our family benefited from a good public school experience and extensive sports and musical performance options. We used every park, play area, field, court, pool, and auditorium available-public and private-and our largest park: the beach.
>
> So for our family, there is no question that parks enrich a community immeasurably. But what’s a community when it can’t house the next generation; loses racial, ethnic, and economic diversity; and can’t come close to housing its employees, all because of a lack of affordable housing? >
> I urge you to add affordable housing to the airport re-use planning process. Please don’t lose this opportunity to create a wonderful park along with a vibrant, affordable residential community. >
> Best regards, Daphne Dennis
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 76 David Yakobson
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles"

EXTERNAL
RE: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles” Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
I have lived in Santa Monica since 1976. I was active in the city for many years and served on the Board of the Friends of Sunset Park for over 15 years. I recall the early 1980’s talk that the Santa Monica Airport would close and become a much needed park for the residents of Santa Monica. Then it became an agreement about the Santa Monica Airport closing in 30 years.

Here we are in 2025, over 40 year later still discussing what would be there. The people have spoken. I would truly like to live long enough to visit the Park. Please act now! The data gathered so far from the City's Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you,
Jane Dempsey
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 77 David Yakobson
From: AYSO20 Women <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]; SMAYSO Regional Commissioner Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles Attachments: SM AYSO City Council_Final.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable City Council, Please see attached written comments from Santa Monica AYSO, the largest youth sports organization in Santa Monica. Thank you for your consideration! Melinda Mehringer
Volunteer Board Member
Director, Women's Coaching Initiative
Region 20 - Santa Monica AYSO
Lead...Inspire...COACH
[email protected]
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members:

I write on behalf of Santa Monica AYSO to urge you to prioritize multi-use fields and youth sports at the future Great Park.

Santa Monica AYSO serves Santa Monica’s Kids. Santa Moncia AYSO is a non-profit organization and the largest youth sports organization in Santa Monica, providing a low-cost and high-quality youth soccer program for around 1500 Santa Monica children every year. We serve a diverse, local community.

Our registration fee is modest for everyone and we grant over ten thousand dollars a year in financial aid to ensure that we are inclusive of all Santa Monica children. Many tens of thousands of Santa Monica kids have grown up in our program – including some of your own kids. They have learned how to play soccer, and also important life skills like teamwork, communication, goal-setting, and perseverance – all critical skills necessary for success in life. Our program is a true community cooperative -- run entirely by hundreds of unpaid volunteers – mostly parents of current players but also other Santa Monicans who had kids in our program and continue to pitch in years later. We even have former players who come back home to Santa Monica after college and pay it forward by coaching younger kids. Santa Monica AYSO is a crucial part of the fabric of Santa Monica’s diverse, inclusive, active, healthy community.

Kids Benefit Greatly from Youth Sports. Playing sports is good for children’s bodies, keeping them physically active and fit in the face of growing screentime and childhood obesity. Team sports are also good for kids’ mental health and help combat the mental health crisis impacting kids today. Studies prove that kids who play team sports have lower rates of anxiety and depression, lower stress levels, and lower drug use. They also have greater self-confidence, higher self-esteem, healthier body image, improved cognitive performance, better sleep, higher GPAs, higher test scores, and higher graduation rates. These physical and mental health benefits carry into adulthood, with adults who played youth sports having better health and more professional success than adults who did not. There is truly no better investment in our future than to provide field space for kids to play sports.

We have a Critical Shortage of Field Space in Santa Monica. There are not enough soccer/multiuse fields available in Santa Monica. Most of our field space is at the schools, so our use is conditional on the schools’ needs and holiday schedule. The schools typically use their fields for their own students after school, so we can only get field space in the evenings (starting at 5 or 5:30 at the earliest). We give priority to the very youngest kids (6–9-year-olds) for the earlier practice times, so we need to schedule the “older” 10-year-olds for late 7-9pm practices. We have hundreds of teams so our limited field space requires us to squeeze many teams together in close quarters, which is not ideal for training. Indeed, we often have six or more teams practicing simultaneously on one soccer field at JAMS or Lincoln.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 Because of the drastic shortage of field space in Santa Monica, we can only offer teams one practice a week in our fall season when most players participate. Most other AYSO chapters offer two practices a week in the fall season and club soccer teams practice 3-5 times a week. Our Santa Monica AYSO kids are missing out because there are not enough local fields. This is not right! We would need twice as much field space as currently available to give the kids a second team practice in the fall season.

The field crunch for soccer gets even worse in the January to June time frame, as baseball understandably gets permitting priority during their core, spring season. Unfortunately, this means we must limit the number of spring teams we can form, and we sadly turn away kids every spring who want to play soccer but there is no room for them to practice on our local fields. We can fix all these field access issues by building more multi-use fields in the Great Park! Multi-Use Fields at the Great Park would bring in Big Revenue to the City and Local Businesses If we had a large multi-use field space in the Great Park, it would also create opportunities to bring significant revenue into Santa Monica. Every year, there are dozens of tournaments sponsored by local AYSO chapters, in places like Torrence, Riverside, Mission Viejo, Camarillo, and even Beverly Hills, which use them to raise funds for financial aid and to keep registration fees modest. These beloved tournaments are well-attended by teams near and far, with many teams staying two to three nights in local hotels, eating out at restaurants and passing time between games shopping or experiencing other local entertainment. For example, every President’s Day weekend, Santa Monica AYSO sends around 10 teams to Riverside for the Locomotion Tournament. With each family spending around $2000, our Santa Monica teams alone provide $200,000 in revenue to Riverside. With over 100 teams attending this tournament, Riverside brings in millions of dollars of incremental revenue in just one weekend. If the Santa Monica Great Park had ten full size fields, we could host our own Santa Monica tournaments, showcasing our beautiful city by the ocean and bringing millions of dollars of incremental revenue to Santa Monica in a weekend (in addition to field permit fees). The fields would be much sought after by club soccer teams, rugby teams, football teams, and lacrosse teams too, which also host tournaments.

I implore you to invest in Santa Monica’s kids and our collective future and prioritize multi-use sports fields as part of a Great Park. The Great Park is the opportunity of our lifetime for Santa Monica’s kids, families, and future.

Respectfully,
Lisa Demsky
Santa Monica AYSO Regional Commissioner & Boys 2013 Coach Melinda Mehringer
Santa Monica AYSO Board Member & Director, Women’s Coaching Initiative Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 78 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I live in Santa Monica and support The Great Park! We oppose development of electrification for and accommodation of any infrastructure intended for aviation use by Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), including Flying Taxis, at Santa Monica Airport (SMO), as well as any AAM operations to and from SMO.

Aircraft operations, including eVTOLs or flying taxis, are incompatible with park usage.

You must not act counter to the vote for The Great Park to REPLACE the airport! Please consider your community who has waited years for their Great Park, the democratic process of voting, and the larger Los Angeles/SoCal community on the ground by firmly rejectingany accommodation or implementation of AAM/Flying Taxis at SMO.

Thank you for your consideration—
Heather Thomason
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 79 Concerned Santa Monica Resident and voter

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 80 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I live (and vote!) in Santa Monica. A Great Park is important to me because my children and I are personally and deeply affected by the air and noise pollution from the Santa Monica airport. We must close it and turn it into a park to keep aircraft away from our homes in this wonderful city we live in. Our children need fresh air to breathe and green space to explore. Especially with the disaster of the fires in the closest hiking trails, we need much more non-mountain green space to be available to us all for generations to come.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Heather Thomason
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 81 David Yakobson
From: Kimberly T. <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park

Aircraft operations, including eVTOLs or flying taxis, are incompatible with park usage.

Thank you for your consideration!
Kimberly Turner
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 82 David Yakobson
From: Studio City For Quiet Skies <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
Studio City For Quiet Skies and UproarLA support The Great Park! We oppose development of electrification for and accommodation of any infrastructure intended for aviation use by Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), including Flying Taxis, at Santa Monica Airport (SMO), as well as any AAM operations to and from SMO.

Aircraft operations, including eVTOLs or flying taxis, are incompatible with park usage.

Thank you for your consideration!
Suellen Wagner and Kimberly Turner

STUDIO CITY FOR QUIET SKIES
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 83 David Yakobson
From: Ray Daily <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 6:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your leadership during recent challenges. Watching first responder aircraft operate from Santa Monica Airport during the wildfires reminded us of its vital role in our city’s safety and resilience. This airport is where I learned to fly. It gave me dreams to be a part of the city's future of flight and urban transportation.

The airport’s 190 acres hold enormous potential—not just as a park, but as a space for sustainable innovation, recreation, and economic growth that benefits all Santa Monicans. Converting it solely into a park is financially unviable and impractical, as the city lacks the resources to develop and maintain such a large-scale project.

With advancements like electric, zero-emission aircraft and the airport’s importance during emergencies, now is the time to consider a more balanced plan. Measure LC did not mandate a park but offered local control to ensure thoughtful development.

Let’s embrace a vision that includes both a beautiful park and opportunities for community, innovation, and sustainability.

Sincerely,
Ray Daily
--
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Raymond Daily Founder & Producer
760-712-7141
Southern California
grayarea.com | @grayarea
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 84 David Yakobson
From: Dylan Lukes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

While the Great Park concept is exciting, it is economically unviable. It is time to face reality and to stop misleading Santa Monicans. The city has no money to develop or maintain a park of this scale. A bond measure is unviable as there would be insufficient sources of revenue to repay the bond. Santa Monica property owners would reject property tax increases. There are no philanthropists who will donate billions of dollars to build the park. Closing the airport at the end of 2028 with no economically viable path forward is a path to disaster. No study of the potential unintended consequences has been conducted. How will our police department ensure safety and security of such a large unattended area, especially when they are already struggling to keep DTSM and our existing parks safe? How will the FAA change the routes and altitudes of large aircraft landing at LAX, and will those changes cause even more noise and pollution in Santa Monica? How will Santa Monicans manage the operational expenses of managing a park that caters to 10 million plus LA County residents coming to visit when we already struggle with managing the operational costs of overseeing the Promenade and the beaches?
More than ten years have passed since Measure LC passed, and a lot has changed in that decade.  Jet aircraft traffic and associated noise have decreased by 81%.  Electric training aircraft have begun operating at Santa Monica Airport, with zero noise and zero pollution.
 Electric passenger aircraft are nearing certification. Well before December 31, 2028, clean, quiet, electric flights will routinely operate from Santa Monica Airport to destinations throughout the region, with seats available and affordable for almost everyone in our community.  We experienced wildfires very close to our city, with the airport serving as an important base for firefighting aircraft.
 We experienced a pandemic, which led to significant lost revenue for the city.  The city’s financial condition is precarious.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 85 exceptions including park and cultural spaces. The people voted to take local control of the land, not to turn it into a park. This very nature of Measure LC has been widely misunderstood or mischaracterized by city staff.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Respectfully,
-Dylan Lukes
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 86 David Yakobson
From: Mattan Danino <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Keep SMO Flying!

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 87 It is also important to note that Measure LC did not mandate that the airport be converted to a park. Measure LC merely mandated that no development happen at the airport site without voter approval, with certain limited exceptions including park and cultural spaces. The people voted to take local control of the land, not to turn it into a park. This very nature of Measure LC has been widely misunderstood or mischaracterized by city staff.

Thank you for your service to our city.
--
Mattan Danino
CEO
O: 888.310.3103 x9
W: WEBITMD.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 88 David Yakobson
From: Stephen Li <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a long time resident of Sunset Park in Santa Monica, we are very excited about the upcoming Great Park. We have two kids (ages 6 and 4) and we can’t wait to enjoy the park for year/decades to come. Thank you.

Steve Li
2330 Pier Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 89 David Yakobson
From: connie schurr <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for your leadership over the past few weeks. The city's response to the wildfire crisis has been commendable and has brought clarity to our community during uncertain times.

As we’ve seen firsthand how vital Santa Monica Airport is to the city, especially in emergencies like the recent wildfires, it’s clear that the 190-acre site has a range of potential uses.

The idea of transforming the airport into a diverse, sustainable space for residents makes sense. However, converting it into a park alone is neither financially viable nor practical.

The “Great Park” concept is appealing, especially to the residents of LA County that live on the south and east sides of the proposed park. They are residents that will also benefit.

Santa Monica lacks the funds to develop or maintain such a large park, and a bond measure to cover costs would face significant opposition. There is no realistic path to funding the park,
and closing the airport without a solid economic plan is risky.

No studies have been done to assess unintended consequences of a park such as:

1. Securing this large area from homeless encampments.

2. Limiting use by non Santa Monica residents that are not paying taxes for it's upkeep.

3. Managing the operational costs when Santa Monica is already stretched thin.

A lot has changed since Measure LC passed ten years ago:
 Jet traffic and noise have decreased by 81%.
 Electric aircraft are emerging, with quiet, clean flights soon to be a regular part of airport operations.
 The city’s financial outlook is fragile.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 90 Importantly, Measure LC did not mandate a park, just that any development at the airport site needs voter approval. The people voted to retain local control, not to turn the space into a park.

There’s a better way forward. The airport site can evolve into a sustainable, multi-use space that provides recreational, educational, and economic benefits. It can be a source of pride and innovation.

My request is simple: consider all possibilities and remain open to alternative proposals.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,
Connie Schurr
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 91 David Yakobson
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Jan 28, 2025 SMAC Guiding Principles Item 7-A

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am a long Ɵme Sunset Park resident and Airport neighbor.

I endorse the SMAC Project’s guiding principles and encourage City Council to direct Staff and Sasaki Associates to move forward formulaƟng opƟons that create a GREAT PARK on the Airport land compliant with Measure LC.

Let’s return this land to its original use, PARKLAND, for the benefit of all Santa Monica and the Westside.

Thank you,
Roger Allen
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 92 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Leslie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #7

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Rev. Dr. Joanne Leslie
Re: Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project
Date: January 26, 2025

I hope to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 28, 2025 to speak on Item 7A.

However, I understand we may have only one minute each to speak, and there may not be time for everyone to speak. Therefore I want to write this letter to go on record as strongly supporting the building of below-market housing on some of the land that will be freed up when the Santa Monica Airport is closed at the end of 2028.

I am a longtime homeowner in the Sunset Park neighborhood of Santa Monica. I purchased my home near Santa Monica College in 1997 and have lived here ever since except for a year when I went to seminary. I value the economic, cultural and age diversity of my neighborhood above all and I want to permit this mix of residents to continue into the future by ensuring that sufficient affordable housing is available in Santa Monica. Furthermore, I understand that Santa Monica is required by the State of California to zone for 9,000 new units of housing and that we have almost used up available land for new units. It seems to me a win-win solution if the airport land is used partially for building below-market housing, which would allow young families who work or have businesses in Santa Monica to rent or buy homes here. Since fewer than 10% of people who work in Santa Monica are currently able to live here due to limits on housing availability, especially below-market housing, developing housing on airport land would likely reduce rather than increase traffic. Having fewer people commuting into and out of Santa Monica every day would also help reduce congestion and pollution county wide. These are some of the reasons I have enthusiastically endorsed the Cloverfield Commons 2025 plan.

Let me be clear that I join my fellow Santa Monicans who look forward to enjoying a large park on the airport land. I understand that Measure LC says that is how the airport land should be used.

However, the housing situation is much more desperate than it was when Measure LC was passed, and the airport provides enough land for multiple uses. Even with the construction of 3000 units of attractive, mostly low rise below-market housing as envisaged in the Cloverfield Commons proposal, there would still be at least 100 acres for a very large park providing more than adequate space for fields, forests and other features. Let me also mention that as an older Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 93 adult who currently goes walking in Clover Park, I can say that I would more comfortably use the new park if there are also families living right next door. There is a sense of liveliness and, more important, safety in knowing that at any time of day or night there will be people nearby.

In closing, I would like to register my concern about the process so far for obtaining community input. I attended events at farmer’s markets and a big event at Memorial Park on Dec. 7, 2024.

Beyond being chaotic and it not being clear how I was supposed to participate, there seemed almost no opportunity to indicate that I support housing on part of the airport land. Whether intentional or not, the surveys, games and other ways of interacting with the community seemed designed to keep the topic of housing out of the conversation. I hope this will be rectified going forward. Thank you for your attention.

Deacon Joanne Lesliie
310-403-9353
“There is only one thing I will not concede: that it might be meaningless to strive in a good cause.” Vaclav Havel
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 94 David Yakobson
From: Padraic Foran <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to voice my support for the "Guiding Principles" for converting the Santa Monica Airport into a Great Park. I encourage the Council to adopt the principles as written.

My wife and I have been proud Santa Monica residents for nearly a decade. We are raising two young children in this wonderful city and community. Despite Santa Monica's many amenities and virtues, we are starved for park and open spaces. Converting the airport into a great park presents an exciting and rare opportunity to cure this deficiency and to create a special place for generations to come. The Guiding Principles capture the spirit of what we can and must accomplish in converting the airport.

My family and I have participated in multiple phases of community outreach related to the airport conversion, including attending a community event at Clover Park and responding to multiple online questionnaires. Through those programs, I have seen first hand the great work that the Council, city staff, and Sasaki have already done in developing the conversion project. I am grateful for these terrific efforts, which are reflected in the Staff Report for agenda item 7.A.

I want to emphasize three additional points.
 First, the Council should direct staff to develop and then adopt a plan that complies fully with Measure LC. The plan should include an incremental buildout plan that allows the public to access the nascent park as early as possible--preferably at the stroke of midnight, January 1, 2029.
 Second, the Council need not place any ballot measure to modify LC prior to closure. We have already voted to close the airport and to convert the park. A ballot measure would only waste resources that should be devoted to planning for the conversion.  Third, the opportunities for the Great Park are immense. Great parks in other cities often include complementary such as amphitheaters, cafes, farmers' markets, family friendly beer gardens, and restaurants. I support similar uses here. These uses are incidental and subordinate to the site's primary use as a park. These uses are not only consistent with the spirit of a great park, but they enhance it. The Council should direct staff to create a unique zoning district for the airport site to clarify “recreational uses” to include these accessory uses and so avoid any need for a ballot measure to modify LC.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 95 I thank the Council and staff for their attention to important issue and for guiding the City in this exciting conversion.

Padraic Foran
[email protected]
2004 Marine Street, Santa Monica 90405
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 96 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Muldaur <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles (01/28/25)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I am a member of TSM Aquatics, where my child competes in swim. We are very excited for the Great Park as we live just down the street. We are really hoping to have another aquatic facility for our kids to swim in.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Tracey Muldaur
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 97 David Yakobson
From: Jason Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

Over the past couple of weeks as we watched first responder aircraft lift off from Santa Monica Airport to fight the catastrophic fires, I was reminded how critical this space is for our city’s livelihood. This history of the Santa Monica airport is a vital part of our nation, the state and the city's fight for freedom and a bright technological future. Let us not let a mere few decades of relative peace let us forget the violence of our past and also the vital historical function that the airport has provided our community and nation.

KEEP THE AIRPORT.

The Great Park concept is economically not viable. It is time to face reality and to stop misleading Santa Monicans. The city has no money to develop or maintain a park of this scale. A bond measure is unviable as there would be insufficient sources of revenue to repay the bond. Santa Monica property owners would reject property tax increases. There are no philanthropists who will donate billions of dollars to build the park. Closing the airport at the end of 2028 with no economically viable path forward is a path to disaster. No study of the potential unintended consequences has been conducted. How will our police department ensure safety and security of such a large unattended area, especially when they are already struggling to keep DTSM and our existing parks safe? How will the FAA change the routes and altitudes of large aircraft landing at LAX, and will those changes cause even more noise and pollution in Santa Monica? How will Santa Monicans manage the operational expenses of managing a park that caters to 10 million plus LA County residents coming to visit when we already struggle with managing the operational costs of overseeing the Promenade and the beaches? More than ten years have passed since Measure LC passed, and a lot has changed in that decade.

Jet aircraft traffic and associated noise have decreased by 81%.

Electric training aircraft have begun operating at Santa Monica Airport, with zero noise and zero pollution.

Electric passenger aircraft are nearing certification. Well before December 31, 2028, clean, quiet, electric flights will routinely operate from Santa Monica Airport to destinations throughout the region, with seats available and affordable for almost everyone in our community.

We experienced wildfires very close to our city, with the airport serving as an important base for Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 98 firefighting aircraft.

We experienced a pandemic, which led to significant lost revenue for the city.

The city’s financial condition is precarious.

It is also important to note that Measure LC did not mandate that the airport be converted to a park.

My ask is simple - keep the airport OPEN. Now more than ever we know first hand the vital importance of a functioning airport to the well being of Santa Monica residents now and far into the future. Please do not make a decision that prioritizes short term over the long term well being of our citizens.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Jason Lin
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 99 David Yakobson
From: Michael Segal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of Santa Monica City Council,
Firstly, thank you for your leadership during the past couple of weeks of crisis. The entire city team reacted promptly and professionally, bringing clarity and comfort to our community in a very uncertain and devastating time.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 100
It is also important to note that Measure LC did not mandate that the airport be converted to a park. Measure LC merely mandated that no development happen at the airport site without voter approval, with certain limited exceptions including park and cultural spaces. The people voted to take local control of the land, not to turn it into a park. This very nature of Measure LC has been widely misunderstood or mischaracterized by city staff.

On a more personal note, Santa Monica Airport has inspired and will continue to inspire generations of aviators. As a child growing up in the neighboring Mar Vista area, my father would routinely take me to visit the airport and experience the sheer joy and wonder of aviation. Little did he know, in doing so, he had sparked in me the desire to pursue a career in aviation. My first flight in general aviation aircraft was out of KSMO. At the age of 18, I attended the United States Air Force Academy, and after graduation, served as an F-15 fighter pilot in the USAF. I retired from service in August 2024 after a 22-year career. This career in aviation and service to my country would not have happened without the influence of the Santa Monica Airport at a young age and its geographic proximity. Now, as an attorney, our firm has a number of aerospace clients located here in Southern California as a direct result of my aviation expertise. Converting the airport to a park would be a mistake for the local population writ large, especially as Southern California's aviation industry continues to evolve and thrive.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Michael Segal, Esq.
6442 Coldwater Canyon Ave., Suite 209
Los Angeles, CA 91606
Office: 818.574.3712 | Facsimile: 818.301.5131
Email: [email protected] | LinkedIn
Confidentiality: The information contained in this email, including attachments, may be confidential or subject to attorney-client privilege and is only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or is the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 101
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by return email or by calling 818.574.3712.

Tax Advice Disclosure: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachment(s), unless expressly stated otherwise, was and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 102
David Yakobson
From: Liza Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please keep our SM airport.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 103
exceptions including park and cultural spaces. The people voted to take local control of the land, not to turn it into a park. This very nature of Measure LC has been widely misunderstood or mischaracterized by city staff.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Liza Jensen
AFW member
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 104
David Yakobson
From: Lauren Wallenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7a—support for the great park

EXTERNAL
Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, publicly-owned, and can be opened for public use on Day One, January 1, 2029
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 105
David Yakobson
From: Cozette Csoke <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White; [email protected] Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles (01/28/25)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

My name is Cozette and I am an LA native, born and raised; as such, I have seen the negative affects of corporate greed and political corruption on our environment, since the 80s. I recall wet Winters with snow capped mountains, green Springs, hot but bearable (without AC) Summers, and colorful Falls; all with breathable air and beautiful skies. The oceans were cleaner, deer passed through my family home’s backyard, coyotes were heard but not often seen and kids enjoyed being outside especially when not in school.

Seeing the detrimental affects of overdevelopment growing up (I recall a developer in the 90s specifically destroying the wetlands of Playa Del Rey against the decisions of council members and locals - from which, the land and wildlife still hasn’t recovered); and having a daughter now who her and her friends don’t seem to desire being outdoors as much as I did growing up tells me that our city leaves much to be desired.

I understand that the city needs to look at various possibilities, such as things that may generate long term income; but please remember that even in New York’s Central Park, there’s a carousel, a lake where boats can be rented, a small zoo, a nature sanctuary, conservatory garden, a castle with visitor center/gift shop, and a handful of restaurants inside the park (which can serve as wedding/event venues) as well as concession stands, and a winter ice rink. There’s so much potential for the city to make money while maintaining the space as a Great Park, allowing members of our community more places to bring our kids, to spend time with our families/loved ones as well as by ourselves, and to enjoy the great outdoors.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Cozette Csoke
Concerned Citizen, Parent, & Resident
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 106
David Yakobson
From: Widget Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project - Please Keep the Santa Monica airport

EXTERNAL
Hi! I am fourth generation Venice/Santa Monica resident. My whole family loves the airport and we feel safer with it.

It has also been a great source of education for myself and my children and it is a part of our history.

Please do not remove it but continue to utilize it!
Thank you! 걭걮걯거걭걮걯거걭걮걯거
Widget Kelly Moore Moseley and Family!
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 107
David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmember,
I urge you to support the Airport conversion guiding principles, endorsed by City staff, and based the City’s community outreach.

With Santa Monica’s housing density and population set to dramatically increase, and our city already underparked, having a Great Park is a necessity, not a luxury.

Thank you.

Victor and Diane Fresco
Santa Monica
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 108
David Yakobson
From: Mehringer Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 3:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles Attachments: tennis letter.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please see my letter attached, explaining the current huge unmet need for more tennis courts in Santa Monica and my strong support for building tennis courts at the Great Park.

Thank you for considering my letter and including it as a written comment for this Tuesday's City Council meeting.

Steve Mehringer
Santa Monica resident
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 I am a Santa Monica resident and tennis is my passion. I have been playing tennis most of my life, competing in USTA tournaments starting at 10 years old, and going on to play four years of Division 1 college tennis. Now I play recreationally with my friends and family. Tennis has taught me resilience and discipline, and fostered numerous friendships over the years. My 13-year-old son also loves tennis and now plays competitively. He tries to train 5-6 days a week, with hopes of one day playing in college.

Unfortunately, it has become next to impossible to get a public tennis court in Santa Monica. My son and I used to drive around for hours after school and on weekends (and still do sometimes), unsuccessfully trying to find an open court, just to return home frustrated. I heard I needed a “tennis membership” to book courts at Reed, so I paid for a membership to the public courts, only to find that it was impossible to actually book a court through the reservation system. The only time I could book a court was during the middle of the work/school day, a time that is not free for most people, including school-age kids and working adults. Although I tried dozens of times to book a court the instant the reservation window opened – I even set an alarm so I would be among the first people trying to book -- I was ultimately unsuccessful in ever booking a public tennis court in Santa Monica. The “membership” I paid to the City to be able to book tennis courts was completely worthless.

From what I have observed, during prime after-school hours and weekends, most if not all of the courts are taken by professionals who are paying the City a permit fee to teach private lessons on the public courts. This includes all the courts at Reed, Memorial Park, and one of the two courts at Douglas Park that seems to have perpetual classes and lessons and is almost never accessible to the general public.

The recent popularity of pickleball has also removed courts available for tennis at Memorial Park.

There are also a few courts that are first come, first serve, but those courts are always full, usually have multiple people waiting for them, and are subject to a 30-minute max play rule when people are waiting. 30 minutes is barely enough time to warm up adequately and start a competitive set. There is no way a competitive player, like my son, can train on public courts in Santa Monica. He needs a minimum of 90 minutes of court time, 5-6 days a week, to adequately train. As a result, we have been forced to join a private tennis club outside of Santa Monica. Despite the inconvenience of having to travel so far away from home to play tennis, we are fortunate that we even have that option. Many people do not and the lack of public tennis courts in Santa Monica creates barriers to entry for so many people, when tennis is a fun, life-long sport that should be accessible to all. Santa Monica’s lack of accessible public tennis courts guarantees that Santa Monica will not produce competitive junior tennis players, and certainly not the next Serena Williams, a product of public courts in Long Beach. What a shame for our City.

We need more tennis courts in Santa Monica and thoughtful restrictions on professional permitting. Our residents deserve a chance to learn the sport, enjoy recreational tennis, and train competitively, if they so choose, on courts paid for by their tax dollars. To help alleviate the huge unmet demand for tennis courts in Santa Monica, I urge you to build a large tennis court facility at the Great Park. Tennis courts do not take up that much space, and adding 10-12 tennis courts at the Great Park would greatly help the current accessibility problem, especially if the courts were all first come first serve. If we built this, maybe a local Santa Monica kid would even have a shot of becoming the next Serena Williams one day.

Sincerely,
Steve Mehringer
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 109
David Yakobson
From: ErikLerner RealEstateArchitect.com <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 3:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
I lived in Ocean Park in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and returned with my wife to Santa Monica two years ago after purchasing a home in Sunset Park.

My personal feelings about the airport closure are mixed. •Although not a pilot myself, I have always been fascinated by planes and aviation in general. *Over the years I have dined at Kitty Hawk, Spitfire, Typhoon and most recently at Cloverfield, not least because of their location.
•I moved to Santa Monica with full knowledge of the presence of the airport as, I suspect, did most of Santa Monica’s residents, and demands for its closure in light of that knowledge strike me as disingenuous.
*In the tug of war between modest general aviation craft and larger jets for privileged passengers, I’m glad larger planes were deemed inappropriate to the venue and eliminated.

I have no idea what the data gathered so far from the City's Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project concludes with regard to the Great Park. If the public and the council support the Park Project, I’m fine with that.

I would ask only this: In the construction of the Great Park, please recognize the importance of Clover Field in the history of aviation and in the history of Santa Monica and the world. I’m not talking about a brass plaque. I’m talking about preservation of, and informative explanations about physical elements of the property that will make clear to users of the Park on a daily basis the importance of this plot of land - the invention of pivotal aircraft, the centrality of Douglas Aircraft to victory in World War II, the essential female factory workers during that war, and a hundred other bits of history. Landmark the control tower, repurpose the runway, save a hangar...

I leave those choices to the design team. But give that team the opportunity to employ its talents to educate the community about its own story, of what came before.

Please, for once, don’t repeat the American habit of simply wiping away the past.

Respectfully,
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 110

ERIK LERNER

REAL ESTATE BROKER
CA DRE #01225073

ARCHITECT

LEED AP

REAL ESTATE ARCHITECT
25 Village Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
310 729 4597
[email protected]
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 111
David Yakobson
From: David Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles (01/28/25)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I/we are a member(s) of TSM Aquatics, where our children are competitive swimmers. My two boys have grown up through the TSM program from the lowest levels to today both are national level swimmers competing in SoCal as well as other states and even other countries. The future Great Park represents a oncein-many-lifetimes opportunity for Santa Monicans, turning a massive, paved space used by a few into a beacon of nature, recreation and health used by many. Having lived in New York City for more than 20 years, the one truly differentiating item was Central Park, enjoyed by everyone in the city for an array of outdoor activities and Santa Monica has a great chance to do something similar. I am writing to specifically advocate for an aquatics facility to be part of that future, in my role with TSM Aquatics.

TSM has worked in partnership with the City for its entire existence to develop and be good stewards and patrons of the available pool space. TSM strongly advocates for additional pool space to be created in the City, as overall demand long ago outpaced available space. The lack of facilities puts pool space at a premium. At present, there is not enough space for the existing demand for aquatic activities: hours for lap swimming are limited, water aerobics classes are full, and recreational swim times are constrained. Permit groups, including TSM, must share a finite, limited amount of space, which limits the programming they can offer Santa Monicans, including swim and water polo for youth and adults, and swim for those with special needs.

With more pool space, TSM could also expand its other programs such as diving or Master s swimming, and reach more kids and adults. Swimming and water polo are important to kids not just for the sports themselves, but for all the secondary benefits that come with such activities. The Great Park poses an amazing opportunity for Santa Monica to build an aquatics facility that would benefit so many different groups of people and would be a natural extension of the other aspects of the park. An ideal facility would have pools and splash pad areas, deck space and lock room facilities, so that a swim practice could be happening at the same time as lessons and water walking, and families enjoying our amazing sunshine with their little ones.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
David B. Smith and Lauren Eckhart Smith
--
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 112
David B. Smith
917-710-8891 (c)
[email protected]
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 113
David Yakobson
From: Cindy Bendat <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members:

I am a 35-year resident and homeowner in Santa Monica, and I unequivocally support the restoration and conversion of all of the airport land into a Great Park for us and for future generations to enjoy. This will be our legacy: turning a hazard zone into a green zone and building an incredible and beautiful public park! Great cities have great parks, and it is because of the work of prior generations that those parks exist. Now is our time, and your time, to make that happen here.

I also worked on the passage of Measure LC, with its language now enshrined in the CIty Charter, and I want that language to be adhered to.

Therefore, I am asking you to support the proposed Guiding Principles for the creation of a Great Park, compliant with Measure LC, to be opened for public use on Day 1 after the Airport closes on January 1, 2029.

How incredibly exciting this opportunity is.

Cindy Bendat

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 114
David Yakobson
From: Robert Bowers Disney <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Regarding Item 7.A: Aquatics at the Great Park

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I am a member of TSM Aquatics, where my child competes in Water Polo. As I understand it, the inclusion of an aquatics facility has so far been included in discussions around redevelopment of the Great Park but that recent advocacy efforts aim to push it to the side in favor of additional housing.

I am not opposed to housing but it should not come at the cost of aquatics facilities.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
--
Robert Bowers Disney
[email protected]
202.423.1470 (c)
310.264.4740 (o)
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 115
David Yakobson
From: Federico Bianchi <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles (01/28/25)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

As the Executive Director of ALBION Santa Monica, I represent over 600 youth soccer families in the West LA area. We take great pride in providing high-quality soccer training in Santa Monica; however, securing adequate field space remains an ongoing challenge for our organization. A facility like the Great Park would be a transformative addition, significantly improving access to playing fields, enriching the lives of our families, and fostering a more engaged, active, and healthy community.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

ALBION SC Santa Monica Federico Bianchi
Executive Director ALBION SC Santa Monica
mobile: 310.954.0803
email:[email protected]
website: www.albionscsantamonica.org
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

ALBION SC Santa Monica
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 116
David Yakobson
From: President TSM <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles (01/28/25) Attachments: TSM letter to City Council 1.26.25.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council MembersPlease see the attached in support of the Great Park.

Thank you.
--
Matthew Peterson
President, TSM Aquatics
[email protected]
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 117
David Yakobson
From: Tova Larsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
Growing up in the Bay Area, I have many fond memories of weekend family excursions to San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. We'd visit the windmills, picnic on the lawn, and enjoy time under the trees. Later, while living in New York City as a young adult, there were many outdoor concerts, weekend strolls, and meet-ups with friends in Central Park.

These parks present more than just a place for gathering, they are points of pride for their respective cities and the residents who pass through. The memories I hold from my time spent visiting these two great parks are deeply valued. They also inspire me to return and visit these two great parks when I am am traveling.

I would love for Santa Monica to have it's own great park too. I add my voice both as a resident of this wonderful city, and also as someone who lives in Sunset Park, very near the airport. The proposed park would be in my backyard, and would be a great point of pride to me and my family.

The data gathered so far from the City's Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Sincerely,
Tova Larsen
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 118
David Yakobson
From: Arthur Kummer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Great Park to replace Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
I have lived in Sunset Park near the Santa Monica Airport for over 60 years. I am so excited the airport noise will stop after 2028. The city has a once in a generation opportunity to build a great park which will transform the City of Santa Monica. We will never have this chance again. We need to think of it like New York’s Central Park. The Great Park will attract people to want to live in and visit Santa Monica. All the other purposed uses for the park land can be solved in other places in the city. A 200+ acre park will transform Santa Monica into a greater city and give something to all the residents of the City of Santa Monica to use and enjoy. The Santa Monica Airport was used by only a few hundred residents so please give something to all the residents to enrich their lives.

Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financiallyfeasible, publicly-owned, and can be opened for public use on Day 1 after the Airport closes, January 1, 2029.

Arthur Kummer
2020 Ashland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 119
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council- 1-28-25- Item 7-A- SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
My husband and I are long time Santa Monica residents. We own a home on Oak Street- between 23rd and 25th St.

We love our neighborhood and are very concerned about the future of the airport after it is closed. We do NOT want the airport to turn into another mall, office complex, restaurant zone, or massive commercial project. We VOTED to develop it into a PARK.

Please honor the residents by following through with the voter's wishes to return the airport property to the Great Park.

Best Regards,
Emily Sanders
Santa Monica resident
Emily Sanders
After School Program Teacher
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 120
David Yakobson
From: Anne Dudek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Sunset Park and hope that we can prioritize open park land for the entire community. A park and space for everyone to use for healthy recreation is so vital to the city’s well being.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 121
David Yakobson
From: Nancy Coleman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; " lana.negrete"@santamonica.gov; " caroline.torosis"@santamonica.gov; " jesse.zwick"@santamonica.gov; " ellis.raskin"@santamonica.gov; " barry.snell"@santamonica.gov; " natalya.zernitskaya"@santamonica.gov; " dan.hall"@santamonica.gov; " david.white"@santamonica.gov
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 7 A Council Meeting January 28th

EXTERNAL
City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

My name is Nancy Coleman and I grew up in Santa Monica. I am the vice-chair of NOMA and serve on the Advisory Committee for We Are Santa Monica. Santa Monica is park poor. It is essential to establish a great park to meet the expanding needs for those who will occupy the thousands of new housing units that already have entitlements.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Nancy Coleman
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 122
David Yakobson
From: Rene Santaella <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
René Santaella
1862 Franklin Canyon Dr 90210 (City of Los Angeles)
[email protected]
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Council Members, I am a father of three kids who all play soccer and on club teams with LA Breakers and Albion FC. I am writing to urge you to designate part of the Santa Monica Airport land for athletic fields, particularly soccer fields. Our community faces a critical shortage of recreational spaces. A Los Angeles County study from 2023 identified a deficit of over 200 athletic fields, with urban areas like Santa Monica among the hardest hit.

Youth sports provide measurable benefits:

Health: According to the CDC, youth who play sports are 40% less likely to be overweight and are 15% more likely to maintain healthy habits into adulthood.

Academics: Studies show student-athletes have a 15% higher GPA on average.

Community and Equity: Soccer, the world’s most inclusive sport, provides low-cost, highimpact opportunities for physical and social development, especially in underrepresented communities.

Additionally, youth sports generate substantial economic benefits. Tournaments and leagues drive local business revenue; a 2022 study showed youth sports tourism contributes $19 billion annually in the U.S. Accessible fields would make Santa Monica a prime destination for such events.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 123
This is a rare opportunity to prioritize public health, youth development, and community building over further commercial or residential development. Santa Monica can address its field shortage and set a new standard for family-friendly recreation in the region.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to improving our city.

Sincerely,
René Santaella
[email protected]
Sources:

1.Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2023 Study on Athletic Field Deficits.

2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Youth Sports and Health Benefits Report.

3. National Federation of State High School Associations Academic Impact of Sports Participation, 2022.

4. Aspen Institute Project Play Youth Sports Tourism Economic Analysis, 2022.

5. U.S. Soccer Foundation Soccer’s Role in Community Equity and Development, 2021.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 124
David Yakobson
From: Alison Megliola <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 12:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
My name is Alison, and I live on the lovely Pearl Street in Sunset Park. I've been a Santa Monica resident since I moved to Southern California, from New York City, in 2013. I was thrilled to move where there weren't brutal winters or scorching summers, and with such amazing temerant weather, I couldn't understand why there wasn't anything close to Central Park. While living in New York, I spent every Saturday morning running in the park, doing my 6-mile loop through woods and trails, and around a beautiful reservoir -- rain or shine, or sleet! How could my, now beloved, Santa Monica, not have a great park where I could spend every day enjoying the outdoors? My two year old, Violet, loves to run and scooter around, and shares my fair skin, making shade a priority in the parks we go to.

My four year old, Juliet, loves to climb trees and do the monkey bars, making plenty of trees to choose from and climbing structures a priority in the parks we go to. Could we have it all? Trees, trails, climbing structures with shade, and perhaps paddle boats and a pond? Recreation areas for everyone to enjoy - big and small, young and old?

Alison Megliola
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 125
David Yakobson
From: Robert Posek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: “City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles”

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members
I am a resident of Santa Monica, having lived on the corner of 18th Street and Carlyle for over thirty five years. The opportunity to turn the airport into a Park for its residents is one of the most , if not the most consequential actions the City will undertake in our lifetime.

I grew up in Saint Louis Missouri, and as a youngster was fortunate enough to take advantage of our Forest Park, which hosted the1904 World's Fair. Our extended family spent many summer afternoons picnicking and enjoying the zoo which was part of the park. To say our City is in need of such a park is an understatement, and I strongly support converting the airport which serves a few to a park which will serve residents of not only Santa Monica but those from surrounding areas.

Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of this park and take this opportunity to create something for the residents and City of Santa Monica.

Robert Posek
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 126
David Yakobson
From: John Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council -1/28/25 - Item 7A SMAC Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
I moved into my house on 17th street in the airport flight path 24 years ago. At that time there were rumblings of closing the airport to create a great big park. So I got involved with FOSP and the Airport Commission to support this ambitious vision. I also canvassed vigorously for Measure C and was thrilled that we won the popular vote by such a large margin.

Respectfully,
John Reynolds
3217 17th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
213-598-2120 mobile
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 127
David Yakobson
From: Frank J Gruber <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles [01/28/25]

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council,
By way of introduction, I am on the boards of both the Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation and the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition, but I’m sending you this memo as an individual resident of Santa Monica. This is not necessarily because anything I say here conflicts with any positions of those two organizations, but because I address topics on which the organizations have not taken positions. I urge you to read closely the letters from the two organizations.

I’d like to begin with this image, which is of a placard that dozens of grassroots activists used in early 2014 to confront signature gatherers whom the aviation industry had hired to put on the ballot a measure that would have perpetuated the airport.

Whenever signature gatherers were sighted, usually in a shopping center parking lot, word would go out. Volunteers would meet them there as quickly as we could. We were not allowed to interrupt while a gatherer was talking to a shopper, but we would hold these placards behind the gatherers and hope that the shoppers would ask us why they shouldn’t sign the petition. We did this for weeks. It was grassroots activism. Nonetheless, Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 128
notwithstanding our efforts, and as paid canvassers always do if there is enough money, they ultimately obtained enough signatures to put Measure D on the ballot. But the signature gatherers told us our efforts jacked up the amount they received per signature to the highest they’d ever got.

We defeated the aviation industry and the million dollars they spent here with a vision of a park. But for that victory, this item would not be on the agenda tonight. The vision was contained in Measure LC, which a unanimous City Council voted to put on the ballot to counter the aviation industry’s initiative. After LC passed, the City won the declaratory judgment case in the Ninth Circuit, and then, in the 2017 Settlement agreement, the City won the unambiguous right to close the airport after 2028. The City Council forthwith voted to close the airport with Resolution 11026. It is gratifying that the City Attorney recognizes this as definitive and sufficient action by the council to close the airport. (Although we will be ever-vigilant – this action by the council could be reversed by a future council right up until December 31, 2028.)
There is a reason that I emphasize that we defeated the aviation industry with a vision of a park. Voting for LC was not simply a negative vote to close the airport. It was a positive vote to build a park. Voters could have voted No on both Measures D and LC. Defeating both would have both protected the City’s right to close the airport, which was then being litigated, and preserved the City’s right to replace the airport with anything. But 60 percent of voters, a landslide, said Yes to a park. Knowing that building a Great Park would take time and money.

In a cynical, discouraged and at times angry age when people have lost faith in government to do big and good things, that vote for a park was meaningful. It showed that Santa Monicans had dreams for the future, for their posterity – much as Santa Monicans did in 1926 when they voted to tax themselves to buy land for a great park. One hundred years ago the population of Santa Monica was about one-third of what it is today, and possibly only onequarter of what our population will be soon, as we build more housing. You know the data about how little parkland we have per capita; a big park is needed more than ever, and the voters of Santa Monica recognized that when they approved Measure LC.

Now we are in the midst of a public process to plan the conversion of the airport. At this meeting your staff is presenting you with the first fruits of that process. I urge you to approve the draft guiding principles and let the process continue. Do not let the airport land become a site of contention, where government is paralyzed and nothing gets done, because process, and worries and complaints about process, is elevated over substance. In recent years, Santa Monica has experienced one failed public process after another. The LUCE, Bergamot Station, Fourth and Arizona, the Civic Auditorium, the Papermate site, and many other others, all failed. This is not a phenomenon limited to Santa Monica; all over the country, people, especially city dwellers, are frustrated that government cannot deliver, because of arguments about process. Voters, the ultimate process, have in both 1926 and 2014 given Santa Monica a vision for a park – let’s turn that into reality.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 129
I won’t add much to the discussion of the staff report, since you are receiving so much input, but because of new information in the City Attorney’s legal memo, I have responses to the specific questions raised in the staff report on pages 43 and 45. (The following is meant to be in accordance with the analysis in the Airport2Park letter you have also received.) • Should Staff include an LC-compliant scenario in the spectrum of community-preferred land uses? (The question on page 43 of the staff report.) This is what Gleam Davis suggested in December 2023, when the contract to Sasaki was approved, and clearly the answer is yes as it should have been then. But at this point I suggest going further in light of the City Attorney’s opinion about how zoning can be used to add uses to the definition of “park” so that more traditional park facilities can be included in the park without triggering a vote to amend Measure LC. It makes sense that the second of the three options should also be LCcompliant, at least on an “anticipatory basis.” Meaning that this option could include typical park amenities currently not included in the zoning for a park in Santa Monica, but which could be included in amendments to zoning for parks. As discussed in the A2P letter, this second option should be for a very ambitious park.
• Should Staff explore the feasibility of both traditional and innovative financing structures, etc.? (The question on page 45 of the staff report.) The answer is again yes. This would be where the third, non-LC-compliant option comes in, in case any of these proposed financing structures would require land at the airport. But please direct staff and Sasaki, if they are going to study non-LC-compliant uses at the airport site, to limit these uses to the alreadydeveloped areas of the airport, areas that are not likely to be part of a park. All open space – the runway, existing permeable surfaces, tie-down areas and the like – should be park.

Another important point that Gleam Davis made in December 2023 was that any ballot measure to amend Measure LC can and should wait until the airport is closed. The reasons are at least twofold.

The first, as has often been discussed, is that a ballot measure while the airport is still open is likely to attract a new measure from the aviation industry to “save the airport.” The aviation industry is watching to see if this issue can divide Santa Monicans.

The second reason why a ballot measure should wait until the airport closes is that, frankly, a ballot measure to amend LC is not likely to pass before the residents and voters of Santa Monica see that the City is on the path to build the Great Park. Any effort to sideline LC before a Great Park is in the works would arouse suspicion; many would justifiably consider it to be a “bait and switch.” A ballot measure before closure would also stop this process in its tracks – meaning another failure of process like so many in Santa Monica’s recent history.

Finally, let me say about financing the park that we should always remind ourselves that the most expensive element of the park – the land – has already been paid for. With a $860,000 parks bond. In today’s dollars that would be about $13 million. Quite a deal for land that Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 130
couldn’t be bought for billions today. Once we have a vision for a Great Park on paper, there will be many sources for building it.

Thank you for your attention, and for your good work in this legacy project.

Frank Gruber, Ocean Park

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 131
David Yakobson
From: Karen Heard <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: Santa Monica airport to Great Park.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
I am a 30 year Santa Monica resident living near the airport. The conversion of the airport back to a great park is of paramount importance to me.

Respectfully yours,
Dr. Karen Heard
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 132
David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
This is our once in a lifetime opportunity to restore the "Great Park". It will help our environment and benefit all the people in Santa Monica. The idea of what it originally was and the opportunity to make it that way again is too great to pass up.

Thank you,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 133
David Yakobson
From: Hal Bogotch <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Santa Monica City Council meeting - 1/28/2025 - agenda Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete & City Council members,
Although I've owned a home in Santa Monica for just a little over four years, I've lived in the area affected by the operations of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) since 2001. I have worked in Santa Monica & sent my daughter to Santa Monics schools. In addition, my in-laws have lived in Santa Monica for many years.

Plus, my family & I have patronized Santa Monica businesses & enjoyed Santa Monica's public parks & recreation facilities for decades.

There are no two ways about it: Santa Monica Airport must be closed as of Dec. 31, 2028 — and all of the land encompassed therein must be converted to a Great Park! The data gathered so far from the City's Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

It's far more than a matter of public health & safety — it's a matter of public pride. And it's the right thing to do.

Sincerely,
-- H.M. Bogotch
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Hal Martin Bogotch
2520 Cloverfield Blvd
S.M., 90405
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://www.amazon.com/author/halbogotch
https://hal123pov.wordpress.com/
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 134
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 135
David Yakobson
From: Ferris Kawar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
I work and live in Santa Monica (Sunset Park, across the street from the entrance to the airport). My family and I have endured the noise and pollution of the airport for 10 years, but we are excited to see the staff supported Guiding Principles to create a Great Park, which could be immediately opened on January 1st, 2029 to walking, skateboarding, rollerblading, and biking and then incrementally developed in a way that supports naturebased climate solutions and restoration of our City's original Great Park.

Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, and publicly-owned.

Ferris Kawar
2666 31st St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 136
David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council - 1/28/25 - Item 7-A - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
My name is Hilary Galanoy. I live at 2636 32nd Street, between Pearl and Ocean Park. I strongly support the Santa Monica airport being converted into a Great Park. In the urban sprawl that is greater Los Angeles, we desperately need more outdoor green spaces for recreation, community engagement, and sanctuary from our loud and busy lives.

Best, Hilary Galanoy
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 137
David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: January 28, 2025 City Council Meeting Item 7.A Santa Monica Airport Convesion Project

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Karen Melick and I’m a resident of Sunset Park and a Santa Monica resident for 32 years.

I wholly support and have participated in the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project planning for a Great Park in compliance with measure LC and believe Sasaki and the City have been doing a very good job so far.

I urge you to agree with the five Guiding Principles. My one quibble with the Guiding Principles is that the recreational uses of the land is understated.

I’m the chair of the Santa Monica Aquatics Advisory Committee, an advisory group to the Recreation and Parks Commission. Santa Monica is significantly below average on swimming pool space. The last Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 1997 called for an additional aquatics facility in a park setting. Our current pools are shared with the college and school district. The master plan for the original great park included a plan for a swimming pool.

It’s time for the City to execute on the plans for a new aquatics facility in a park setting. We need to provide more swim lessons so that our youth are water safe in this beach City. It would also help ease the high and unmet demand for use by individuals and groups (youth, adult, senior and special needs) for improved safety and fitness. An aquatics facility was also high on the list of preferred recreational facilities in the survey results of this current planning process.

I ask you to approve continuing to move forward for planning for this great park with the creation of 3 planning scenarios. I strongly believe these scenarios should stay in line with Measure LC and the original intent for the land as the Santa Monica residents voted for when approving the bonds to purchase the land and not include Housing or other non-park and recreational uses. Separate from the park planning process, the city needs to address the state housing requirements and do what is needed to keep the airport land from being categorized as surplus land.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Karen Melick
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 138
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: PATTY LAURIE
Subject: Airport project
Attachments: Screenshot_20250125_123156_Chrome.jpg

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council
Thank you all for all you do.

I am Patty Laurie. Born and raised in Santa Monica. I live at Marine st. End of runway.

And please include the ancestors history for a sacred area Thank you
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 mins)) 139
David Yakobson
From: phil traill <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I’m worried that the Great Park will be taken over by real estate development, and will therefore turn out to be way worse than what we have now… ie lovely Clover Park, and an inoffensive airport.

From most of my conversations with other residents, that’s the main concern - that Council will agree to endless housing demands, and we’ll be left with something far worse than what we have now.

Thanks
Phil Traill
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 140
David Yakobson
From: Karla Klarin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White Subject: City Council 1/28/25-SMAC Project

EXTERNAL
Dear SM Council membersPlease allow the closed airport to be used 100% for a public park. There will never be another opportunity for Santa Monica to have its own major park. It will be such a gift to all the many residents, especially children, of this wonderful community.

Thank you,
Karla Klarin
Santa Monica
--
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 141
David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Airport conversion project

EXTERNAL
The data gathered so far from the City's Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Janet Tunick
90405
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 142
David Yakobson
From: Abel, Richard <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A on the Tuesday meeting agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members:

I am writing to urge you to make aƯordable housing a high priority in the development of the Santa Monica Airport site. I will have been a Santa Monica resident for half a century this summer. Obviously, I have found it the best place to live. But the workers who make it that place cannot aƯord to live here—or anywhere nearby. I’m talking about those who staƯ our hospitals, doctors’ oƯices, schools, police and fire departments, businesses, hotels, and restaurants, who maintain our gardens and clean our houses, who care for our children and elderly, who build and rebuild our houses—and who staƯ our city government. We desperately need aƯordable housing: as a matter of equity, eƯiciency, and the environment. The lengthy daily commutes of our out-of-city workers contribute to climate change, which will erode our beaches. Santa Monica has been and can continue to be a “City on a Hill,” in a famous phrase from John Winthrop in 1630. But only if we make it aƯordable to those who work here.

Sincerely,
Richard L. Abel
446 16th Street
Connell Distinguished Professor of Law and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 143
David Yakobson
From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 6:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]; Hisao Kushi
Subject: ITEM 7.A. - SMAC PROJECT GUIDING PRINCIPLE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

As residents of Santa Monica for over 30 years and also having a residence in NYC, a Great Park is crucial to bring back the charm and beauty of Santa Monica. When we return to SM from NYC, we are increasingly depressed by all the empty buildings along Wilshire Boulevard; almost every block has a vacant building along with one or two homeless people. We feel much safer walking in NYC at night as opposed to SM. Unacceptable. Yet, we see more and more development and notices on buildings for demolition - baffling. Santa Monica desperately needs more trees and green space, and less concrete and empty (or newly built) buildings.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 144
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 145
David Yakobson
From: Kelsey Rowland <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in regards to the upcoming meeting on 1/28 where the guiding principles for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion will be discussed. Unfortunately I cannot be in attendance, otherwise I would have liked to have been there.

I wanted to express my support for the guiding principles as they are written, as well as moving forward with exploring the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts for Phase 3. While I am admittedly sad that the airport will be closing, a great park is exciting, especially given the ideas that we have seen presented thus far. I hope you take into consideration the results of the public drafting board (I'm not sure of the exact name - the board where we got to implement what we'd like to see, but was weighed against financial and environmental impact). Additionally, I wanted to express my support for creative financing strategies that allow for an incremental park buildout so that we can ensure the park is the best it can possibly be, even if that means it takes longer.

Lastly, I wanted to express gratitude for the community engagement that has been done thus far on this project. It gives me hope that, after the airport closes, we will end up with a park that the community truly feels like they were a part of the design of and is something that we can be excited by and proud of for decades to come.

All the best,
Kelsey
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 146
David Yakobson
From: shaybebo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 9:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am urging you to vote for the complete compliance with all articles of Measure LC, passed overwhelmingly by the people who are impacted by the Santa Monica Airport. Please also make room for a fun and innovative recreation site involving Food Trucks with a zoning specification that would eliminate the necessity for another vote to modify Measure LC. Let this new park evolve as the funds are available for the best possible results. As someone who is impacted by the noise and pollution of the airport now, I look forward to a cleaner and more progressive use of this land as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Elin Katz
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 147
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I strongly urge the City Council to adopt the draft Guiding Principles prepared by staff during its on-going Santa Monica Airport Conversion project.

The results of the comprehensive community engagement process conducted by your stellar city staff and consultants clearly favor a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, including sports and recreational facilities, arts and cultural spaces, community gardens, and sufficient space set aside for the restoration of native plants and species.

Please direct staff and Sasaki to prepare a park plan that considers a variety of funding options, including the use of non-aviation lease revenues, public and private partnerships, and regional, state and federal park funding. We know that our City’s finances are very tight, so please plan to build the park in stages over a period of time, gradually increasing the park’s facilities like they have at the Great Park in Irvine, California.

That you for your recognition that both Santa Monica and the Westside are chronically park-poor. This is a one-time only opportunity that should not be wasted or compromised with housing or commercial development that are better suited for construction along established transportation corridors in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your consideration.

Oliver Nelson
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 148
David Yakobson
From: Sheila Forsander <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 8:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7a -Support for The Great Park

EXTERNAL
TO: [email protected]
Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, publicly-owned, and can be opened for public use on Day One, January 1, 2029.

Sheila Forsander
17th St
Santa Monica
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 149
David Yakobson
From: Airport2Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 6:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.tiff; A2PLetter.pdf

EXTERNAL
Jan 25, 2025
Re:Item 7A - Council Meeting 1/28/2025
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
The board of Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation enthusiastically supports the staff report on the airport conversion process and the Guiding Principles it contains. We urge the council to approve the Guiding Principles as written.

We believe the quality of the public outreach up to this point has been excellent and staff have done a great job. We have moved from a situation where at the beginning many in the public viewed the process with suspicion to one where most now trust and believe that the process is working and will lead to the Great Park outcome people expect. The ever increasing attendance by the public at each stage of the process so far reflects this growing trust. The public is now relying on Council to move things forward consistent with the results of the outreach. Those results are that the public overwhelmingly wants a “Great Park” based on nature and fully compliant with Measure LC.

The accompanying City Attorney’s report “RE:Airport Closure and Measure LC”, explains that the definition of LC compliance is driven by the zoning code, which has led to the following “common park uses” being deemed non-compliant: “Amphitheater (small/large), Cafe, Food hall/trucks, Farmers Market, Family Friendly Beer Garden, Restaurant, and Senior Center”. Some of these were popular survey choices, and this has caused public concern. Fortunately, the City Attorney also points out that there is ample precedent for overlaying a unique zoning district to correct these anomalous “common park use” issues by clearly defining “recreational uses”. This would completely avoiding the need in the design of the park to have a ballot measure to amend LC prior to closure. Please instruct staff to pursue this approach.

However if we do resolve the compliance issue as suggested, we must now face the fact that the pervasive outreach focus on "LC compliance or not” to date becomes far less relevant. This means that the original idea for the 3 scenarios (fully compliant, compliant-light, and noncompliant) no longer makes much sense. We clearly should have 2 fully compliant and one non-compliant plan. Additionally the compliant scenarios should now be distinguished not-by the level of compliance, but instead by cost and build-out timeframe. We urge council to modify the description of the first two options for study along the following lines:
 Option 1 - Fully-LC compliant - low cost. Lower Cost and shorter timeframe to build-out completion - a starter park. This would allow some form of public access on day 1. This option is designed for Sasaki to explore what can be done quickly with funding levels that can reasonably be expected to be available to the City in the near term - perhaps five years. The absolute minimum such a plan might start out much like that used in Germany’s Templehof Airport where they basically just closed the airport and allowed people onto it without doing anything but allow the place to revert to nature. This large park is now one of Germany’s most popular. Obviously this approach allows day-1 access and minimizes costs, but we believe that there should be funds available to start construction of basic amenities and less expensive recreational facilities, environmental mitigations, etc. (A2P, for the record, is neutral about what should be built at the park.)
 Option 2 - Fully-LC compliant - visionary (no cost/time constraints). This option would envisage a fully LC compliant incrementally built park (perhaps over decades) without applying any constraints on budget or timeframe for completion. In this approach the park components get built over time as and when funding becomes available. This option would take advantage of the City Attorney’s opinion that there is nothing stopping City Council from changing the definition of “recreational uses” or the zoning at the airport to allow uses that are typical in parks but not included in Santa Monica’s definition of what goes in a park. This design should be visionary, a true park-for-the-ages. Every great city has a great park, and this would be Santa Monica’s, an essential “island of nature and peace” in an ever densifying future. The premise of this option is that any truly visionary plan such as this will always find a way to get built, even if it takes time. Never underestimate the power of a community, especially one like Santa Monica’s, to realize a visionary plan. Without such a proposal, it will be unlikely or at least more difficult to attract grant funding, either from state or regional sources or from philanthropic sources. If this option is chosen, then the CEQA analysis could consider all these possibilities, even if not all of them will be built initially. This could make future construction easier, since there would not need to be a new EIR.
 Option 3 - Non-LC compliant (unchanged). This plan would incorporate non-compliant elements into the park in order to generate additional funding or to achieve other objectives. These elements would need to be located in already developed areas of the airport so as not to diminish the overall size of the park. These features could either be overlaid onto Option 1 or Option 2, or to a hybrid. In order to meet CEQA constraints, such a plan must also be considered so that its pros and cons can be taken into account when the Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 150
final cut down to 1 plan is made. Clearly A2P does not favor adopting such a plan as the alternative that is chosen for further study and design, and we doubt that it would be chosen, but it might be one of the alternatives studied in the EIR for the chosen alternative. Probably, however, these specific elements, which would require a vote by the public, would have their own CEQA analysis when they were further developed and planned.

In summary, Airport2Park believes the City’s outreach and planning process so far has been excellent, we strongly support the proposed Guiding Principles, and we urge Council to direct staff to pursue the “zoning” solution detailed above to avoid the need to modify LC prior to closure and the delay and risk this would entail. Finally we urge council to modify the options studied as suggested above. As always, A2P stands ready to help the City and staff in any way we can to create the Great Park.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
The Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation Board
Neil Carrey, President
Michael Brodsky
John Fairweather
Frank Gruber
Cathy Larson
Mike Salazar
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 Jan 25, 2025
Re:Item 7A - Council Meeting 1/28/2025
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
The board of Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation enthusiastically supports the staff report on the airport conversion process and the Guiding Principles it contains. We urge the council to approve the Guiding Principles as written.

Some of these were popular survey choices, and this has caused public concern. Fortunately, the City Attorney also points out that there is ample precedent for overlaying a unique zoning district to correct these anomalous “common park use” issues by clearly defining “recreational uses”. This would completely avoiding the need in the design of the park to have a ballot measure to amend LC prior to closure. Please instruct staff to pursue this approach.

However if we do resolve the compliance issue as suggested, we must now face the fact that the pervasive outreach focus on "LC compliance or not” to date becomes far less relevant.

This means that the original idea for the 3 scenarios (fully compliant, compliant-light, and noncompliant) no longer makes much sense. We clearly should have 2 fully compliant and one non-compliant plan. Additionally the compliant scenarios should now be distinguished not-by the level of compliance, but instead by cost and build-out timeframe. We urge council to modify the description of the first two options for study along the following lines:
• Option 1 - Fully-LC compliant - low cost. Lower Cost and shorter timeframe to buildout completion - a starter park. This would allow some form of public access on day 1.

This option is designed for Sasaki to explore what can be done quickly with funding levels that can reasonably be expected to be available to the City in the near term - perhaps five years. The absolute minimum such a plan might start out much like that used in Germany’s Templehof Airport where they basically just closed the airport and allowed people onto it without doing anything but allow the place to revert to nature.

This large park is now one of Germany’s most popular. Obviously this approach allows day-1 access and minimizes costs, but we believe that there should be funds available to start construction of basic amenities and less expensive recreational facilities, Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 environmental mitigations, etc. (A2P, for the record, is neutral about what should be built at the park.)
• Option 2 - Fully-LC compliant - visionary (no cost/time constraints). This option would envisage a fully LC compliant incrementally built park (perhaps over decades) without applying any constraints on budget or timeframe for completion. In this approach the park components get built over time as and when funding becomes available. This option would take advantage of the City Attorney’s opinion that there is nothing stopping City Council from changing the definition of “recreational uses” or the zoning at the airport to allow uses that are typical in parks but not included in Santa Monica’s definition of what goes in a park. This design should be visionary, a true parkfor-the-ages. Every great city has a great park, and this would be Santa Monica’s, an essential “island of nature and peace” in an ever densifying future. The premise of this option is that any truly visionary plan such as this will always find a way to get built, even if it takes time. Never underestimate the power of a community, especially one like Santa Monica’s, to realize a visionary plan. Without such a proposal, it will be unlikely or at least more difficult to attract grant funding, either from state or regional sources or from philanthropic sources. If this option is chosen, then the CEQA analysis could consider all these possibilities, even if not all of them will be built initially. This could make future construction easier, since there would not need to be a new EIR. • Option 3 - Non-LC compliant (unchanged). This plan would incorporate noncompliant elements into the park in order to generate additional funding or to achieve other objectives. These elements would need to be located in already developed areas of the airport so as not to diminish the overall size of the park. These features could either be overlaid onto Option 1 or Option 2, or to a hybrid. In order to meet CEQA constraints, such a plan must also be considered so that its pros and cons can be taken into account when the final cut down to 1 plan is made. Clearly A2P does not favor adopting such a plan as the alternative that is chosen for further study and design, and we doubt that it would be chosen, but it might be one of the alternatives studied in the EIR for the chosen alternative. Probably, however, these specific elements, which would require a vote by the public, would have their own CEQA analysis when they were further developed and planned.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 151
David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 6:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: January 28, 2025 City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers:

As you may know my wife Nicola and I have been campaigning for the conversion of the Santa Monica Airport to a park for many years, and we wanted to let you know how pleased we are with the draft guiding principles put forward by the staff on how to do it.

The City's public consultations have clearly shown the overwhelming support of the people of Santa Monica for the return of the Great Park which your predecessors had the wisdom to buy back in 1926.

We hope you approve the Guiding Principles and direct Staff to prioritize planning for a Measure LCCompliant park that won't trigger another expensive and time-consuming ballot measure - and that's shovel-ready on Day One, January 1, 2029.

We also urge you to ask City Staff to explore every available funding mechanism compatible with retaining the space as public land.

Our troubled climate will benefit from what you and the staff are doing, our park-poor city will benefit - and above all the children of this and future generations will benefit - and thank you, as do we.

Sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 152
David Yakobson
From: Sherry Martini <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 4:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gabrielinotongva Info; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Elaine Polachek; Dan Hall; [email protected]; [email protected]; Editor santamonicalookout.com; [email protected]; Ellis Raskin; Sue Himmelrich; Caroline Torosis
Subject: For Tuesday Council Meeting re what to do with AIRPORT LAND-return to Tongva tribe

EXTERNAL
Let's return the Airport to the First People -- the Gabrieleno/Tongva. The land will be highly contaminated from the airport and will need to be remediated -- the EPA may even need to step in. Why not let folks who know how to care for and nourish land take it over. It was taken from them. Let's give it back. It would also allow one concentrated piece of land where the First People can preserve their heritage and assist us in healing the planet. They have already been great educators on sustainability and caring for our planet at the springs by University High.

One of President Biden's last and most profound speeches was about the wrongs we have perpetrated against these First Peoples. Let's take the first to towards healing. Please read the information below on what the tribe is trying to accomplish and what they have done in past to educate and heal the planet.

It also may be financially beneficial, if that's important to some folks, because if the tribe is granted acreage in Los Angeles County as may happen (which would include Santa Monica), other cities/Los Angeles County may reimburse the City for contributing almost the total acreage (227 acres).

See further documentation below.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 153
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 154
From city’s airport workshop this weekend. Let’s give the airport land back to the First People as a way to begin healing of those who are caretakers of our planet. Who understand our planet is a living entity. Who have elder knowledge on how to save it. The airport is the only place in Los Angeles county where a large swath of land can be returned for a united space.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, 10:57 PM, Sherry Martini <[email protected]> wrote:

Just saw new councilmembers, especially Dan Hall, speaking eloquently about fixing wrongs.

Let's not forget the Tongva tribe, upon whose land many of us live.

The Airport is Tongva land. That's documented in the City's own presentation at the workshop this weekend.

In 2025, a bill sponsored by U.S.Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (H.R. 6859), "the Gabrielino/Tongva National Recognition Act of 2023", will go before the House.

Hopefully it will pass and it will demand 300 acres of land for the last surviving members of the Tongva Tribe.

Even if it doesn't pass, let's start 2025 right by giving the Tongva back their land at the Airport and letting them develop it as they see fit without the intervention of white people who have long participated in horrific acts against them, including taking their land. What we did not kill was this people's spirit.

Let's give this piece of land back to them. I don't think we can correct other wrongs until we try to at least correct this original wrong committed against the true original residents of this beautiful city.

It is also a WIN/WIN because the tribes know how to care for our planet. We need them now more than ever.

Attached is an article re this and also below is my communication with the tribe.

Thank you.

Sherry
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sherry Martini <[email protected]>
To: Info @ Gabrielino/Tongva Nation <[email protected]>; Media @ Gabrielino/Tongva Nation <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 at 12:49:21 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Santa Monica considering giving back land to original owner: If we are giving back land, we need to consider the original inhabitants who still have living relatives Of course I will sign. Fight for the land because you are caretakers and we need that now more than ever.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, May 20, 2024, 10:52 AM, Info @ Gabrielino/Tongva Nation <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Sherry,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful message. Our tribe is currently working to secure federal recognition as a sovereign nation, which will provide us the full rights of a tribal nation and the opportunity to reclaim land for our tribe.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 155
As we go through this process, we would love to have your support! Right now, we have a petition set up on our website asking Congress to pass the Gabrielino/Tongva Recognition Act. Anyone can sign it, and it would mean a lot if you did! Here is the link: Support Our Cause - Gabrielino/Tongva Nation: First Aboriginal People of Los Angeles
Support Our Cause - Gabrielino/Tongva Nation:

First Aboriginal People of...

Marginalized communities like ours have learned to survive with tenacity in the face of prejudice, a strong comm...
_______
More info on the Kuruvungna Village springs by University High School in Los Angeles:

The Gabrielino-Tongva Springs Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation established to preserve and protect the Kuruvungna Village Springs site located at University High School in Los Angeles.

The Foundation is a community organization dedicated to preserving the heritage site and educating the public about the history as well as preserving the natural and cultural resources of the area.

Fact Sheet – Kuruvungna Springs History 2021 (download pdf) The Foundation conducts outreach programs in which teachers educate high school and college age students as well as the public about the environment and California Indian history with special attention given to the indigenous Gabrielino-Tongva Indians which once made the site at University High School their home.

The Foundation has created a cultural center at the site which now serves as a repository of artifacts, historical documents, photo collections and other historical resources directly associated with the history of the Tongva people as well as the High School.

History
In 1992 the 2-acre site had been abandoned and neglected.

Descendants of the Gabrielino-Tongva, alumni of University High School and local volunteers began a campaign to preserve and protect the springs and began the cleanup and restoration of the site. Alliances created with State Senator Tom Hayden and other community activists Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 156
led to the formation of the Gabrielino-Tongva Springs Foundation (GTSF), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to protecting, preserving and restoring the Sacred Springs and surrounding area. The foundation now maintains the site under a lease agreement with University High School and LAUSD.

In 1998, the efforts of the foundation resulted in Senate Bill 1956, sponsored by Senator Tom Hayden and signed by Governor Pete Wilson, which provided $250,000 for the preservation of the Springs.

A Task Force of professional consultants, including Hydrologists, Planners, Architects as well as Native Americans and LAUSD staff was formed to create a framework for restoring and preserving the sanctity of the historic Gabrielino-Tongva village site. The Task Force recommendations included the removal of invasive plants and replacement with native plants, use of spring water for irrigation, the creation of a Tongva village and gardens for education and cultural preservation, and the establishment of a museum and visitor center.

In 2021, a restoration phase was implemented with volunteer and inkind contributions from community members and local businesses.

Abandoned structures, debris, dead trees and brush, invasive plants have been removed and hundreds of local native species are being planted throughout the site. The ponds were cleaned and restored; invasive crawfish were eradicated allowing for the introduction of threatened native creatures. Gardens, orchards and landscapes have been established using a solar powered system for irrigation with spring water. The village of Kuruvungna is being revitalized with the communal construction of a traditional thatched kiiy. The foundation is maintaining the existing cultural center in a re-purposed former classroom to exhibit artifacts, maps, photographs, and displays of the remarkable history of the site.

About Us – Kuruvungna Village Springs
About Us – Kuruvungna Village Springs
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 157
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 158
David Yakobson
From: Cuff, Dana <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A: Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to voice my support for aƯordable housing to be built on the converted SM Airport land, along with a park.

Our city is no longer aƯordable for even for middle class people like those of us who moved here many years ago.

My own grown children cannot find a place to rent or buy right here where they grew up and went to school; the young children of my neighbors on Raymond Avenue will also find themselves shut out when they grow up.

I want to live in a diverse, generous city where our kids, our elders, and our workforce can live in the neighborhood:
teachers, firefighters, gardeners, lifeguards, childcare workers, clerical workers, food service staƯ. When I moved here almost forty years ago, all these folks lived in my Ocean Park community.

We can save half the airport land for a great park, and build 3000 housing units on the other half. Please open the conversation to this vision.

Dana CuƯ
……………………………………………………………….

Dana Cuff
653 Raymond Ave
Santa Monica 90405
310-804-0045 cell
……………………………………………………………………………..

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 159
David Yakobson
From: Barbara Osborn <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - Include housing

EXTERNAL
Dear CouncilmembersI’m am writing to express concerns about the Guiding Principles articulated as part of Item 7 and to urge the new Council to make every effort to explore whether a portion of the Airport parcel could be used to provide desperately needed affordable housing. The public outreach conducted thus far has provided virtually no opportunity to raise this critically important issue.

As you know the city is under a state mandate to figure out how to add 9,000 new units of housing in the next few years so we have enough housing for our current and future population. Failure to do this could result in developers circumventing local zoning authority.

In addition, by addressing the shortage of affordable housing, we could cut tens of thousands of commuter trips each day, reduce pollution, and importantly, help local essential workers remain in their jobs despite Santa Monica’s high costs.

One of the biggest barriers to constructing housing on the westside is the fact that we have so little undeveloped land. It would be a tragedy if the Santa Monica Airport Conversion does not seriously consider housing as part of the proposal.

Thanks so much for your attention.

Barbara Osborn
Cell: 310.963.1595
[email protected]
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 160
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 161
David Yakobson
From: Ingrid Mueller <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park - 2/28/25

EXTERNAL
Respected Councilmembers,
Really, I don't like repeating myself for decades.

But my tenancy at Venice's Lincoln Place Apartment property since 1988 still has the grassroots impetus in me.

As The SMO Park idea and SM CC votes made clear:

The People living and surrounding this airport need reprises from Noise & Air Pollutions, most negatively imposing children's and elderlies' health into the far future.

Venice has lived beneath it all.

Your SM population's majority has proven their resilience and NEED for their Public Park.

Yes, Housing continues to be advocated in your city, and the non-profit developments are so very appreciated...however,
The Park will be a beautiful SPA for everybody's escape.

People's Health First, please.

MerciGraciasTak!
IngridinVenice
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 162
David Yakobson
From: Isabel Homberg Reissmeier <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers, My name is Isabel Homberg and I am an undergraduate student at UCLA, studying biology. I was part of Climate Action Santa Monica's Climate Corps during high school and have been involved in sustainability activism since. Growing up in Santa Monica and attending Samohi, I have witnessed firsthand the importance of green spaces in my community. The Santa Monica bluffs, the community gardens on Main Street, and the green park we have been advocating for have always been close to my heart. The creation of a Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport is something I have hoped for since my early involvement in the city's sustainability effort. Adding a green space of this magnitude would be a symbol of Santa Monica's longstanding commitment to a sustainable future, benefiting not only the current generation but the generations to come.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park.

I strongly encourage you to support the proposed Guiding Principles for the creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially feasible, publicly owned, and open for public use on Day One, January 1, 2029.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Isabel Homberg
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 163
David Yakobson
From: Dirk van de Bunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a resident of Sunset Park near the airport, I have eagerly anticipated the creation of a Great Park since the passage of Measure LC. I envision a space where I can walk my dogs, bike, and bring my children and grandchildren to play. I value the park’s proximity to my home and the ability to enjoy it on foot. I can visualize myself enjoying the park, perhaps sitting in a chair.

The data collected through the City’s SMAC Project strongly supports restoring our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport. I strongly urge you to support the proposed Guiding Principles and the creation of a Great Park that adheres to Measure LC, is financially feasible, publicly owned, and able to open for public use on January 1, 2029.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Dirk van de Bunt
1624 Hill St
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 164
David Yakobson
From: Traci Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Item 7.A. - Support for a Great Park and SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I am a resident of Santa Monica, as well as a business owner in Santa Monica (Traci L. Wallace, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Inc.). It is of great importance to me that the Santa Monica Airport land be converted to a Great Park for both my and my family’s quality of life and health but also for my community’s. It is crucial for the well-being of our city that we maintain open spaces for recreation and gathering, especially given that so much of our city is being given over to development of housing and retail complexes.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely.,
Traci Wallace
1731 Dewey Street
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 165
David Yakobson
From: Stacey Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 12:48 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I am a 35-year resident of Santa Monica and a member of Northeast Neighbors, which I helped found. Thought I do not reside close to the proposed Great Park, I strongly believe in preserving Santa Monica green space for generations to come.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport. Please support the proposed Guiding Principles and creation of a Great Park that is compliant with Measure LC, financially-feasible, publiclyowned, and can be opened for public use on Day One, January 1, 2029.

On another note, many thanks for your excellent communication and leadership during the recent fires. Your daily updates were informative and assuring, and the actions you took to protect our neighborhoods were much appreciated.

Thank you,
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
1039 Harvard Street, SM
[email protected]
310/736-5300
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 166
David Yakobson
From: Mayura Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 12:43 PM
To: David White; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting (01/28/25) - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I grew up in the Santa Monica area, went to school in Santa Monica School districts, and now work adjacent to Santa Monica. This city's future is as important to me as its past, because I hope one day to live and raise my kids in Santa Monica and give back to them what the city has given to me.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Mayura Jain
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 167
David Yakobson
From: William Fordes <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 12:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport to Park

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers:

I am a 35 year resident of SM — Sunset Park, specifically — and for most of those years, have been subjected to the noise and poisons associated with the SM Airport. When a group of residents in SM and adjacent communities banded together almost 10 years ago to try to close the airport, I was supportive, if skeptical. We worked, we planned and we sued and we won.

Now is the time for the City to finalize its plans for a PARK! Not a water theme park, not an industrial park, but a quiet place of refuge and tranquility, a park with paths and a water feature that might attract animals, a place to go to relax, to ride a bike, kick a soccer ball around, maybe play baseball. NOW is the time.

The data gathered so far from the City's SMAC Project process overwhelmingly supports the restoration of our City's original Great Park on the land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
William N. Fordes
Sunset Park, SM 90405
“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.” Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 168

A CHRISTMAS CAROL
- Charles Dickens
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 169
David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 10:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7a - PARK

EXTERNAL
Please do what the majority have voted and visioned
thank you1
Begin forwarded message:

From: NoJets <[email protected]>
Subject: ACTIONS: Sound off, show up, or both
Date: January 24, 2025 at 8:52:04 PM PST
Reply-To: NoJets <[email protected]>
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 170
View this email in your browser
To help protect y our privacy,
Microsoft Office prevented
automatic download of this picture
from the Internet.

Results of the visioning of the
airport's future to be presented to
council on Tuesday, January 28th.

Please be there and show your
support.

People overwhelmingly preferred a park on the current airport land!
As for the future of the airport, it's pretty much three strikes, you're out.

Residents bought the land in 1926 for a park, reconfirmed the will for a park in measure LC, and affirmed a park in the recent visioning process.

Tuesday night's meeting will also be attended by well meaning people seeking non LC compliant development and possibly another vote. They are pushing to convert up to half of the land for housing. Aviation folks are still aiming to keep a piece of the prize they've held onto for almost one hundred years. They will be there as well. Yet we, the people, the majority, have already spoken over and over. They won't give up. Neither can we.

Show solidarity and support for The Great
Park on Tuesday night. Witness a piece of history with many others. If you can't be there then write a note. Feel free to do both! Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 171
Thanks!

Show up Tuesday night, the 28th, at 6:45pm for a seat:

City Hall
1685 Main Street (2nd Floor)
And/Or write:
copy and paste:
[email protected]
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park
OR
Click link below:
[email protected]
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Thank you for your continued support to reduce airport impacts and improve our quality of life.

"A drop of effort can create a sea of change"

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 172
Alan Levenson
www.alanlevenson.com
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 173
David Yakobson
From: Will Guston <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 10:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: A Great Park in santa Monica!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I sincerely urge you to embrace the will of the people, the majority of the people who have affirmed three times that they want the Santa Monica Airport property to become a great park. Knowing that there are aviation interests, do you want to retain The airport for their purposes, and also knowing that there are developers who want To take this precious land and development for housing, I implore you to stand with the majority of our fellow citizens who are calling for this land to become a great park.

Respectfully,
Will Guston
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 174
David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park

EXTERNAL
Citizens of Santa Monica overwhelmingly preferred a park on the current airport land! Don't mess with what the public needs and wants or we will vote you out!!!!! Help create the Great Park in Santa that we can all be proud of.

Thank you,
Jordan Ellis
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 175
David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park

Thank you,
Jordan Ellis
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 176
David Yakobson
From: Joe Pertel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles [01/28/25]

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Councilmembers, I write in support of the proposed “Guiding Principles” prepared by City Staff and Sasaki as part of the Santa Monica Airport Conversion (SMAC) project. I am one of the founders of the Great Park Coalition and a member of the Santa Monica Airport Commission.

I want to acknowledge and thank City Staff and Sasaki for their tremendous outreach efforts during Phases I and II of this community engagement process. They gave dozens of presentations, hosted and supported countless community events, distributed project-related materials to tens of thousands of community members, and conducted an in-depth series of surveys that were taken by more than 6,000 community members. Incredibly, City Staff’s community engagement event held at Memorial Park in December, 2024 attracted more than 800 people—likely the largest public engagement event in Santa Monica history.

The results of this community engagement process overwhelmingly favor the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park on public land currently occupied by the Santa Monica Airport. Of the top 50 choices selected by community members in the surveys, 98.8 % represent traditional park uses. Only one non-park use cracked the top 50 choices at # 39 with only 1.2% support from the community. This particular use, however, also ranked among the top 5 least-favored uses for this land.

The proposed Guiding Principles arising from this community process reflect the community’s clear preference for a Great Part, including active and passive recreational spaces, cultural facilities, including an amphitheater, community gardens, and the restoration of our land for environmental, sustainability, and biodiversity purposes.

Our residents understand that this airport conversion process will not result in a completed Great Park on Day One. Instead, we must focus on creating a park that, although ready to open for residents in the spirit of Tempelhof Airport in Berlin, is implemented in stages over time as creative sources of financing, including the potential creation of a park conservancy, become available.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 177
This is a priceless, one-time opportunity for residents of Santa Monica. Great cities have found the will and resources, often against long odds, to create a Great Park. This is your chance. Residents of Santa Monica and the Westside will thank you in 25, 50, 100, and 200 years.

Very truly yours,
Joseph A. Pertel
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 178
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2025 8:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7-Airport

EXTERNAL
Hi
We living here in beautiful Santa Monica are ready for a wonderful new park. We have voted on this already. And it PASSED!
We would like the airport closed and a new green space opened up, in the form of a world class park.

The neighbors who actually live here are the prime stake holders, we in vision something everyone can be proud of- No housing, no stinky loud airplanes, no big developmentSIMPLY A GREEN OPEN PARK! NATURE. 芧芦芨芩芪芫芬芭芧芦
For all people to enjoy.

Thank your
Ken Davis
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 179
David Yakobson
From: Steve Novak <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 9:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council --

I have been a resident of Ocean Park for 35 years.

I have attended many City Council meetings over the years, and I always vote.

We the voters passed Measure LC to turn the airport into a park in 2014.

We then confirmed our choice with the recent visioning process.

I will not be able to attend the meeting this coming Tuesday, January 28th.

Please know that I maintain my conviction that the airport be closed down and converted into a park.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Steve Novak
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 180
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 7:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I support the Great Park

EXTERNAL
Make it happen, please
Clifford Wright
2607 2nd St No. 2
Santa Monica
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 181
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 6:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: City Council 1/28/25 agenda item 7-A -- Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL
January 24, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/28/25 agenda item 7-A – Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project Guiding Principles A majority of the FOSP Board supports the staff report and the draft Guiding Principles.

We urge the City Council to approve the Guiding Principles and to continue the current Airport Conversion process, leading to the incremental development of a Great Park that is LC-compliant. That park can open for walking, skate boarding, rollerblading, and biking on Day 1 after Santa Monica Airport closes to all aeronautical use forever, at midnight on December 31, 2028.

Our Sunset Park neighborhood was home to the original Great Park, which existed on what is now Santa Monica Airport property from 1928 until 1941, when the federal government took control of the park to use the property for the war effort.

Since then, our residents have dealt with noise, air pollution, and safety concerns related to the Airport. At one time there were 18,000 noisy jet landings and takeoffs alone per year, directly over homes in Santa Monica and West Los Angeles, in addition to turbo jets, helicopters, and prop planes.

Jets emit ultrafine particles and black carbon. Prop planes still use “leaded” aviation fuel.

Planes from Santa Monica Airport have crashed into homes, apartment houses, garages, playing fields, golf courses, and on Santa Monica beach, narrowly missing the Pier.

In 1981, the Santa Monica City Council passed its first resolution to close the Airport, but was prevented from doing so by the FAA.

In February 2017, the City Council passed Resolution 11026, implementing the January 2017 consent decree, and authorizing all actions necessary to ensure closure of the Airport at midnight on December 31, 2028.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 182
Regarding current city parks, Santa Monica has only 1.4 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, compared to 30 acres per 1,000 residents in Santa Barbara and in San Diego.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Santa Monica to restore its Great Park. ****************************************************************** Background:

The original Great Park existed on what is now Santa Monica Airport property from 1928 to 1941. It included an 18-hole golf course (where PGA tournaments were played), playgrounds, tennis courts, playing fields, horseshoes, lawn bowling, an archery range, picnic grounds, a recreation center, and a grassy area that could be used as a runway (or as a football field or polo field when no planes were taking off). A local newspaper described the park as “The Brightest Jewel in Santa Monica’s Crown.” In 1941, the federal government took control of the park and closed it to recreational use. During World War II, as many as 44,000 people working 3 shifts were employed by the Douglas Aircraft Company in manufacturing airplanes for the war effort.

In 1945, the runway was moved from original location (where the Santa Monica Business Park is today on Ocean Park Blvd.) and relocated over the original park and golf course. It was extended from Centinela Avenue to Bundy Drive on the east, and from 27th Street to 23rd Street on the west, eliminating many Sunset Park homes.

In 1967, 232 families filed a lawsuit over extremely loud Jet Commandeer aircraft which were used to fly gamblers to Las Vegas late at night and return before sunrise. The plaintiffs sued for damages resulting from jet noise, fumes, and nuisance.

When Douglas eventually wanted to lengthen the SMO runway even further to accommodate its new DC-8 jet airliner, the City of Santa Monica said, “No.”
In 1975, Douglas closed its factory in Santa Monica.

In 1981, the City Council passed a resolution to close the Airport. This led to a series of lawsuits, ending in a 1984 agreement with the FAA which lasted until 2015.

In 2014, aviation interests put Measure D on the ballot to keep the airport open until residents voted to close it and spent about $1 million. The City Council put on the competing Measure LC on the ballot, and a group of Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 183
volunteers, led by John Fairweather, ran the campaign. Measure LC passed by a 60 to 40 margin, and Measure D failed.

Measure LC amended the City Charter and maintained the authority of the City Council to close the Airport. It also said, “If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed” -- the only exception would be the development of “parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities.”
In 2017, a settlement agreement/consent decree between the FAA and the City allowed the City to shorten the runway and to close the Airport at the end of 2028.

On February 28, 2017, the City Council passed Resolution 11026, “implementing the consent decree and authorizing all actions necessary to ensure closure of the Santa Monica Airport effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028, and the shortening of the Santa Monica Airport Runway pending closure.” Section 1 states, “The City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs, consistent with the terms of the Consent Decree, shall take all actions necessary and proper to ensure that the Airport will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” According to a City Attorney’s Office memorandum, “no further Council action is required to authorize closure of the Airport.”
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Document%20Library/Project/Future%20of%20Santa%20Monica%20Air port%20Project/Resolution%20to%20Close%20SMO%20(2017).pdf What has the impact of Santa Monica Airport been on residents? 1) Noise from aircraft taking off over homes; jets using reverse thrusters when landing 2) Airport pollution – ultrafine particles and black carbon from jets; lead from prop planes which still use “leaded” aviation fuel -- https://friendsofsunsetpark.org/airport/sm-airport-environmental-studies/ 3) Aircraft crashing in residential neighborhoods -- https://friendsofsunsetpark.org/airport/safety-concerns/ Regarding current city parks, Santa Monica has only 1.4 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, compared to 30 acres per 1,000 residents in Santa Barbara and in San Diego. Restoring the Great Park on the Airport land would double park acreage in the City of Santa Monica.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 184
David Yakobson
From: Joe Pertel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 5:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 7.A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project - Guiding Principles [01/28/25]
Attachments: Mar-Vista-Community-Council-Policy-Motion.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
On October 8, 2024, the Mar Vista Community Council unanimously adopted the following policy motion in support of regional efforts to bring-back the Great Park that once existed on the grounds of the Santa Monica Airport:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) supports the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition (GPC)’s MISSION STATEMENT. The mission of the Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 185
Santa Monica Great Park Coalition (GPC) is to reclaim the land at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) to rebuild and restore the Great Park that existed on the site before the federal government condemned the park to turn it into an airport and industrial site as part of the war effort in World War II. The GPC’s purpose is consistent with the Measure LC City Charter Amendment that Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly approved in 2014, and which led to the City’s landmark agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow closure of SMO on December 31, 2028. The restoration of the Great Park is essential for multiple reasons, including: (i) bringing back much-needed green and open space and recreational and cultural amenities to a quickly-densifying, historically park-poor city and region, (ii) combating climate change, (iii) meeting the City's sustainability goals, and (iv) enhancing regional biodiversity. The GPC seeks to reunite the many organizations and individuals that supported Measure LC in 2014 and to introduce new members of our community, through education and advocacy, to the unique, one-time-only opportunity before us to restore and reclaim our Great Park.

Thank you for your consideration.

The Great Park Coalition Organizing Committee
John Fairweather
Zina Josephs
Frank Gruber
Joe Pertel
Ann Bowman
(Attachment)
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120

POLICY MOTION
DIRECTOR MOTION: RUESCH
TITLE: Motion to support the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition (GPC)’s MISSION

STATEMENT
PURPOSE: To advise CD11 and CD5 Councilmembers of the MVCC’s support of the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition (GPC)’s MISSION STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) is an official neighborhood organization of the City of Los Angeles;
WHEREAS, as immediate neighbors of the Santa Monica Airport, Mar Vista residents are impacted daily by the nuisances and serious health hazards created by the airport: air pollution; noise pollution; safety risks, among others. For this reason, years ago the Mar Vista Community Council ('MVCC") formed a committee to address the concerns of its residents and to monitor activities at and about the airport; and WHEREAS, Los Angeles City Council District 11 borders Santa Monica Airport (SMO) to the south and to the east, including an almost sixteen acre portion of the east end of SMO within the City of Los Angeles CD 11; and
WHEREAS, the CD 11 neighborhoods of Mar Vista, Venice, and other West Los Angeles neighborhoods, as well as Council District 5 (CD 5) neighborhoods of Rancho Park, Cheviot Hills, and other West Los Angeles neighborhoods within CD5 are all uniquely impacted by nuisances, and serious safety/public health concerns created by SMO operations; and
WHEREAS, The Mar Vista Community Council Approved Attachment A. policy motion by a unanimous vote at the regularly scheduled meeting held October 8, 2013 THE MOTION:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) supports the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition (GPC)’s MISSION STATEMENT. The mission of the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition (GPC) is to reclaim the land at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) to rebuild and restore the Great Park that existed on the site before the federal government condemned the park to turn it into an airport and industrial site as part of the war effort in World War II. The GPC’s purpose is consistent with the Measure LC City Charter Amendment that Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly approved in 2014, and which led to the City’s landmark agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow closure of SMO on December 31, 2028.

The restoration of the Great Park is essential for multiple reasons, including: (i) bringing back much-needed green and open space and recreational and cultural amenities to a quickly-densifying, historically park-poor city and region, (ii) combating climate change, (iii) meeting the City's sustainability goals, and (iv) enhancing regional biodiversity. The GPC seeks to reunite the many organizations and individuals that supported Measure LC in 2014 and to introduce new members of our community, through education and advocacy, to the unique, one-time-only opportunity before us to restore and reclaim our Great Park.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120

POLICY MOTION

ATTACHMENT A
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 186
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 5:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 1/28/25 agenda item 7-A -- Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project

EXTERNAL

January 24, 2025
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
Regarding 1/28/25 item 7-A – Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project Guiding Principles:

I support the staff report and the draft Guiding Principles.

I urge the City Council to approve the Guiding Principles and to continue the current Airport Conversion process, leading to the incremental development of a Great Park that is LC-compliant.

That park can open for walking, skate boarding, rollerblading, and biking on Day 1 after Santa Monica Airport closes forever at midnight on December 31, 2028.

Since then, our residents have dealt with noise, air pollution, and safety concerns related to the Airport. At one time there were 18,000 noisy jet landings and takeoffs per year, directly over homes in Santa Monica and West Los Angeles, in addition to thousands of turbojets and helicopters, and tens of thousands of prop planes.

Jets emit ultrafine particles and black carbon. Prop planes still use “leaded” aviation fuel.

Planes from Santa Monica Airport have crashed into homes, apartment houses, garages, playing fields, golf courses, and on Santa Monica beach, narrowly missing the Pier.

In 1981, the Santa Monica City Council passed its first resolution to close the Airport, but was prevented from doing so by the FAA.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 187
Regarding current city parks, Santa Monica has only 1.4 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, compared to 30 acres per 1,000 residents in Santa Barbara and in San Diego.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Santa Monica to both restore its Great Park and double park space in the City of Santa Monica.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zina Josephs
********************************************************************* Background:

In 1981, the City Council passed a resolution to close the Airport. This led to a series of lawsuits, ending in a 1984 agreement with the FAA which lasted until 2015.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 188
In 2014, aviation interests put Measure D on the ballot to keep the airport open until residents voted to close it and spent about $1 million. The City Council put on the competing Measure LC on the ballot, and a group of volunteers, led by John Fairweather, ran the campaign. Measure LC passed by a 60 to 40 margin, and Measure D failed.

Section 1 states, “The City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs, consistent with the terms of the Consent Decree, shall take all actions necessary ad proper to ensure that the Airport will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” According to a City Attorney’s Office memorandum, “no further Council action is required to authorize closure of the Airport.”
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Document%20Library/Project/Future%20of%20Santa%20Monica%20Air port%20Project/Resolution%20to%20Close%20SMO%20(2017).pdf What has the impact of Santa Monica Airport been on residents in Sunset Park, Ocean Park, Venice, Mar Vista, and West Los Angeles?
1) Noise from aircraft, both while taking off and while coming in for landings very low over homes; pilots flying loop patterns for "touch-and-go" practice (west to Lincoln Blvd., south to Venice Blvd., east to Mar Vista, and back west to briefly touch down before taking off again); jets using loud reverse thrusters to slow down when landing
2) Airport pollution – ultrafine particles and black carbon from jets; lead from prop planes which still use “leaded” aviation fuel -- https://friendsofsunsetpark.org/airport/sm-airport-environmental-studies/ 3) Aircraft crashing in residential neighborhoods -- https://friendsofsunsetpark.org/airport/safety-concerns/ Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 189
Regarding current city parks, Santa Monica has only 1.4 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, compared to 30 acres per 1,000 residents in Santa Barbara and in San Diego. With the addition of thousands of apartments in the 6th cycle Housing Element, the need for additional parks and open space will be even greater.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 190
David Yakobson
From: John Fairweather <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; David White
Subject: January 28, 2025 City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
As a member of the Great Park Coalition Organizing Committee, Board Member of Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation, and Chair of Measure LC, I strongly concur with the complete text of the letter just sent to you by the GPC Organizing Committee. The letter in essence urges you to:
(a) Approve the Guiding Principles as Written
(b) Not bring a ballot measure to modify LC before closure. (c) Instruct staff to implement a unique zoning area for the airport site and use that zone to clarify the meaning of “Recreational Uses” to that the “common park uses” that were identified in Phase-2 survey as non-LCcompliant, namely:Amphitheater (small/large), Cafe, Food hall/trucks, Farmers Market, Family Friendly Beer Garden, Restaurant, and Senior Center, are made LC-compliant. As the City attorney points out there is ample precedence for this and by so doing you remove the need to contemplate a ballot measure to modify LC and all the risk and delay that would involve.

To these points I would add one more of my own which is:
(d) Given (c) above, of the 3 possible designs, please mandate that two of them are fully LC compliant - one basic, the other un-bounded. Also please emphasize to staff and Sasaki the importance of an incremental build out as funding becomes available with some form of public access (a la Tempelhof) envisaged for day one after closure. The complete park may take a decade or more to be realized. By embracing this approach we can trade off time against budget and avoid having to settle for a scaled-back park or undesirable park uses simply because of short-term budgetary constraints based on an all-at-the-same-time mentality. Once the park starts, I believe we’ll have no trouble finding the funding over the following years, a truly inspirational plan will always find a way.

With this approach you can ask staff/Sasaki to design one non-compliant and two fully LC-compliant plans. One compliant plan is nearer term and less ambitious, and the other is longer term to be a “Great Park for the ages” with no compromises. In the fullness of time we will find a way to transition/fund the first design into the park-for-theages, and A2P, the GPC, and myself personally will be dedicated to that task. Please don’t preclude that future based on today’s perceived obstacles and by failing to create an inspiring plan. Rather than a Fully Compliant, Compliant light, and Non-Compliant plan, instruct staff to prepare a lower cost near-term compliant plan, a moonshot no-shackles long-term incremental compliant plan, and a non-compliant plan. I assure you the public will rally to your cause if you make this change, who wouldn’t be inspired by it? I want to express personally how impressed I have been with the outstanding job that staff have done in this public outreach process. The change in public attitudes and the growing trust in the City and the process by an initially distrustful public has been inspiring to those of us involved closely. Please keep up the good work.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 191
Thank you for your consideration.

John Fairweather

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 192
David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Great Park Coalition <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 3:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; David White
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: January 28, 2025 City Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project Guiding Principles Attachments: GPC letter.pdf

EXTERNAL

Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,

The organizing committee of the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition strongly endorses and supports the staff report on the airport conversion process and the Guiding Principles it contains. We urge the council to approve the Guiding Principles as written.

We also have the explicit support of 13 prior Santa Monica Mayors and hundreds of Santa Monica residents. Our goal is simple, to bring about an LC-compliant Great Park. We anticipate an incremental build-out plan to accommodate funding constraints. We are a ‘positive’ organization, here to help the city, staff, and Council in any way we can to realize this long held dream (since the 1920’s).

City staff and Sasaki are to be commended for the outstanding quality of the public outreach up to this point. At each stage of the process, the number of people participating has grown dramatically, so that at the most recent public event to present the draft guiding principles over 800 people attended in person, likely the most for any City outreach event in living memory. The lengthy and complex phase-2 online survey was attempted by over 6,000 people. This rapid growth in engagement at each outreach stage correlates directly to increasing public trust and belief that the process is working and will lead to the Great Park outcome people expect. In the current climate of public distrust in government of all Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 193
forms, this outreach alone is a remarkable achievement. It now falls on Council to move this process to the next stage by honoring the public’s mandate as identified by the process.

To determine what the public wants, we need look no further than the top-50 requested items in the phase-2 survey. Of these 50 items fully 98.8% represent “common park uses”. Only one non-park use made an entry at #39 with 1.2%. The public overwhelmingly wants an LC compliant Great Park.

As outlined by the accompanying City Attorney’s report “RE:Airport Closure and Measure LC”, the definition of what is LC compliant is based on the zoning code, and this has led to some 8 of the top-50 survey items that represent a “common park use” (e.g., a performance amphitheater) being classified as non-LC-compliant. However, the City Attorney also points out that there is ample precedent for overlaying a unique zoning district like the Beach Overlay District (SMMC Chapter 9.02) to correct these anomalous “common park use” issues by clearly defining “recreational uses”, so completely avoiding the need in the design of the park to have a ballot measure to amend LC prior to closure. We urge Council to instruct staff to pursue this approach.

Those of us who took part in the epic 2014 Measure D/LC fight can testify to the fact that the last thing the City should do is contemplate such a ballot measure. The national aviation lobby (who brought measure D) has made abundantly clear their strategy is to return to the fray should Santa Monica show any sign of wavering in its park resolve, particularly the bringing of an airport related ballot measure. We won resoundingly last time despite the historic influx of $millions by the aviation lobby (more than was spent by all other measures and candidates combined that election cycle), precisely because LC was “pure park”. A pre-closure ballot measure to change that would destroy public trust and so play into, and likely lose to, the “only an airport can protect you from them” meme D was based on.

We are very happy to see the statement by the City Attorney that the decision to close was legally made in 2017 (resolution 11026) and no further action is required for closure. It has long been a tenet of aviation lobby misinformation that the decision has not been made, and closure can be avoided.

In summary, the GPC believes the public outreach process to date has been exemplary, that public hope and trust is returning, and that a swift Council decision to move the process forward as presented in the staff report is key. Every great city has a great park. Santa Monica had one, but lost it. It is this generation’s obligation to future generations in a densifying environment to bring it back.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

The Great Park Coalition Organizing Committee

John Fairweather
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 194
Zina Josephs
Frank Gruber
Joe Pertel
Ann Bowman

==============================
Santa Monica Great Park Coalition
Web: www.GreatParkCoalition.org
E-mail: [email protected]
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 Jan 24, 2025
Re:Item 7A - Council Meeting 1/28.2025
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
The organizing committee of the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition strongly endorses and supports the staff report on the airport conversion process and the Guiding Principles it contains. We urge the council to approve the Guiding Principles as written.

The Great Park Coalition, was formed just 3 months ago to bring together all the varied groups that support the creation of a Great Park. It is a broad Coalition encompassing groups representing park enthusiasts, sports organizations, recreation, arts and performance, culture, the environment and climate action, public gardeners, youth organizations, sustainability, PTA and neighborhood Councils, and many others. Nearly 40 local organizations in all, representing over 20,000 people between them. We also have the explicit support of 13 prior Santa Monica Mayors and hundreds of Santa Monica residents. Our goal is simple, to bring about an LCcompliant Great Park. We anticipate an incremental build-out plan to accommodate funding constraints. We are a ‘positive’ organization, here to help the city, staff, and Council in any way we can to realize this long held dream (since the 1920’s).

The lengthy and complex phase-2 online survey was attempted by over 6,000 people. This rapid growth in engagement at each outreach stage correlates directly to increasing public trust and belief that the process is working and will lead to the Great Park outcome people expect. In the current climate of public distrust in government of all forms, this outreach alone is a remarkable achievement. It now falls on Council to move this process to the next stage by honoring the public’s mandate as identified by the process.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 should Santa Monica show any sign of wavering in its park resolve, particularly the bringing of an airport related ballot measure. We won resoundingly last time despite the historic influx of $millions by the aviation lobby (more than was spent by all other measures and candidates combined that election cycle), precisely because LC was “pure park”. A pre-closure ballot measure to change that would destroy public trust and so play into, and likely lose to, the “only an airport can protect you from them” meme D was based on.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

The Great Park Coalition Organizing Committee

John Fairweather
Zina Josephs
Frank Gruber
Joe Pertel
Ann Bowman
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 195
David Yakobson
From: Neil Carrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 1:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 7A for 1/28/25 Council meeting

EXTERNAL
I am writing this email to urge you to support staff's recommendation for the guiding principles for conversion of the airport back into a great park. The voters have spoken, and they want open space by overwhelmingly approving Measure LC. In addition, despite being outspent by more than $1,000,000 by the opponents of Measure LC and the proponents of Measure D campaign, Measure LC was passed, and Measure D denied, by wide margins. This is not surprising since Santa Monica had less than 50% of the park space a city of its population size should have and with its increasing population, the situation is getting even worse. In addition, this is not surprising when the City lacks sufficient playing fields to avoid our youth having to practice late at night, being on waiting lists to play youth sports and families having to drive many miles and stay overnight to play in tournaments because Santa Monica lacks fields to hold most tournaments.

The guiding principles were also recommended based on the survey and public process by Amber Richane and her team. I have heard that some people have been attacking the surveys and public process by saying they were flawed and not inclusive. As Chair for 10 years of the School District's Sports and Physical Education Advisory Committee and 12 years as Chair of the Title IX Gender Equity Committee, more than 12 years as a Recreation and Parks Commissioner, an Executive Board Member of the Measure LC Campaign Committee and President of the Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation, as well as in some other capacities, for almost 40 years (almost half my life), I have chaired, participated in or observed, many surveys and public processes. Without any hesitation, I can say that the job Amber Richane and her team have done was one of the best, if not the best, I have ever seen. They were fair, transparent and inclusive. They put their heart and soul into the process and our staff should be praised not attacked. Great deference should be given to these experts. Just because someone does not like the results of the public process is not an excuse to attack it. The results were consistent with Measure LC.

In closing, I am comforted by the fact that I believe most of you, if not all of you, are not attacking the public process nor our staff, and will approve staff's recommendation. In any event, Council should not recommend or approve anything that is not compliant with our City Charter and Measure LC is part of our City Charter. Thank you for listening.

Neil Carrey
Email: [email protected]
(c) 310-200-5067
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 196
David Yakobson
From: SAMUEL LUTZKER <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment re: 1/28/25 City Council Meeting Item #7A (Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project)

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Please record my comment as part of public record regarding item 7A for the upcoming 1/28/25 Santa Monica City Council regular meeting, which I unfortunately cannot attend.

I am a renter in the Palms neighborhood of Los Angeles who frequently goes to nearby Santa Monica for socializing, shopping and outdoor recreation. I live just east of the 405 freeway, and frequently bike through the area surrounding Santa Monica airport on my way to work in Venice. I am also a housing and homelessness researcher at UCLA, providing me with a broader understanding of the region's housing crisis beyond my own already abysmal experiences trying to find affordable places to rent on the westside of LA or in Santa Monica, which is even less affordable.

I've lived in the same apartment since 2019 with my partner, and we've tried to find affordable housing in Santa Monica on several occasions since then and have not been successful. I was hopeful to see that the airport would be converted to more community-oriented spaces like a park, but disappointed that there was no mention of housing in any such plans. In spite of job growth within Santa Monica, the population has remained stagnant for decades, in large part due to the lack of building. What has been built has mostly been luxury housing in the Santa Monica downtown that no one I know can afford. Put simply, if the airport conversion doesn't consider housing at all, especially affordable housing, this will be a major lost opportunity to make Santa Monica a more equitable place, to cut down on vehicle emissions from commuters into Santa Monica who can't otherwise afford to live there, and to build much needed housing in the wake of the disastrous Palisades and Eaton fires.

I would love to contribute to Santa Monica as a resident, and yet it feels like Santa Monica doesn't want new middle- or working-class residents. I'd love to be proven wrong; please consider affordable housing as part of the Santa Monica airport conversion plans! Best,
Sam Lutzker
--
Sam Lutzker
PhD Candidate | UCLA Sociology
https://soc.ucla.edu/person/sam-lutzker/
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (6630 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Engagement and Guiding Principles (120 Santa Monica Airport
Conversion Project
Presentation to City Council
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 2 Staff Recommendations to City Council:

1. Adopt the finding that the recommended actions herein do not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262, and 15306, and file a notice of exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15062;

2. Hold a study session to review and comment on the five Guiding Principles for vetting and evaluating the feasibility of features, amenities, programs, technical performance requirements, financial strategies, phasing, and planning scenarios related to the closure of the Airport and alternative land-use scenarios post-closure (collectively, “the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project, or the Project”);

3. Consider the commencement of feasibility analysis for three planning scenarios for the Airport Conversion Project (“Phase 3”), based on the draft Guiding Principles; and

4. Provide direction to staff on how to proceed with respect to Phase 3.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 3 Agenda

1. Project Overview

2. Community Engagement Summary

3. Draft Guiding Principles

4. Phase 3a Direction
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 4 Project Overview
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 5 The Airport Site
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 6 Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:

A new purpose for this site
With the closure of the Santa Monica Airport at the end of 2028, there is an exciting and unique opportunity to develop a vision for nearly 200 acres of public land to serve generations to come.

In all of its work, the City strives for a community that is vibrant, safe, sustainable, resilient, mobile, culturally rich, ethnically diverse, and equitable to serve the needs of the entire community and to foster a thriving local economy. Therefore, the project and this land, which was originally purchased for a public park, must be in service of this vision.

This project will explore the feasibility of a preferred scenario for the conversion of the Santa Monica Airport, centered on a great park (consistent with Measure LC),
after its closure at the end of 2028.

More information: www.SMACproject.com
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 7 The February 28, 2017, City Council Resolution No. 11026 constitutes a decision by the City Council to close the airport as of midnight on December 31, 2028. Therefore, no environmental review is required at this time for closure.

However, environmental review is required for any future use of the site as determined through the Airport
Conversion Project.

Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:

Airport Closure Decided
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 8 Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project Timeline
Spring
2024
Winter
2025

DESIGN PHASES

ENGAGEMENT PHASES
PHASE 1:

Charting the
Course
PHASE 2:

Discovering
the Place &
Setting the
Stage
PHASE 3B:

Defining the
Future of
Place:

Preferred
Scenario
PHASE 3A:

Defining the
Future of
Place: 3
Scenarios
PHASE 4:

The Path
Ahead:

Implementation
PHASE 5:

Preferred
Scenario Plan
Vision Book
● Project website
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 2 Virtual educ.
session
● 4 Pop-up events
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 1 Virtual educ. session
● 4 Pop-up events
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 1 Virtual educ. session
● 4 Pop-up events
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 2 Virtual educ. session
● 4 Pop-up events
● 1 Community event
● Engagement
summary
● Website updates
We’re here
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 9 Community Engagement
Summary
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 10 Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary
Community
Workshop
214 sign-ins
218 comment
cards
Online Survey
1,921 complete responses
Project Website
+14,000 total views
4 Pop-up
Events
66 sign-ins
107 comment
cards
Virtual Education
Sessions
+2,700 total views
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 11 Phase 2 Community Engagement
Draft
Guiding
Principles
Final Draft
Guiding
Principles
Phase 1
Engagement
Summary
Survey 2A
collects community
preferences and
priorities
B&C
Meetings
Pop-up
Events Community
Conversations
12/7
Community
Event 2
Survey 2B
B&C
Meetings
City
Council
For final
approval
(Anticipated
1/28/2025)
Guiding Principles We’re
here!
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 12 Survey Demographics for Surveys 1, 2a, and 2b
Survey results skewed older
than the 2020 Census data for
Santa Monica
Age
Survey results skewed more
white than the 2020 Census
data for Santa Monica
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Survey results showed that
across all three surveys,
respondents were largely from
Santa Monica zip codes.

Survey 1 = 60%,
Survey 2a = 70%
Survey 2b = 76%
The top 10 zip codes were all
self-reported from Santa
Monica or adjacent zip codes.

Zip Codes
Engagement reports can be found on www.smacproject.com under the “Resources” tab.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 13 Phase 2 Community Conversations
20 Small Group Discussions, +370 Participants
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 14 Potential Project Uses Based on Survey 2a Results
Top 10 Uses were park
and park supporting
uses.

Most Liked
Least Liked
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 15 Potential Project Uses Based on Survey 2a Results
Top 10 Uses were park
and park supporting
uses.

Most Liked
Least Liked
• The top ten land uses were Park or Park
supporting land uses.
• Of the top fifty land uses, per measure LC,
83% wouldn’t require a ballot measure,
and 17% would.
• Of the Most Liked uses, 62% of them are
some form of recreational activity.
• Housing ranked 39th on most liked and
2nd on least liked.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 16 Phase 2: Setting the Stage
Community Event 2 - Photos
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 17 Draft Guiding Principles: Community Comments Summary Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 18 Phase 2 Community Engagement Summary
Community
Workshop
444 sign-ins
201 comment cards
372 Balance Builder
responses
Online Survey 2b
884 complete
responses
Project Website
+42,000 total views
4 Pop-up
Events
Virtual Education
Session 3
+1,100 total views
Online Survey 2a
2,383 complete
responses
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 19 Work to Date Community Engagement Summary
Community
Workshops
658 sign-ins
365 comment
cards
Community
Conversations
+370 participants
Project Website
+42,000 total views
8 Pop-up
Events
Virtual Education
Sessions (1-3)
+3,800 total views
Online Surveys
5,188 complete
responses
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 20 Questions for City Council

1. Does City Council have feedback on the draft Guiding Principles, before finalization?

2. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts in Phase 3, based on the Guiding Principles?

3. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of the spectrum of community preferred land uses including one scenario that is consistent with Measure LC without a vote?

4. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of traditional and innovative financing structures and explore alternative organizational structures and/or partnerships to construct, operate, maintain, program, and manage the site?
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 21 Questions for City Council

1. Does City Council have feedback on the draft Guiding Principles, before finalization?

2. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts in Phase 3, based on the Guiding Principles?

3. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of the spectrum of community preferred land uses including one scenario that is consistent with Measure LC without a vote?

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 22 Draft Guiding Principles
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 23 What are Guiding Principles?
● Value statements describing the aspirations and expectations for the conversion of the Santa Monica Airport.
● These principles will be used to explore design proposals and serve as definitions of success.
● Each guiding principle is organized through a thesis, a description, and key goals.
www.smacproject.com/guiding-principles
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 24 Guiding
Principles
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 25 Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP1: Start with Nature 79.6% 9.6% 10.9%
The project should have spaces
where visitors can be immersed
in nature.

86.4% 7.2% 6.3%
The project should support a
wide variety of plants and plant
communities by creating
microclimates based on
topographical and hydrological
design.

69.1 % 20.1% 10.9%
HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal

1. Strong support for green spaces,
trees, and wildlife, with a focus on
sustainability and biodiversity.

2. Support for protecting open space
and limiting residential and
commercial development.

3. Interest in using sustainable practices
like reclaimed water and climate
resilience in the park design.

4. Desire for recreational areas like
soccer fields, trails, and quiet spaces
for relaxation.

5. Support for blending nature with
urban life, including community
gardens, native plants, and habitat
restoration.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 26 GP1) START WITH NATURE
Examples of uses from the survey:

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 27 Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP2: Inspire Wonder 75.2% 13.2% 11.6%
Play should integrate park
design, with a diversity of
inclusive play typologies
including imagination,
adventure, athletics, sports,
interactions with nature, and
exploration.

77.5% 1 2.8% 9.7%
Wayfinding, interpretation, and
storytelling should be
multimodal to create an intuitive
experience for all visitors,
regardless of age, culture, or
ability.
53% 28.5% 1 8.5%
HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal

1. Support for sports fields, walking
trails, and recreational spaces like
Pétanque and pickleball.

2. Strong interest in arts and culture,
including amphitheaters, public art,
and performance areas.

3. Desire for green spaces with native
plants, nature trails, and
environmental education
opportunities.

4. Support for affordable housing
alongside park and community
spaces.

5. Focus on creating accessible spaces
for all ages and abilities with a mix of
structured and open areas.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 28 GP2) INSPIRE WONDER
Examples of uses from the survey:
* Indicates land uses that would or could require a vote per measure LC.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 29 HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP3: Balance Economics 70.4% 15.4% 14.2%
Potable water uses should be
limited to where necessary for
drinking water or cooling stations.

Any future water features should be
water efficient and recirculating.

Stormwater should be managed
on-site, captured, infiltrated,
detained, and treated through green
infrastructure systems.

80.8% 1 2.4% 6.8%
Project elements should balance
more expensive amenities with
lower-cost project uses. Higher
revenue-generating uses should
balance low or no revenuegenerating uses.

62.5% 22.2% 1 5.2%

1. Support for all space as public open space

2. 26 comments supporting including housing
on the site, with a focus on affordable
housing, while 16 comments strongly oppose
any housing on the site.

3. Focus on sustainability, including energy
efficiency and water conservation.

4. Preference for funding the park through
existing leases and bonds, not housing
development.

5. Interest in cultural and recreational
amenities like an amphitheater, gardens,
and art, with minimal commercial
development.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 30 GP3) BALANCE ECONOMICS
Examples of uses from the survey:
* Indicates land uses that would or could require a vote per measure LC.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 31 HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP4: Amplify Versatility 74.8% 14.4% 10.8%
The project should support running,
walking, and biking, providing many
trail experiences that complement
the City's existing trail and bicycle
networks.

85.1 % 8.0% 7%
The project should limit single-use
programs to those meeting specific
recreational needs or providing a
clear revenue opportunity to support
the park's operations. This should
include both free programs and
amenities and ticketed programs,
event spaces, or recreational
facilities.

56.5% 27.9% 1 5.6%

1. Support for soccer fields, sports
facilities, and recreational amenities.

2. Emphasis on accessible
transportation options like buses and
bike paths.

3. Interest in art and cultural activities,
including performance spaces and
installations.

4. Opinions of housing are divided: 13
comments oppose housing and
affordable housing, while 11 support
affordable housing together with the
park to promote inclusivity.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 32 GP4) AMPLIFY VERSATILITY
Examples of uses from the survey:

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 33 HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP5: Celebrate Place 57.1% 24.6% 18.2%
The planting design should
include local native species and
plant communities, and
reference existing City planting
typologies.

72.9% 1 7.6% 9.6%
The project should have a
unique sense of place - or
genius loci - where visitors must
know they are here, within Santa
Monica, and nowhere else in the
world.

50.9% 29.6% 1 9.4%

1. Interest in reusing existing buildings like
the Museum of Flying to preserve history.

2. Emphasis on sustainability, native
plants, and honoring indigenous
history.

3. Desire for recreational and community
spaces, such as art studios, concert
venues, and nature areas.

4. Strong opposition to housing in the park,
favoring green and public spaces.

5. Support for affordable housing outside
the park, focusing on historically
displaced communities.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 34 GP5) CELEBRATE PLACE
Examples of uses from the survey:
* Indicates land uses that would or could require a vote per measure LC.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 35 Key Takeaways
● Broad support for the draft guiding
principles as written.
● Excitement for the project and planning
process.
● Desire/need for uses beyond those
mentioned in Measure LC that would or
could require a vote
● Variety of opinions about housing
● Seeing the need for revenue-generating
uses as well, including restaurants, cafes
and other venues.
● The community expressed gratitude for
learning about the realities to make a
project of this magnitude possible.

Phase 2 Engagement
Some of the key themes that came out
of all of the engagement opportunities
in Phase 2a and 2b.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 36 Questions for City Council

1. Does City Council have feedback on the draft Guiding Principles, before finalization?

2. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts in Phase 3, based on the Guiding Principles?

3. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of the spectrum of community preferred land uses including one scenario that is consistent with Measure LC without a vote?

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 37 Phase 3 Direction
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 38 Questions for City Council

1. Does City Council have feedback on the draft Guiding Principles, before finalization?

2. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts in Phase 3, based on the Guiding Principles?

3. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of the spectrum of community preferred land uses including one scenario that is consistent with Measure LC without a vote?

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 39 ● All three scenarios will be based on the Guiding
Principles.
● The balance of uses within each scenario will vary in size, scope, location, scale, quantity, etc.
● Each scenario will show incremental implementation.
● The team will explore a variety of ways to achieve selfsufficency and associated timeframes. ● Housing remains a topic of conversation.
● Community engagement continues in 3a and 3b
Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:

Phase 3a Considerations
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 40 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.

Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:

Measure LC
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 41 CEQA is intended to inform government decisionmakers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed land use scenarios and alternatives to study with less environmental impacts but decisionmakers
should not pre-suppose any particular land use scenario before defining “the Project” for CEQA analysis.

Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:

CEQA Planning & Feasibility Studies
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 42 Phase 3: Defining the Future of Place (Scenario
Alternatives + Preferred Scenario)
Phase 3A: Defining the Future of Place:
3 Scenarios
Phase 3B: Defining the Future of Place:

Preferred Scenario
February - May, 2025 June - September, 2025
Design tasks:
● 3 Planning Concept Scenario Alternatives
● ROM Opinion of Probable Cost and Timeframe
● Comparison Matrix
Engagement tasks:
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 1 Virtual education session
● 4 Pop-up events
● Council Meeting, Board & Commission
Meetings
Design tasks:
● Preferred Concept Scenario
● Revised ROM
Engagement tasks:
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 2 Virtual education session
● 4 Pop-up events
● Council Meeting, Board &
Commission Meetings
Next Steps
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 43 Phase 3: Defining the Future of Place (Scenario
Alternatives + Preferred Scenario)
Phase 3A: Defining the Future of Place:
3 Scenarios
Phase 3B: Defining the Future of Place:

Preferred Scenario
February - May, 2025 June -September, 2025
Design tasks:
● 3 Planning Concept Scenario Alternatives
● ROM Opinion of Probable Cost and Timeframe
● Comparison Matrix
Engagement tasks:
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 1 Virtual education session
● 4 Pop-up events
● Council Meeting, Board & Commission
Meetings
Design tasks:
● Preferred Concept Scenario
● Revised ROM
Engagement tasks:
● 1 Community event
● 1 Online survey
● 2 Virtual education session
● 4 Pop-up events
● Council Meeting, Board &
Commission Meetings
Next Steps
Phase 3 is when
the drawing
starts!
And
Engagement is
continuing!
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 44 Three different
scenarios
highlighting a
variety of
community
supported uses
Next Steps
Phase 3: Defining the Future of Place
(Scenario Alternatives + Preferred Scenario)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Phase 1 + Phase 2 engagement inputs & site analysis
Phase 3A
Phase 3B
?
? ? ?
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 45 Questions for City Council

1. Does City Council have feedback on the draft Guiding Principles, before finalization?

2. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts in Phase 3, based on the Guiding Principles?

3. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of the spectrum of community preferred land uses including one scenario that is consistent with Measure LC without a vote?

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 46 Questions for City Council

1. Does City Council have feedback on the draft Guiding Principles, before finalization?

2. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts in Phase 3, based on the Guiding Principles?

3. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of the spectrum of community preferred land uses including one scenario that is consistent with Measure LC without a vote?

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 47 Balance Builder Bonus Card Input: Total Votes
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 48 Community Event Finacial Feasibility Input
● As part of the community event and Survey
2b a variety of questions were asked about
what funding strategies might be possible
for this project. Each of these ideas also
have an impact on the time it will take to
implement the project incrementally
● For example, if the project is city funded, it
could take longer than utilizing PublicPrivate Partnerships. This is what we anticipate studying in Phase 3a when we
have actual scenarios to apply funding
strategies.
● Further, to understand how to pay for some
of the recreation uses shown as community
preferences (e.g. aquatics center, skate
park, etc.) staff anticipates a Letter of
Interest (LOI) process to best understand the
cost, funding opportunities, and timelines for
such uses.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 49 • Exploring financial structures for community supported uses through a variety of means, such as:
• Letter of Interest for Public-Private Partnerships
• “Friends of” entities
• Special Financing District (i.e. EFID, CRD, etc.)
• Corporate Sponsorship / Naming Rights
• Green Infrastructure (solar generation, water facilities, etc.) Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:

Funding Opportunities
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 50 Questions for City Council

1. Does City Council have feedback on the draft Guiding Principles, before finalization?

2. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of three alternative scenario concepts in Phase 3, based on the Guiding Principles?

3. Does City Council authorize staff to explore the feasibility of the spectrum of community preferred land uses including one scenario that is consistent with Measure LC without a vote?

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 51 Thank you!
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 52 Thank you!
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 53 Staff Recommendations to City Council:

3. Consider the commencement of feasibility analysis for three planning scenarios for the Airport Conversion Project (“Phase 3”), based on the draft Guiding Principles; and

4. Provide direction to staff on how to proceed with respect to Phase 3.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica Engagement Summary | Online Survey 2B
Key Survey 2b Takeaways:

Draft Guiding Principles
Guiding Principle Support Neutral Oppose
GP1: Start with Nature 79.6% 9.6% 10.9%
GP2: Inspire Wonder 75.2% 13.2% 11.6%
GP3: Balance Economics 70.4% 15.4% 14.2%
GP4: Amplify Versatility 74.8% 14.4% 10.8%
GP5: Celebrate Place 57.1% 24.6% 18.2%
● All draft guiding principles received over 70% support except for “Celebrate Place” which received 57.1% support.
● All draft guiding principles received less than 15% opposition except for “Celebrate Place” which received 18.2% opposition.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 55 Key Takeaways: Draft Guiding Principles
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 56 Key Takeaways: Draft Guiding Principles
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 57 GP1) START WITH NATURE
Project design should consider the impact of any future intervention on the natural environment, and the airport land’s ability to regenerate species and build community resiliency against climate change. This project should include curated planting areas and restoration or ‘rewilding’ spaces, celebrating pollinator gardens, showcasing local biodiversity, and demonstrating ecosystem services. This project should exemplify Santa Monica’s climate goals, provide climate resilience, and be a model for sustainable stewardship. The creation and operations of the project should not deplete natural resources. The project should be designed to serve many generations and contribute to a regenerative urban ecology.

Description
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 58 GP1) START WITH NATURE
• The project should have spaces where visitors can be immersed in nature. • The project should celebrate local and regional plant and animal communities.

This includes areas dedicated to meaningful habitat creation through restoration planting, reforestation, rewilding, and planning for ecological succession. The project should support animal habitats, including gardens and species that feed and shelter insects, birds, amphibians, and mammals.
• The project should restore the land after 100 years of aviation operations and uphold the original intention to enhance park and public open spaces in Santa Monica.
• The project should support a wide variety of plants and plant communities by creating microclimates based on topographical and hydrological design. • The project's green infrastructure should showcase ecosystem services, such as stormwater management, and sustainable municipal facilities, and be used to support biodiversity.
• The project’s landscapes should only use reclaimed water for irrigation and the designers will prioritize drought-resistant and adaptive, low-water use planting and indigenous planting strategies.

Goals
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 59 GP1) START WITH NATURE - Feedback
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP1: Start with Nature 79.6% 9.6% 10.9%
The project should have spaces where visitors can be immersed in nature. 86.4% 7.2% 6.3% The project should support a wide variety of plants and plant communities by creating microclimates based on topographical and hydrological design. 69.1 % 20.1% 10.9% Community Event 2 Results

1. Strong support for green spaces, trees, and wildlife, with a focus on sustainability and biodiversity.

2. Support for protecting open space and limiting residential and commercial development.

3. Interest in using sustainable practices like reclaimed water and climate resilience in the park design.

4. Desire for recreational areas like soccer fields, trails, and quiet spaces for relaxation.

5. Support for blending nature with urban life, including community gardens, native plants, and habitat restoration.

HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 60 GP2) INSPIRE WONDER
The project should connect individuals in powerful and far-reaching ways uniting people of all backgrounds and ages in meaning, happiness, and heightened energy. The project should support planned and unexpected wonder and connection. Spaces for events, athletics, and celebrations should be designed to complement and work with ecological programs, either for community gatherings or limited to a single visitor experience. The project should support, enable, and showcase creativity and art. The project should provide a diversity of play experiences for all age groups, and highlight inclusive play that engages nature, natural elements, and healthy activity.

The project should feel safe and welcoming to all. The project should enable accessible mobility, provide spaces for rest and sport, and include supportive mobility infrastructure, so all visitors can enjoy the park experience when they arrive.

Description
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 61 • The project should be a place for visual art, supporting art in public space, and the creation of art.
• Play should integrate park design, with a diversity of inclusive play typologies including imagination, adventure, athletics, sports, interactions with nature, and exploration.
• Play should not be limited to playgrounds or certain age groups. Play could include curated nature experiences, interactive art and water features, exercise, signage and wayfinding, and even collaborative creation spaces. • The design should be culturally and generationally inclusive, and prioritize safety, belonging, and comfort for the diversity of our community’s population. • Wayfinding, interpretation, and storytelling should be multimodal to create an intuitive experience for all visitors, regardless of age, culture, or ability. • The project should include ‘active’ and ‘quiet’ spaces and programs, providing amenities and places that will feel inviting, exciting, and comfortable for the full spectrum of human physicality and neurodiversity.
• Showcasing the site’s legacy of innovation and creativity of the physical environment, inspiring civic pride, and amplifying the safety and care of future generations are important.

Goals
GP2) INSPIRE WONDER
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 62 GP2) INSPIRE WONDER - Feedback
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP2: Inspire Wonder 75.2% 13.2% 11.6%
Play should integrate park design, with a diversity of inclusive play typologies including imagination, adventure, athletics, sports, interactions with nature, and exploration.

77.5% 1 2.8% 9.7%
Wayfinding, interpretation, and storytelling should be multimodal to create an intuitive experience for all visitors, regardless of age, culture, or ability. 53% 28.5% 1 8.5% Community Event 2 Results

1. Support for sports fields, walking trails, and recreational spaces like Pétanque and pickleball.

2. Strong interest in arts and culture, including amphitheaters, public art, and performance areas.

3. Desire for green spaces with native plants, nature trails, and environmental education opportunities.

4. Support for affordable housing alongside park and community spaces.

5. Focus on creating accessible spaces for all ages and abilities with a mix of structured and open areas.

HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 63 GP3) BALANCE ECONOMICS
This project should achieve economic equilibrium by balancing revenue with construction, operations, maintenance, and programming costs. This principle suggests that capital investments be strategic and vetted, balancing the programmatic needs of the project with the financial plans, agreements, and strategies needed to fund those investments. Financial responsibility for the project to be defined as the composite of revenue-generating activities, capital strategies, and funding allocations required to avoid an unfunded liability for the City government, shall be adhered to. The project infrastructure should anticipate a fossil-free future, and a warmer, less stable climate. The project economy should target circularity, with zero-waste goals for construction and operations plans, net-zero energy, and a high standard of water self-sufficiency.

Description
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 64 • The combined income from the site’s land uses and amenities should provide suitable income for the operations, maintenance, and programming expenses needed to keep the project in good condition. • The project capital costs should be linked to a reliable funding source(s). • Project elements should balance more expensive amenities with lower-cost project uses. Higher revenuegenerating uses should balance low or no revenue-generating uses. • High-value investment programs should provide clear and defensible community benefits for the Santa Monica community.
• Project features should be brought online incrementally as funding allows. Innovative financing structures, such as a ‘Friends of’ or ‘Creative Financing District,’ or athletic league sponsorships, may be explored. • Landscape and buildings within the Santa Monica Airport site should be net zero energy for future operations through on-site energy production, energy efficiency, and electrification of all systems. • The project should mitigate local climate change impacts and provide a heat refuge for Santa Monica community members in the future to build resiliency for the environment, municipal operations, and regional economy.
• The project should minimize demolition waste by prioritizing reusing and recycling existing materials and structures and should have a waste management plan for future project operations. This plan may include on-site green waste processing, such as compositing.
• Potable water uses should be limited to where necessary for drinking water or cooling stations. Any future water features should be water efficient and recirculating. Stormwater should be managed on-site, captured, infiltrated, detained, and treated through green infrastructure systems.

Goals
GP3) BALANCE ECONOMICS
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 65 GP3) BALANCE ECONOMICS - Feedback
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP3: Balance Economics 70.4% 15.4% 14.2%
Potable water uses should be limited to where necessary for drinking water or cooling stations. Any future water features should be water efficient and recirculating. Stormwater should be managed on-site, captured, infiltrated, detained, and treated through green infrastructure systems.

80.8% 1 2.4% 6.8%
Project elements should balance more expensive amenities with lower-cost project uses. Higher revenue-generating uses should balance low or no revenue-generating uses.

62.5% 22.2% 1 5.2%
Community Event 2 Results

1. Support for all space as public open space

2. 26 comments supporting including housing on the site, with a focus on affordable housing, while 16 comments strongly oppose any housing on the site.

3. Focus on sustainability, including energy efficiency and water conservation.

4. Preference for funding the park through existing leases and bonds, not housing development.

5. Interest in cultural and recreational amenities like an amphitheater, gardens, and art, with minimal commercial development.

HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 66 GP4) AMPLIFY VERSATILITY
The project should be vibrant in the ‘every day’ and the ‘big day,’ working for the Santa Monica community for large events and unprogrammed day-to-day activities with active and passive amenities. Flexibility in public spaces and programs should allow for different uses to cohabitate, and for the site to adapt to changing needs over time. As an intergenerational space, the project should anticipate fluctuations in community interest for certain uses and activities, and be able to reorganize accordingly. This project should prioritize versatility, so visitors of many backgrounds, needs, exercise goals, and recreational desires can use individual spaces or programs. At the same time, the project programs should be immediately useful to visitors, with programs that maximize utilization and active recreation. Partnered with project programs should be operations and maintenance facilities - and these facilities will need to be developed in a bespoke manner matching the versatility and requirements needed to support a high standard of care for the project and future recreation facilities.

The project should contribute to physical, mental, and spiritual wellness, regardless of users' religion, ability, or age. Physical well-being should be enhanced and celebrated through group amenities, sports fields and courts, and individual fitness infrastructures. Mental and spiritual well-being should include spaces specifically dedicated to mindfulness and presence.

Description
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 67 • The project should prioritize amenities that enable consistent and regular use. • The project should balance specific action-oriented high-use programs with flexible and passive spaces.
• The project should support performing arts, such as providing spaces for music, dance, theatrical productions, and more.
• The project should welcome large groups for big events, small groups, and individuals for personal recreation and wellness, and will choreograph many simultaneous experiences and uses in harmony.
• The project should invite visitors from all cultural backgrounds to share a sense of community and collective ownership and include spaces to host cultural celebrations. • The project should limit single-use programs to those meeting specific recreational needs or providing a clear revenue opportunity to support the park’s operations. This should include both free programs and amenities and ticketed programs, event spaces, or recreational facilities. • The project should support active recreation for groups such as flexible fields and courts. The project should include individual fitness infrastructure, such as outdoor equipment for strength/flexibility training.
• The project should support running, walking, and biking, providing many trail experiences that complement the City’s existing trail and bicycle networks. • The project should prioritize biking/walking/transit to the site. • The project should include spaces for meditation, with dedicated spaces for contemplative rest, like forest bathing, or active mindfulness, like yoga decks and sensory gardens.

Goals
GP4) AMPLIFY VERSATILITY
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 68 GP4) AMPLIFY VERSATILITY - Feedback
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP4: Amplify Versatility 74.8% 14.4% 10.8%
The project should support running, walking, and biking, providing many trail experiences that complement the City's existing trail and bicycle networks. 85.1 % 8.0% 7% The project should limit single-use programs to those meeting specific recreational needs or providing a clear revenue opportunity to support the park's operations. This should include both free programs and amenities and ticketed programs, event spaces, or recreational facilities.

56.5% 27.9% 1 5.6%
Community Event 2 Results

1. Strong opposition to housing in the park, focusing on public open space.

2. Support for soccer fields, sports facilities, and recreational amenities.

3. Emphasis on accessible transportation options like buses and bike paths.

4. Interest in art and cultural activities, including performance spaces and installations.

5. Opinions of housing are divided: 13 comments oppose housing and affordable housing, while 11 support affordable housing together with the park to promote inclusivity.

HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 69 GP5) CELEBRATE PLACE
Santa Monica is an iconic city, with a unique history and culture, and the airport site has witnessed many eras of historic significance. The future project should embrace the layers of the site’s history, and share the stories of the place and region, from pre-colonial to the history of aviation on the site. The planting and materiality of the project should be contextual to the current airport and wider community architectural and horticultural expressions. The project should value and celebrate the wider connections to the sea, the mountains, and the city as well as the innovation and inspiration histories of this place. The project should invite visitors from all cultural backgrounds to share a sense of community and collective ownership and provide spaces for cultural celebrations. Celebrating place is both about honoring the past and empowering our future.

Description
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 70 • The project should have a unique sense of place - or genius loci - where visitors must know they are here, within Santa Monica, and nowhere else in the world. • The project should acknowledge and celebrate the history of this place, both the pre-colonial regional history and the history of aviation on site.
• The project should adaptively reuse buildings of cultural interest and structural viability, and celebrate the history of the uses of those buildings in parallel with supporting new programs. • The project should recognize and enhance the important role of the current museums, art galleries, maker spaces, theater, and play in the project and continue those uses in the future design. • The planting design should include local native species and plant communities, and reference existing City planting typologies.
• The materials should prioritize material reuse on-site, and regional and local materials and products. • The project should reinforce key viewsheds, strategic gateways with multi-modal connectivity, and activities that reflect and enhance the relationships to the sea, mountains, and urban community. • The project should attempt to accommodate event spaces for small and large events, including anticipatory infrastructure, such as stages, media, power, and lighting. • The approach to the project should celebrate the uniqueness of place, gateway experiences, and pedestrian and bicycle mobility, fitting the Santa Monica commitment and culture of prioritizing carbon-free mobility.

Goals
GP5) CELEBRATE PLACE
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 71 GP5) CELEBRATE PLACE - Feedback
Survey 2b Results Support Neutral Oppose
GP5: Celebrate Place 57.1% 24.6% 18.2%
The planting design should include local native species and plant communities, and reference existing City planting typologies. 72.9% 1 7.6% 9.6% The project should have a unique sense of place - or genius loci - where visitors must know they are here, within Santa Monica, and nowhere else in the world. 50.9% 29.6% 1 9.4% Community Event 2 Results

1. Strong opposition to housing in the park, favoring green and public spaces.

2. Support for affordable housing outside the park, focusing on historically displaced communities.

3. Interest in reusing existing buildings like the Museum of Flying to preserve history.

4. Emphasis on sustainability, native plants, and honoring indigenous history.

5. Desire for recreational and community spaces, such as art studios, concert venues, and nature areas.

HIGHEST Support Goal
LOWEST Support Goal
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 72 Phase 1 Engagement Takeaways
HOPES
Prioritize Parks & Recreational Needs
There was a priority is placed on maintaining the site
primarily for park and recreational purposes, not for
commercial or residential development.

Passive / Nature Park
Many community members saw the size of the site as a
unique opportunity to focus on passive recreation and
landscape uses, which were discussed as lacking in Santa Monica today.

Non-LC Land Uses
Many community members expressed a desire/need for
uses beyond those mentioned in Measure LC. Most of
these comments focused on housing.

A Sense of History
While many are excited, others lament the loss of the
airport's history and function and underscored the
importance of this history for the legacy and identity of Santa Monica. There is interest in celebrating this history in any future airport conversion.

FEARS
Fear that the Airport won’t Close
Many community members expressed enthusiasm that the
airport was closing and appreciation for a process to determine the future of the site.

Traffic & Congestion
Comment included worry over increased traffic and congestion resulting from the project, both during construction phases and after completion.

Development Concerns
There's worry about potential overdevelopment or misuse of the land. Many expressed distrust in the final decision- making process that would result in all the land being used for development at the expense of park space.

Environmental Concerns
Concerns were expressed both about the existing potential contamination on site and impacts of future construction.

Unhoused & Safety
There were many concerns shared on potential homelessness issues and safety in the future park space.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 73 Phase 2 Community Conversations
Excited by… Need… Concerns…
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 74 Santa Monica is a beautiful place and this
is a great opportunity to use incredibly
valuable land for the benefit of everyone.

Phase 2 Community Conversations
Super Quotes
It’s important that the project
remains inclusive and equitable,
offering opportunities for all
groups to participate.

Allocating resources to this project could
foster inclusivity, cultural exchange, and
community-building, making it a priority
for Santa Monica’s future.

I want to stress how important it is to incorporate
cultural spaces in the redevelopment plans.

Giving smaller communities like ours a platform
would enhance the diversity and vibrancy of
Santa Monica, ensuring that all residents feel
represented in the city’s future. Today, we need accessible recreation spaces, support services for autistic individuals, and resources for seniors. We, as Ethiopian Community in Santa Monica, are very
excited for the opportunity to
have a place as a community
center, where we can share
our cultural heritage with
broader Santa Monica
Communities as well as our
own young generation.

We look forward to a variety of open spaces
for kids to play and run, a large space to open
up possibilities for the entire community
(similar to Central Park).

Some people believe that a small
part of the airport land should be
used to build affordable housing
to address the housing crisis.

We are concerned about the
expected profit the Santa Monica
Council may expect from this
investment…We are concerned that if
the Council chooses this route over
free public access, it will greatly
discourage youth from using them.

The opportunity to create a grand public space that
makes an uplifting statement and projects a people and
nature-first attitude that inspires and serves as a
benchmark for other cities in the US and across the globe.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 75 Online Survey 2A Highlights
2,383
complete responses
3,791
partial responses
6,173
total response count

38.5%
completion
rate
*Online Survey 2A window 9/16/24-10/20/24
Did you participate in
any of the project
engagement events or
activities in Phase 1?
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 76 Question 1 (3,924 out of 6,173 answered)
Which zip code do you currently reside within?
SITE
Top Ten Zip Codes
90405 - 1,569 responses
90403 - 443 responses
90404 - 409 responses
90066 - 351 responses
90402 - 224 responses
90291 - 148 responses
90064 - 125 responses
90401 - 85 responses
90025 - 71 responses
90049 - 62 responses
90405
90404
90402 90403
90401
90291
90025
90049
90064
90066
133
zip codes
represented
2,321 (37.5%) Responses
from Santa Monica Zip
Codes
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 77 Question 2 (3890 out of 6173 answered)
If you live in Santa Monica, how long have you lived here? 0-2 years: 194 | 4.9%
3-5 years: 318 | 8.1%
6-10 years: 393 | 10.1%
11-20 years: 668 | 17.1%
20+ years: 1309 | 33.6%
I do not live in Santa Monica but I used to: 464 | 11.9% I do not live in Santa Monica and never have: 544 | 13.9% Blank: 2,284 | 36.9%
10 years and under

23.1%
11+ years

50.7%
Do not live in SM

25.8%
Above % does not include
blank submissions.

Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 78 Demographics
Which is your age range?
Under 45
years

33.9%
Over 45
years

66.1%
What describes your racial/ethnic identity?
(3943 out of 6173 answered) (4228 out of 6173 answered) Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 79 Question 28 (2334 out of 6173 answered)
Which sustainability practices and
features are most important to you
as we plan for the conversion of the
Santa Monica Airport?
Top practices focus on
nature, ecology, water &
climate change
Which potential benefits will INCREASE
your support for a plan for the future of
the Santa Monica Airport site?
Top practices focus on
nature, recreation,
sustainability, and
community
Question 31 (2341 out of 6173 answered)
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 80 Question 33 (2291 out of 6173 answered)
Thinking about the potential future of the airport site, how do you want to FEEL on the site after its anticipated closure and conversion after 2028? Select as many as apply.

Rank Response # of Responses
1 Safe 1529
2 Calm/relaxed 1430
3 Active/healthy 1351
4 Clean 1286
5 Comfortable 923
6 Joyful 829
7 Curious/wonderful 764
8 Playful 721
9 Excited 659
10 Supported/uplifted 526
11 Educated/inform 413
12 Entertained 367
13 Other - Write in 203
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 81 Take-aways from the survey
• Biggest response for passive uses, balanced to a lesser degree with active recreation uses
• Connection to and restoration of nature is very important • Explore a variety of ways to pay for the park including “Day 1” activations
• People want to feel safe, relaxed, healthy, inspired, culturally enriched
• Write-in comments had a lot of keep the airport and/or include a variety of housing
• Preservation of the Compass Rose has support as does
celebration of the history
• There is broad support for many types of play.
• There is support for community centers, including youth and senior centers.
• There is strong support for arts, including both galleries, performing arts, and event spaces.

Extending
non-aviation
leases beyond
2028– 73%
Youth Opinion
Matters – 69%
First
Responders
Presence –
80%
Explore PublicPrivate
Partnerships – 76%
Balance Neighborhood Amenities
with Destination Activities – 68%
Slightly more
support for
passive (73%)
but active
was high too
(69%)
Airport should cont.
in emergency /
resiliency role - 69%
Adaptively Reuse
Existing
Buildings/
Structures - 69%
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 82 Balance Builder Activity Results: Physical + Online format Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 83 Balance Builder Activity Results: Online Game
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 84 21st Century Government
Great Park Goals
Living Community Challenge
Hierarchy of goals to provide accountability, sustainability, and inclusivity Project Goals
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 85 Project Goals
21st Century Government
Great Park Goals
Living Community Challenge
• Addressing homelessness
• Clean and Safe Santa Monica
• Cultivate Economic Recovery and Expand
Community & Cultural Offerings
• Racial Justice, Equity, and Social Diversity
• Sustainable and Connected Community
Accountability to the Community – 5 Council Priorities
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 86 Project Goals
21st Century Government
Great Park Goals
Living Community Challenge
Inclusive and self-sustaining community space
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica 87 Project Goals
21st Century Government
Great Park Goals
Living Community Challenge
Triple bottom line sustainability for multiple generations Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6630 : Santa Monica City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointments to Vacant Seats on the Audit Subcommittee (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024)
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

8.A
Packet Pg. 1521
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 8.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designate a Councilmember as a Governing Board Representative to the Westside Cities Council of Governments (COG) and designate an Alternate Governing Board Representative. The Joint Powers Authority and By-laws require each City Council to designate one of its Councilmembers as a Governing Board Representative and one Councilmember as an Alternate Governing Board Representative. (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024) Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

8.B
Packet Pg. 1522
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 8.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of City's voting delegate and alternate to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 60th Annual Regional Conference and General Assembly Business Meeting from May 1-2, 2025 at the JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa in Palm Desert, CA (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024)
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

8.C
Packet Pg. 1523
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 8.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of a Councilmember to the Independent Cities Association (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024)
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

8.D
Packet Pg. 1524
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 8.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of voting delegate and alternate(s) for the CalCities Annual Conference and Expo, to be held October 8 -10, 2025, in Long Beach, California. (CONTINUED FROM 12/17/2024)
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

8.E
Packet Pg. 1525
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 8.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to three unscheduled vacancies on the Disabilities Commission for two seat terms ending on June 30, 2025 and one on June 30, 2026. (CONTINUED FROM 1/23/2024 and 3/19/2024)
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

8.F
Packet Pg. 1526
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Disabilities Commission
Name Application Date
Frames, Arlene
King, Dominique E. *
10/23/2024
12/16/2024
Muntaner, Zoë
Royale, Mila
Squire, Paul J.
05/14/2024
09/20/2024
02/05/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
*Is not a resident of the City

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Applicant List (6876 : 8.F. Appoinment to three Disabilities Commission seats (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 8.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one seat on the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee for a partial-term ending on 6/30/2025. (CONTINUED FROM 5/24/2023)
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

8.G
Packet Pg. 1528
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory
Committee
Name Application Date
Anawati, Kevin *
Puri, Dennis †
05/16/2024
07/01/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
*Is not a resident but applying for the
hospitality seat
†Is a resident of the City

8.G.a
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Applicant List (6877 : 8.G. Continued Appointment to the TOTAC (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Department of Transportation, Transit Safety & Training
Subject: Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.36 to establish provisions for the issuance of prohibition orders for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation pursuant to Sections 99171 and 99172 of the Public Utilities Code.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.36 to establish provisions for the issuance of prohibition orders, and to create a prohibition order advisory committee to the Santa Monica Department of Transportation, pursuant to recent amendments to State Law adopted by SB 1417.

Executive Summary
Big Blue Bus (BBB), a division of the Santa Monica Department of Transportation (DOT), operates 194 transit buses across 69 square miles of greater Los Angeles providing more than 800,000 rides each month. Transit worker and rider safety on BBB is a top priority for DOT—transit workers expect a safe workplace, and riders expect a safe trip. On August 19, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 1417 into law, which adds DOT to a list of transit districts that can issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing certain acts against the property, facilities, or vehicles of its transit district, such as the City’s Big Blue Bus. The law went into effect on January 1, 2025.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1530
2 of 7
Staff recommends Council adoption of an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.36 to establish the provisions listed in SB 1417 for the issuance of prohibition orders by DOT. The provisions include establishing an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for, and issuance of, prohibition orders and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as recommended by the advisory committee.

Background
Like many other public transit systems in the state and across the country, DOT regularly receives concerns from Motor Coach Operators (MCOs) and riders regarding individuals who repeatedly cause disturbances and/or commit criminal offenses (including misdemeanors or felonies), but are allowed to continue riding BBB without significant consequence.

To address these concerns, staff have considered several strategies to mitigate disruptive or criminal behaviors by repeat offenders and ensure the safety of MCOs and riders. These strategies include obtaining stay-away orders and workplace violence restraining orders to exclude problematic individuals from the system. While both stayaway and restraining orders are viable options, they are difficult to obtain and provide limited protection for riders.

A more effective option was to implement a prohibition order program, as outlined in Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 99171 and 99172. The law permits transit districts to issue prohibition orders against any person cited for specific prohibited acts in the transit system, but the authority is limited to select specified transit districts.

In 2024, Senator Ben Allen authored SB 1417 to amend the PUC to include Santa Monica DOT as one of the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders. Gov.

Gavin Newsom signed the bill in August 2024, giving DOT the authority to exclude persons whose actions adversely impact the safety and security of Big Blue Bus workers and riders. The law allows DOT to exclude persons from riding BBB for

10.A
Packet Pg. 1531
3 of 7
specified periods of time, depending on the nature and the frequency of offenses committed.

In March 2024, DOT implemented its new Transit Safety Officer (TSO) Program as an additional measure to mitigate security incidents throughout the BBB transit system.

With the TSO program, unarmed contracted security guards ride onboard buses throughout BBB’s service area and are tasked with assisting customers, de-escalating situations, supporting MCOs and educating the public about BBB’s Code of Conduct to ensure adherence. The TSOs will be an integral part of the prohibition order program, as they will assist with identifying violations that could support prohibition orders, as well as ensuring compliance with the orders once issued.

Discussion
SB 1417 relies in part on provisions in the state Public Utilities Code (PUC) to define disruptive actions or behaviors and the number of offenses for which a passenger may be cited. Generally, SB 1417:

1. Authorizes DOT to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for a misdemeanor committed in or on a DOT vehicle, bus stop, or station for any act that is a violation as specified in the statute.

2. Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person placed under arrest or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed on DOT buses or facilities for acts involving violence or threats of violence upon passengers and transit employees, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale of a controlled substance.

3. Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of DOT for a period of time deemed appropriate.

4. Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeals procedures.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1532
4 of 7

5. Requires DOT to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and recommended by the advisory committee.

SB 1417 also includes safeguards to ensure that prohibition orders do not target or adversely impact any one group of individuals in a discriminatory manner.

Administrative Rules
PUC 99171 outlines the administrative procedures that must be in place prior to establishing a prohibition order program. The written administrative procedures must be established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or Chief Executive Officer of the transit district. Some of the required elements include:
• Affording the person an opportunity to contest the transit district’s proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose.
• Providing notice of a prohibition order that includes a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. • The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order.
• The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. • The procedures must include an administrative hearing process to contest a notice of prohibition order.
• The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.

Establishment of an Advisory Committee
Pursuant to SB 1417, DOT will establish an advisory committee to serve as a volunteer advisory group and review body for the implementation of the prohibition order program.

The committee must consist of at least five members and no greater than seven. At

10.A
Packet Pg. 1533
5 of 7
least one committee member must have experience working with individuals with psychiatric or other disabilities, one must have experience as a youth advocate, and at least one member must have law enforcement experience.

The advisory committee shall be tasked, at minimum, with the following:

1. Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health directors within the Big Blue Bus service area, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric or other disabilities.

2. Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health directors within the Big Blue Bus service area, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by DOT enforcement personnel prior to or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.

3. Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist DOT in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.

4. Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by DOT during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.

Public Outreach
The law also requires that DOT provide reasonable notification to Big Blue Bus riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the DOT’s property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. “Reasonable notification” may include, but is not limited to, information on the Big Blue Bus and City’s websites, in written materials, at transit stations, and on the type of citations and conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1534
6 of 7
DOT’s Community Engagement and Customer Experience division has created a communications plan that includes the above elements. Public communications will be initiated one month prior to the launch of the prohibition order program.

Ordinance
In order to establish the provisions listed in SB 1417 for the issuance of prohibition orders, staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading the attached Ordinance which will:

1. Incorporate the elements of PUC 99171 and 99172 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.36

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve the implementation of the written administrative procedures of the prohibition order program; and,

3. Approve the establishment of an advisory committee.

Environmental Review
The ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The ordinance would enhance establish the provisions listed in SB 1417 for the issuance of prohibition orders by DOT. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the ordinance would not result in a physical environmental effect on the environment, and as such is exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1535
7 of 7
Prepared By: Liseth Guizar, Transit Safety and Training Manager, Big Blue Bus Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. DOT Prohibition Order Ordinance Amendment 1-28-2025 A B. SB 1417
C. PowerPoint Presentation

10.A
Packet Pg. 1536
1 City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CREATING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.36.300 TO ESTABLISH

A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROHIBITION ORDER PROGRAM AS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTIONS 99171 AND 99172 WHEREAS, under California Public Utilities Code Sections 99171 and 99171 (“PUC”), certain transit districts are permitted to issue prohibition orders against any person cited for committing one or more specific prohibited acts in the transit system; and WHEREAS, the PUC prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time; and establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order; and
WHEREAS, like many other public transit systems in the state and across the country, Santa Monica Department of Transportation (“DOT”) receives concerns from Motor Coach Operators and riders regarding individuals who repeatedly cause disturbances and/or commit criminal offenses (including misdemeanors or felonies) but are allowed to continue riding motor coaches without significant consequence; and WHEREAS, prior to 2024, DOT was not listed in the PUC as a transit district permitted to issue prohibition orders; and
WHEREAS, in 2024, the Governor signed SB 1417, which amended the PUC to include DOT as one of the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to amend its municipal code to establish a DOT prohibition order program subject to the criteria set forth in the PUC.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: DOT Prohibition Order Ordinance Amendment 1-28-2025 A [Revision 1] (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 3.36.200 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby created as follows:
§ 3.36.300 Department of Transportation Prohibition Orders. (a) DOT Authority to Issue Prohibition Orders.

The Department of Transportation, its capacity as a transit district, is authorized to issue prohibition orders under the provisions listed in Public Utilities Code Sections 99171 and 99172.
(b) Advisory Committee.

There is hereby established an advisory committee, described in Public Utilities Code Section 99172, for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for, and issuance of, prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuing and enforcing prohibition orders. The advisory committee shall advise the Director of the Department of Transportation.
(c) Administrative Regulations
The Director of the Department of Transportation shall have the authority to adopt administrative regulations, consistent with the legislative purpose, to implement the provisions of this Section.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: DOT Prohibition Order Ordinance Amendment 1-28-2025 A [Revision 1] (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa 3 effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: DOT Prohibition Order Ordinance Amendment 1-28-2025 A [Revision 1] (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Senate Bill No. 1417
CHAPTER 189
An act to amend Sections 99171 and 99172 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to transit districts.
[Approved by Governor August 19, 2024. Filed with Secretary of State August 19, 2024.]
legislative counsel
’
s digest
SB 1417, Allen.Transit districts: prohibition orders.

Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.

Existing law authorizes the Fresno Area Express, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.

This bill would provide that the Santa Monica Department of Transportation is also a transit district for purposes of these provisions regarding prohibition orders.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 99171 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:
99171. (a) (1) A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom any of the following applies:
(A) On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for an act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of

97 10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: SB 1417 (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code for Prohibition Orders in DOT) this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)  The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance. (C)  The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)  A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district or the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)  Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year shall not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year shall not exceed 180 days.
(B)  Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, shall not exceed 180 days.

Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, shall not exceed one year.
(3) A prohibition order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit district’s proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit district’s procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures. (b) (1) A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, “clear and conspicuous” means in larger type than the 97 Ch. 189 — 2 —

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: SB 1417 (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code for Prohibition Orders in DOT) surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language. (2)  For purposes of this section, “personal service” means any of the following:
(A)  In-person delivery.
(B)  Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)  Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)  If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district.

For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)  On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)  On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail. (C)  For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)  Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district. (5)  If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)  All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)  Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)  If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)  If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officer’s decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)  (1)  For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the 97 — 3 — Ch. 189

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: SB 1417 (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code for Prohibition Orders in DOT) person was cited or arrested are pro
ven by a preponderance of the evidence.

If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice.

If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)  The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)  If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)  The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)  The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)  The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)  The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit district’s governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agency’s governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officer’s continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, 97 Ch. 189 — 4 —

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: SB 1417 (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code for Prohibition Orders in DOT) shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)  The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation shall be made at least five calendar days before the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)  In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if they determine that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. (F)  The hearing officer’s decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)  A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)  A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media. (e)  For purposes of this section, “transit district” means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.
97 — 5 — Ch. 189

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: SB 1417 (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code for Prohibition Orders in DOT) SEC. 2. Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:
99172. (a)  Before exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)  Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for, and issuance of, prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuing and enforcing prohibition orders.
(2)  Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuing and enforcing prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)  Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit district’s property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. “Reasonable notification” may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit district’s internet website, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)  The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)  The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)  Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuing and enforcing prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)  Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel before or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order. (3)  Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code. (4)  Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders. 97 Ch. 189 — 6 —

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: SB 1417 (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code for Prohibition Orders in DOT) (d) The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, “transit district” means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.

O
97 — 7 — Ch. 189

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: SB 1417 (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code for Prohibition Orders in DOT) Prohibition Orders
Liseth Guizar
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Prohibition
Orders – Senate
Bill 1417
Sponsored by Senator Ben Allen, SB 1417 permits the issuance of prohibition orders lasting from 30 days to one year for offenses that jeopardize the safety and comfort of Big Blue Bus passengers and employees.

Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Overview of Prohibition Order Program
To implement a prohibition order program, SB 1417 requires the following:
• Administrative Process: An appeals process will be established for those who believe they have been mistakenly cited or are transit-dependent.
• Oversight: Requires an advisory committee comprised of persons with experience in the areas of mental health, youth advocacy and public safety who will monitor the number of exclusions issued and oversee the training of transit personnel who issue and enforce prohibition orders. • Training: Transit personnel who issue and enforce prohibition orders will be trained as recommended by the advisory committee.
• Public Outreach: Requires DOT to provide reasonable notification to riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order.

Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Violations Eligible for Prohibition Orders
Citations
The violations eligible for a Prohibition Order are
established by SB 1417 and are part of the existing Penal Code and Public Utilities Code
Penal Code 640:
• Willfully disturbing others
• Carrying explosive or flammable material
• Urinating or defecating on bus or at stop/facility
• Willfully blocking movement of others
• Vandalism
Public Utilities Code 99170:
• Interfering with operation of transit vehicle or
impeding boarding/alighting passengers
• Engaging in behaviors that may cause harm
Arrests and Convictions
The person is placed under arrest or convicted for a
misdemeanor or felony committed on DOT buses or
property for:
• Acts involving violence or threats of violence upon passengers and transit employees • Lewd or lascivious behavior
• Possession for sale of a controlled substance
• Health and Safety Code §11532(a) (loitering for drug-related purposes) Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Duration of Prohibition Orders
Citations
Duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed
the following, as applicable, within one year:
• 3 citations within a 90-day period:
• 30-Day Prohibition Order
• 3 additional citations within a 90-day period:
• Additional 90-Day Prohibition Order
• 3 additional citations within a 90-day period:
• Additional 180-day Prohibition Order
Arrests and Convictions
• Initial arrest:
• 30-Day Prohibition Order
Convictions:
• Misdemeanor conviction for same arrest:
• 180-Day Prohibition Order
• Felony conviction for same arrest:
• 1 Year Prohibition Order
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Steps to Issue Order
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Enforcement of
Prohibition Order
If person violates the prohibition order: • MCOs will not enforce or confront individual • Will be instructed to allow person to board and contact Dispatch
• Dispatch to contact law enforcement,
inform them that a person with a
prohibition order is on bus and request
their removal
• Supervisor / TSO to respond with copy of
order
• Incident will be documented
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Public
Outreach
Campaign
SB 1417 requires DOT to provide reasonable notification to transit riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit district’s property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. • Public outreach campaign (multilingual) to include: • Signage systems • Printed materials • Targeted outreach • Transit planning apps • Digital channels • Partner channels • Earned media Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending Advisory Committee
• Composition: 5 appointed members
• Experience with psychiatric, developmental or other disabilities • Youth advocate
• Law enforcement experience
• Evaluate the procedures for, and issuance of, prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuing and enforcing prohibition orders. • Identify services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel before or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
• Provide annual report to Council and Legislature summarizing the number of prohibition orders issued. • Advisory Committee will be approved by Council – Staff will return with this item at a later date.

Item 10-A
January 28, 2025
Item 10-A
January 28, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6764 : 1st Reading & Intro. of Ordinance Amending City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 2.32.020 Concerning Use of the City Seal and Other City Symbols Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Section 2.32.020 concerning the use of the City Seal and other City symbols.

Summary
At the request of Council, the City Attorney has prepared the attached Ordinance amendment to prohibit use of the City seal and other City logos and insignia for campaign purposes. It also addresses the depiction of City public resources in campaign materials, such as iconic buildings, public vehicles, etc., without inclusion of a disclaimer that the publication is not sponsored or endorsed by the City. The intent of this ordinance is to avoid public confusion that a message is endorsed by the City when it is not.

Discussion
On December 17, 2024, Council asked the City Attorney to return with a rule prohibiting the use of the City seal, official City symbols, or images of City Hall and other notable City facilities and vehicles on any clothing items, accessories, and paid political advertising advocating for or against the election of candidates or items before Council for all Councilmembers, with certain exceptions for City-provided nametags and accessories.

10.B
Packet Pg. 1556
2 of 3
The attached Ordinance expands upon Municipal Code Section 2.32.020, clarifying the City seal and logo, as well as insignia and emblems used by City departments are the property of the City, established and designed to identify official City events and programs. The Ordinance is intended to protect the value of those resources and to regulate their use so the public is not misled to believe a message is supported or authorized by the City when it is not.

The Ordinance prohibits a person or campaign committee, including City elected officers, from using the City seal, logo, or other insignia, in campaign materials, and prevents City elected officers from wearing the seal or logo at partisan rallies or events for the purpose of influencing the electorate.

It also allows any person to depict City facilities and public resources such as City Hall, the Pier and Pier Sign, City busses and fire trucks, etc., in campaign materials, including paid advertising, clothing items, and accessories, only with the following disclaimer prominently included: “This publication is not sponsored or approved by the City of Santa Monica.” Depicting City resources in campaign materials may convey the false impression of City sponsorship or approval of the message. Including the disclaimer helps avoid public confusion.

The Ordinance does not otherwise limit the depiction of City resources in non-campaign or non-political contexts.

Violation of the Ordinance is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of up to $500, or any interested party may bring a civil action to enforce. In addition, the Council may approve a censure resolution condemning violations by a Councilmember.

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

10.B
Packet Pg. 1557
3 of 3
Prepared By: Katie Doerr, Deputy City Attorney III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CAO-City Seal Ordinance 1st
B. Written Comment

10.B
Packet Pg. 1558
1 City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SECTION 2.32.020 CONCERNING USE OF THE CITY SEAL AND

OTHER CITY SYMBOLS
WHEREAS, the Council believes it is necessary to regulate the use of the City Seal and other City symbols, as inappropriate use could be misleading and dilute the value of the Seal and symbols.

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

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.32.020 is hereby amended to read as follows:
§ 2.32.020 Use of the City Seal and Symbols.
(a) The purpose of this Section is to restrict use of the City Seal, logo, and other insignia to official City business, so the value of the Seal, logo, or insignia is not diminished and to regulate the use of those and other City symbols so the public is not misled to believe a message is supported or authorized by the City when it is not. (b) The City Seal and City logo are the property of the City of Santa Monica and are, and have been, established and designed to identify official City events and programs. In addition to the City Seal and City Logo, the term City insignia shall mean any other logos or emblems used by City departments or divisions, whether trademarked or not, as approved by the City Manager.

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: CAO-City Seal Ordinance 1st (6855 : City Seal Ordinance) 2 (b c) The City Clerk shall have charge of the City Seal and shall affix the City Seal to all certificates required by law, by this Code, or by ordinance of the City. (c d) Except as provided for in this Section, no person, other than the City of Santa Monica, shall reproduce, use, give away, sell, or distribute any seal, or facsimile thereof, purporting to be or represented to be the City Seal of the City of Santa Monica. (d e) City officers, City employees, members of the City Council, and members of City Boards and Commissions, may use stationery and printed materials with the City Seal, or facsimile thereof, while acting within the scope of their office or employment. (f) A recognized employee organization may use the City Seal, or facsimile thereof, or City logo or insignia, on stationery or printed materials used in the scope of its representation of City employees and on articles of clothing intended for use by City employees.
(g) No person, including any elected officer of the City, shall use the City Seal, or facsimile thereof, in any correspondence or other printed materials distributed in favor of or against any ballot measure or in favor of or against any candidate for public office.

No person or campaign committee, including an elected officer of the City, shall use the City Seal, logo, or any insignia, or any design so closely resembling the same as to be apt to deceive or be reasonably mistaken for in any way the City Seal, logo, or City insignia for purposes of supporting or opposing the nomination or election of any person to any City or other public office, or for purpose of supporting or opposing any ballot measure, nor include depiction of any such City Seal, logo, or insignia on any writing distributed for purposes of influencing the action of the electorate, or any part thereof, in any election. This section shall not be applicable to writings or other items such as

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: CAO-City Seal Ordinance 1st (6855 : City Seal Ordinance) 3 nametags or other accessories issued by the City of Santa Monica or the City Council as a whole pursuant to law.
(h) A Councilmember may wear clothing officially produced by the City depicting the City Seal, logo, or insignia when appearing at City-produced or sponsored events, or other nonpartisan events, or when representing or appearing on behalf of the Council as a whole. Councilmembers may not produce their own items depicting the City Seal, logo, or insignia. A Councilmember may never wear clothing depicting the City Seal, logo, or insignia when attending a campaign event, partisan political event, or when appearing in their individual capacity.
(i) Because the inclusion of the depiction of City resources in a publication may be reasonably calculated to convey the false impression of sponsorship or approval by the City, no person other than the City may depict City resources on campaign materials including clothing items, accessories, and paid or unpaid political advertising, content, or materials advocating for or against the election of candidates or passage of measures, or approval or rejection of items before the City Council, without conspicuously including the disclaimer, “This publication is not sponsored or approved by the City of Santa Monica.” For purpose of this section, City resources includes but is not limited to City Hall, the Public Safety Administration Building, the Civic Auditorium, the Santa Monica Pier and Pier Sign, Airport Terminal, City-owned busses, police cars, fire engines, or other vehicles, or other publicly-owned and prominently recognizable buildings or structures.

This is in addition to any existing local, state, or federal law concerning use of public resources for campaign purposes and campaign advertisement disclosures. This section shall not apply to the depiction of such resources in the official logos or materials of non10.B.a Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: CAO-City Seal Ordinance 1st (6855 : City Seal Ordinance) 4 political 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations such as the Santa Moncia Pier Corporation, the Santa Monica Conservancy, Santa Monica Firefighters Relief Fund, Santa Monica Police Officers Association Charity Fund, or other similar 501(c)(3) not-for-profits. (j) Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the City or its departments from producing and selling or giving away clothing or other merchandise with the City logo or insignia for promotional purposes.
(k) Each violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the Council may approve a censure resolution condemning violations by a Councilmember, and/or a civil action may also be brought by the City or any interested party before any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to all other remedies authorized by law, the court may impose a fine of up to five hundred dollars for each violation of this Chapter.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: CAO-City Seal Ordinance 1st (6855 : City Seal Ordinance) 5 SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Doug Sloan, City Attorney

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: CAO-City Seal Ordinance 1st (6855 : City Seal Ordinance) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sirinya Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Support of 10B, January 28, 2025

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and members of the SM City Council, I'm writing to express support for item 10B, introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending municipal code section 2.32.020 concerning the use of the City Seal and Other City Symbols. As shared back in December, an update to the city municipal code to provide clarification and direction pertaining to allowable and disallowable uses of City insignia was long overdue. The ordinance, as drafted, mostly makes sense to me. There is one sentence that runs very long, and might be difficult for layperson to interpret (section 2.32.020 g).

Nevertheless, having spent time in another city defending and protecting its brandmarks from misuse (literally, people thought it was okay to steal the city seal and produce items for sale with it on Etsy, Amazon, and other sites), I'm very impressed with this particular ordinance update. You are especially clear on the terms and conditions for the use of city insignia by our elected and appointed officials, an area of ambiguity in the past.

My last comment is in a future update, the City will need to update 4.68 on community events, referring readers back to 2.32.020; that section included a prohibition on the use of the city logo for private events hosted on city property, but lacked a reference to consequences for doing so (it's now established as a misdemeanor).

Thank you, Council and City Staff, for being responsive and direct.

With appreciation,
Sirinya Matute
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:09 PM Sirinya Matute <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and the City Council:

I am writing to express my general support for Item 1.2.3 of Item 16M, which would direct City staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit the use of the City logo, seal and facilities of city facilities and vehicles on any clothing item, accessory or paid advertising for or against the election of candidates or items before the Council, with a carve out allowing city staff to use said logos to create team gear or items.

Item 10-B
January 28, 2025
Item 10-B
January 28, 2025

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Written Comment (6855 : City Seal Ordinance) 2 An ordinance to update our municipal code discusses the City Logo & City Seal is way overdue. For starters, discussion of the seal and logo should be in one place, but in our code it's scattered in two:
the City Seal is mentioned in section 2.32.10 and 2.32.20, while the city logo is referenced in a section 4.68 on community events, where the code makes it ‘unlawful’ for a community event permittee to use the city logo - that's it. No mention of what the logo looks like, no mention of other allowable and disallowed uses, and definitely no specification of penalties for misuse or unauthorized uses of the City logo.

Thankfully the City trademarked its logo decades ago, no small feat. This created standing for the city to protect its brandmarks from infringement in court. But trademarking has been insufficient for the City to protect its seal or logo or emblems from misuse - nor does it establish penalties for infringement. This needs to be codified in the municipal code through a new ordinance.

I recommend that the ordinance:
 Consolidate discussion of the City Seal, City Logo, and facsimiles of City Buildings in one place in the municipal code. This makes it easier to find and understand.  Expand the scope of protection: The code should explicitly include the City Logo and other official emblems or insignia (such as the city’s iconic buildings, the Pier, and city vehicles), in addition to the City Seal.
 Establish clear penalties: The code should outline specific penalties for unauthorized use of the City’s brand elements beyond stating “unlawful”.
 Appoint a custodian: The municipal code should specify that the City Clerk (or designee) is the custodian for both the City Seal and City Logo, responsible for overseeing their use and enforcing the relevant regulations.

City staff still need to be able to use the city logo for its official communications. The language of

1.2.3 doesn’t make that distinction, though.

Hermosa Beach’s experience with taking steps to take control of its city seal and logo (which had rampant misuse in the community for decades) can provide valuable insights for Santa Monica. You can study the section on city branding in their municipal code here or at https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/hermosabeach-ca/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-55.

This staff report from 2023 might also be useful background.

Lastly, I have attached a sample ordinance passed by the Hermosa Beach City Council in March 2023, which further strengthened the city’s ability to protect its brandmarks.

By taking these steps, the City of Santa Monica can safeguard its valuable brand assets and ensure that they are used in a manner that reflects positively on the City.

Thank you for your time and consideration and happy holidays! Sincerely,
Sirinya Matute
Item 10-B
January 28, 2025
Item 10-B
January 28, 2025

10.B.b
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Written Comment (6855 : City Seal Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 10.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: (THE ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF TO FEBRUARY 11, 2025) -- Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending Interim Zoning Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2796 (CCS) Exempting City Projects From Temporary Use Permit Requirements During a Declared Local or State of Emergency
Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15303 (New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to Extend Interim Zoning Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2796 (CCS) Exempting Projects on City-Owned Property and that Use City Funds From Temporary Use Permit Requirements During a Declared Local or State of Emergency
Prepared By: Heidi Von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council

10.C
Packet Pg. 1566
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 14
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Acting Director, City Planning
Subject: (THE ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF TO FEBRUARY 11, 2025) -- Adoption of Amended Safety Element of City’s General Plan; Introduction and First Reading of Ordinances to Require Environmental Site Assessments for Multiple-Unit Dwellings in Nonresidential Zoning Districts and to Designate City Hall East as an Essential Facility for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt Resolution to Adopt an Amended Safety Element of the City’s General Plan;

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Text of Section 9.31.195 of the Zoning Ordinance for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element; and

4. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Text of Section 8.12.040 of the Building Code for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element.

Summary
California State law (Government Code Section 65300) requires that each jurisdiction adopt a comprehensive, long term General Plan to guide future land use development and growth of that jurisdiction. Each General Plan must include eight “topics” or elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. State law requires general plans to include a Safety Element to identify and address natural and human-made hazards, as well as climate adaptation and resiliency.

12.A
Packet Pg. 1567
2 of 14
In compliance with State law, an updated Safety Element has been prepared to address natural hazards and human-made hazards in the built environment. The Safety Element focuses primarily on the hazards that are most cited in California State Laws pertaining to the Safety Element of the General Plan and to federal requirements for Local Hazard Mitigation Planning. These topics include:
• Geologic and Soil Hazards
• Seismic Hazards
• Flooding
• Fire
• Climate Change Effects (including Extreme Heat, Drought, Extreme Precipitation Severe Winds, Sea Level Rise)
• Hazardous Materials
• Airport Safety
With the devastation brought on by the recent Palisades Fire that erupted on January 7, 2025, it has become even more evident that adoption of an updated Safety Element is necessary to establish the City’s guiding values, policies, and priorities for ensuring a resilient and safe community.

Staff recommends that the City adopt the updated Safety Element and implementing text amendment changes to the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code for consistency with the adopted Safety Element.

Background
The City’s existing Safety Element was adopted in 1995. Over 25 years have passed and since that time, new information has become available on public safety risks including the Santa Monica Fault Zone, flooding, wildfires, and climate change effects.

In addition, the State has established new statutory requirements pertaining to the Safety Element, which include:
• SB 379 (2015): Requires jurisdictions to review and update the safety element of the general plan as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency

12.A
Packet Pg. 1568
3 of 14
strategies applicable to that city or county.
• SB 1035 (2018): Requires the update of the Safety Element upon adoption of the Housing Element update, which shall be updated at least every eight years to address new requirements and incorporate updated information during this time. • SB 99 (2019): Requires the Safety Element to identify residential developments in any hazard area that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. • AB747 (2019): Requires Safety Element to be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios.

On October 14, 2022, the State of California’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) certified the City’s 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element. The adoption of the certified Housing Element triggers State law requirement to update the City’s Safety Element.

Additionally, the City is currently in the process of updating its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The LHMP identifies local disaster hazards, assesses the possibility of these hazards occurring and estimates potential costs, and identifies actions to mitigate disaster losses. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires revisions to the LHMP to be reviewed and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) every five years. The last LHMP was prepared in 2016, and an update of the LHMP is currently underway. The Safety Element has been prepared in coordination with the Office of Emergency Management to ensure that the Safety Element is consistent with the risk reduction and emergency response strategies that will be identified in the forthcoming LHMP. To ensure that the City will be considered for additional funding for eligible Public Assistance projects pursuant to AB 2140, the City incorporates by reference the LHMP and any future updated LHMP. If necessary, the City will amend the Safety Element to incorporate the LHMP, whenever an updated LHMP is approved by FEMA. The Safety Element provides a contextual framework and overview of the City’s hazard mitigation strategy and emergency response operation. It is not intended to serve as an emergency operations plan insofar as the Safety Element is a guiding policy document of the City, establishing the general values and principles as they

12.A
Packet Pg. 1569
4 of 14
relate to hazards and public safety.

Discussion
In the context of State law on General Plans, the amended Safety Element addresses natural hazards and human-made hazards in the natural and built environment. The Safety Element focuses primarily on the hazards that are most cited in California State Laws pertaining to the Safety Element of the General Plan and to federal requirements for Local Hazard Mitigation Planning. These topics include:
• Geologic and Soil Hazards
• Seismic Hazards
• Flooding
• Fire
• Climate Change Effects (including Extreme Heat, Drought, Extreme Precipitation Severe Winds, Sea Level Rise)
• Hazardous Materials
• Airport Safety
The Safety Element builds upon and supports the City’s 2019 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and will inform the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) update, and other relevant City plans. The Safety Element also includes updated information and supplements the adaptation strategies in the CAAP and LUP with new goals and policies to address climate change effects, (i.e., flooding, extreme heat, air quality, drought, and wildfires) as well as other hazards (i.e., geologic/seismic risks, hazardous materials, airport hazards, and urban fires).

The Safety Element meets all the statutory requirements, and is organized into four chapters:

1. Introduction – Background on key statutory requirements for the Safety Element, the Safety Element’s relationship to other City plans, and the engagement process for drafting of the Safety Element

2. Existing Conditions – Analysis of existing risks and hazards, including a summary of populations vulnerable to hazards

12.A
Packet Pg. 1570
5 of 14

3. Disaster Preparedness, Emergency Response Operations and Recovery – Overview of the City’s emergency Preparedness and Response programs, agencies, and operations and identification of evacuation routes

4. Goals, Policies, and Actions – Summary table of goals, policies, and actions to address potential hazards
The Safety Element provides a comprehensive assessment of the various hazards in the natural and built environment affecting the City, identifies vulnerable populations, and establishes the regulatory framework for addressing these hazards, with the goal of creating a safer and more resilient City. Highlights of the Safety Element (by topic area) include:

Geology and Soil Hazards
Depending on the type and nature of the underlying soils, certain properties in the City could be subject to soil hazards such as compression, collapse, and expansion. The Safety Element provides:
• An assessment of areas in the City susceptible to soil failure such as areas with steep slopes and the City’s former landfill and claypit areas located in the City’s Bergamot Area.
• Goals, policies and actions to address potential soil failure and slope stability issues. This includes a commitment for regular monitoring of the Palisades Bluffs and updating the City’s Geotechnical Guidelines at least every 8 years.

Seismic Hazards
Similar to other cities and communities in southern California, an earthquake has the potential to cause significant loss of life or property in Santa Monica. The Safety Element provides a discussion of seismic hazards including surface fault rupture and earthquakes including:

12.A
Packet Pg. 1571
6 of 14
• An analysis of seismic hazards and seismically vulnerable buildings based on current data.

The Safety Element includes the most recent earthquake fault map showing the Santa Monica Fault Zone, based on the California Geological Survey (CGS)’ Alquist Priolo fault Zone map prepared in 2017. This map shows an approximation of where traces of the Santa Monica Fault is believed to exist based on CGS data. Since the establishment of this fault zone in 2017, over 20 fault zones have been conducted. To date, none of the fault studies have shown evidence of the Santa Monica Fault.
• Goals, policies, and actions to address seismic hazards including continued implementation of the City’s Seismic Retrofit Program and continuing to require that development located in the Santa Monica Fault zone comply with State regulatory requirements.

Flooding
Flooding is one of the most destructive natural hazards in the world, responsible for more deaths per year than any other geologic hazard. Severe flooding in the region is often the result of a combination of topographic features, excessive rainfall, and poor drainage infrastructure. The Safety Element includes:
• Up-to-date maps of areas in the City that are prone to flooding such as the coastal flood zones, tsunami hazard zones, and the dam inundation risk areas.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) depicting areas subject to flood hazards. These Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) or Flood Zones include different types and levels of flooding risks. Only the coastal areas of the City are mapped as Special Flood Hazard Areas – these areas are at flooding risk from storm flooding and coastal flooding due to storm surges.

12.A
Packet Pg. 1572
7 of 14
• Goals, policies, and actions addressing flooding that align with the CAAP and forthcoming LCP Land Use Plan. These actions include planning for upgrades and/or expansion of public infrastructure as necessary to ensure that water storage and storm drain systems can adequately handle water storage and flow during heavy rainstorms.

Fire
The City is at risk from the effects of wildfires and urban fires. As was witnessed this month, wildfires have disastrous consequences to property and life. Additionally, it can overwhelm local emergency response resources and staff. This happened when the Palisades Fire along with other multiple wildfires erupted in Los Angeles County within the same week. The Safety Element includes:
• An analysis of wildfire and urban fire hazards in the City, including identification of fire zones.

The State Fire Marshal is mandated to classify Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in the state. Fire Hazard Severity Zones fall into the following classifications:
• Moderate
• High
• Very High
These zones are determined using on a scientific model of wildfire hazards to determine the likelihood of a wildfire and expected fire behavior. The methodology for assessing a wildfire zone differ for wildland vs non-wildland areas. The factors considered in determining fire hazard within wildland areas include fire history, flame length, terrain, local weather, and potential fuel over a 50-year period. Outside of wildlands, the fire model considers factors that might

12.A
Packet Pg. 1573
8 of 14
lead to buildings being threatened, including terrain, weather, urban vegetation cover, blowing embers, proximity to wildland, fire history, and fire hazard in nearby wildlands.

The Palisades Fire that ignited in the Santa Monica Mountains immediately to the north occurred in a very high fire hazard severity zone. This zone ends at the Santa Monica northern city boundary. While there are no designated wildfire zones in the City, wildfires can uncontrollably cross over jurisdictional boundaries. The risk of wildfire spread led to mandatory evacuation orders in the northern portion of the City during the Palisades Fire. The Safety Element discusses the potential risk of wildfire spread from the nearby Santa Monica Mountains. Additionally, the Safety Element identifies potential risks and effects associated with wildfires such as smoke inhalation.
• Goals, policies, and actions addressing fire risks and fire protection needs that align with the City of Santa Monica Fire Department’s 2023-2028 Strategic Plan.

Chapter 4 of the Safety Element includes a number of policies to reduce fire risks in potential planning and siting of a new fire station in the northern portion of the City and the consideration of a development impact fee to address increases in fire demand associated with increased development. Other policies include active vegetation management and weed abatement as well as providing for fire safety education for residents living in the northern portion of the City near the wildfire zones.

Climate Change Effects
State law (SB 379) requires that Safety Elements address climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies. Accordingly, the Safety Element discusses climate change effects including extreme heat, drought, extreme precipitation, severe wind, sea level rise, and wildfires. Specifically, the Safety Element includes:

12.A
Packet Pg. 1574
9 of 14
• An analysis of climate change effects on the City using the most recent scientific data and best available tools including Cal-Adapt and latest State guidance.

The updated Safety Element builds upon and updates the climate change vulnerability assessment in the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan with additional measures to establish a comprehensive hazard mitigation and emergency response strategy. Inclusion of new sea level rise maps using the updated Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) per the draft State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update. • Goals, policies, and actions addressing climate change effects that support the CAAP and forthcoming LCP Land Use Plan. A new action in the updated Safety Element is the preparation of an Extreme Heat Plan which will include measures to address extreme heat effects, particularly on sensitive populations.

Hazardous Materials
Hazards exposure can occur due to the accidental release of hazardous materials from contaminated sites or sites that handle large quantities of hazardous materials. The Safety Element includes:
• A mapping and listing of known hazardous materials sites in the City, which include pharmacies, auto service and repair centers, medical facilities, and other sites known to have underground contamination from past uses. • Goals, policies, and actions to minimize risks due to accidental exposure of hazardous materials. This includes an action requiring new development in nonresidential districts to conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to investigate for the potential presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination before the issuance of building permit. This action is proposed to be added as a text amendment to Section 9.31.195 of the Zoning Ordinance. § 9.31.195 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects

12.A
Packet Pg. 1575
10 of 14
(F) Multiple-unit dwelling projects in non-residential districts or on a site identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 shall conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to investigate for the presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination. If the Phase 1 ESA finds that contaminated soil or groundwater is suspected to be present, the Applicant shall perform soil sampling and analysis to determine the extent of contamination. If contaminants are detected in soil at or above regulatory levels, then the results of the soil sampling shall be reviewed and acted upon by the appropriate regional, state, or local regulatory agencies as needed. No project construction shall occur in the affected area until case closure reports have been approved by the appropriate oversight agency.

Airport Safety
The Safety Element considers aviation safety as it relates to operation of the Santa Monica Airport. The Safety Element includes:
• An analysis of potential airport hazards with historical data on airport operations and aircraft-related accidents.
• Goals, policies, and actions to continue existing airport-noise and safety regulations and programs until anticipated closure of the Airport in 2028.

Vulnerability Assessment
The Safety Element is accompanied by a Vulnerability Assessment (Appendix B of the Safety Element) to identify vulnerable populations that will be affected ‘first and worst’ from environmental hazards and climate change effects. The Assessment includes risk assessment maps to identify specific locations and sensitive communities most likely to be severely impacted by hazards including wildfires, sea level rise and flooding, and extreme heat. Information from the Vulnerability Assessment is utilized to ensure that the goals, policies, and actions in the Safety Element prioritizes vulnerable populations and disadvantaged communities.

Disaster Preparedness, Emergency Response Operations and Recovery

12.A
Packet Pg. 1576
11 of 14
The Safety Element provides a contextual framework and overview of the City’s hazard mitigation strategy and emergency response operation. It is not intended to serve as an emergency operations plan insofar as the Safety Element is a guiding document rather than an operational document. In compliance with State law, Chapter 3 of the Safety Element:
• Identifies potential evacuation routes and critical facilities that may be utilized during natural disasters and emergencies
• Identifies residential areas that have only a single means of egress/ingress • Describes the resources available to the public to help them prepare for and mitigate hazards
• Establishes the framework for improving the City’s effectiveness and capacity for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery operations.

As part of the Safety Element adoption, Staff is proposing that Section 8.12.040 of the Building Code be amended to replace “City Hall” with “City Hall East” as an identified Essential Facility as follows:
§8.12.040 Essential Facilities
The following facilities are designated as essential facilities, which are necessary for emergency operations subsequent to a natural or man-made disaster: police stations, fire stations and City Hall East. Such facilities shall be categorized as Risk Category IV as defined in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code.

While the existing City Hall has been seismically retrofitted, its age and condition makes it unsuitable to serve as an Essential Facility. The new City Hall East is better equipped to satisfy the requirements of an essential facility.

Interdepartmental Collaboration and Public Outreach
The Safety Element was prepared by the City Planning Division with review and collaboration from other City divisions and departments, including the Office of Emergency Management, Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department (Engineering Division, Architectural Services Division, Airport Division, Office of

12.A
Packet Pg. 1577
12 of 14
Sustainability), Fire Department, and the Department of Transportation. Additionally, during preparation of the Safety Element, Staff conducted public engagement opportunities that included:
• Study Sessions at Planning Commission, Building and Fire Life Safety Commission, and Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment,
• Public Survey (available online and hard copy in English and Spanish), • Stakeholder feedback from Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update workshops (available both in English and Spanish), and
• Public outreach events.

The draft Safety Element was made available for public review on-line for a period of 45 days, commencing on August 15, 2024, and ending on September 30, 2024. A total of seven public comment letters were received during the public review period. Responses to the commentors are addressed in Attachment B and where necessary, revisions have been made to the Safety Element to address these comments. The draft Safety Element was also reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Building, Fire and Life Safety Commission. On October 9, 2024, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the updated Safety Element with recommended changes. Comments from both commissions have been incorporated into the amended Safety Element.

Environmental Review
The proposed adoption of the amended Safety Element and amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Safety Element is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption). The Safety Element is primarily limited to policy modifications and updates in compliance with State law and is not anticipated to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, nor will the proposed changes have the potential for causing significant effect on the environment. Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with

12.A
Packet Pg. 1578
13 of 14
certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. The draft Safety Element analyzes existing conditions and establishes the goals, policies, and actions to create a safer, and more resilient community.

Additionally, Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts (Class 8) actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The Safety Element addresses climate change effects with policies and actions that foster sustainability and environmental protection. Therefore, the Safety Element is exempt pursuant to Section 15308.

Additionally, the amended Safety Element would not alter the policies or forecasted land use development previously analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH No. 20212269242021] that was certified by Council on October 12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022. Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council

12.A
Packet Pg. 1579
14 of 14
Attachments:

A. Safety Element December 2024 Draft (Web Link)
B. Safety Element December 2024 Draft - Appendix A (Web Link) C. Safety Element December 2024 Draft - Appendix B (Web Link) D. Safety Element Adoption Resolution
E. SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment
F. SMMC 8.12.040 Amendment

12.A
Packet Pg. 1580
1 City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA ADOPTING AN AMENDED SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE
CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning”; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65302 requires that a General Plan include at least eight required “elements;” and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65302(g)(1) requires a Safety Element as one of the required elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element establishes the City’s goals, policies, and programs to reduce the short- and long-term risk of death, injuries, property damage, and social dislocation due to natural and human-made hazards, including, but not limited to, geologic hazards, including earthquakes, ground failure, and landslides; flooding; hazardous materials and waste; airport hazards; and climate change effects, including sea level rise, droughts, heat waves, and fire; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element also includes mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards and addresses evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards; and

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Safety Element Adoption Resolution (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 2 WHEREAS, the City’s Safety Element was last updated on February 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, since that time, significant new information has become available on public safety risks in the City, including, but not limited to, the designation of the Santa Monica Fault Zone, flooding, wildfires, and climate change effects; and WHEREAS, additionally, the State has established new statutory requirements pertaining to the Safety Element; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 379 (2017) requires the City to address climate adaptation and resiliency through the preparation of a vulnerability assessment or reliance on a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that addresses climate adaptation risks and vulnerabilities; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1035 (2018) requires the update of the Safety Element upon adoption of the Housing Element update, which shall be updated at least every eight years, to address new requirements and incorporate updated information during this time; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 99 (2019) requires the Safety Element to identify residential developments in any hazard area that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 747 (2019) requires the Safety Element to be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted its Sixth Cycle Housing Element on October 11, 2022, which was certified by the California Department of Housing and Economic Development on or about October 14, 2022; and

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Safety Element Adoption Resolution (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 3 WHEREAS, the City is also currently in the process of updating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which will identify local disaster hazards, assess the possibility of these hazards occurring and estimates potential costs, and identify actions to mitigate disaster losses; and
WHEREAS, integration of the Safety Element Update and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ensures that City goals and policies to address hazards are aligned; and WHEREAS, the amended Safety Element was prepared by the City Planning Division with review and collaboration from other City divisions and departments, including the Office of Emergency Management, Building and Safety, Public Works Department (Engineering Division, Architectural Services Division, Airport Division, Office of Sustainability), Fire Department, and the Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, additionally, during preparation of the Safety Element, Staff conducted public engagement opportunities that included public outreach surveys and study sessions at the Planning Commission; Building and Fire Life Safety Commission; and Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2024, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(A), the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 24-006 (PCS), declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council adopt the Safety Element; and WHEREAS, the draft Safety Element was made available for public review online for a period of 45 days, commencing on August 15, 2024, and ending on September 30, 2024; and

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Safety Element Adoption Resolution (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 4 WHEREAS, public comments received during the public review period were addressed and, where necessary, revisions have been made to the Safety Element to address these comments; and
WHEREAS, the draft Safety Element was also reviewed by the Planning Commission and Building, Fire and Life Safety Commission, and comments from both Commissions have been incorporated therein; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65352.3, adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18, requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes prior to deciding to adopt or amend a general or specific plan, or to designate open space that includes Native American Cultural Places; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65352.3, the City on August 15, 2024 invited 12 tribal leaders and/or representatives to provide input for the Safety Element Update; however, no responses were received by the City within the 30 day request for tribal consultation period; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and, at that hearing, recommended to the City Council that the City Council adopt the updated Safety Element; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and now desires to adopt the amended Safety Element of the City’s General Plan.

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Safety Element Adoption Resolution (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 5 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.080, after consideration of all oral and written testimony presented on January 28, 2025, including, but not limited to public comment received by the City and compiled by City staff, the City Council does hereby adopt the amended Safety Element as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to make non-substantive changes to the Safety Element as necessary to make it internally consistent, including, but not limited to, typographical errors in conformity with the final City Council action. Any substantive changes to the Safety Element adopted herein shall be brought back to City Council for review and adoption.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Safety Element Adoption Resolution (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 6 EXHIBIT A
Amended Safety Element

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Safety Element Adoption Resolution (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 1 City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SECTION 9.31.195 OF THE SANTA MONICA

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS CONDUCT A PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE

ASSESSMENT TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL UNDERGROUND CONTAMINATION IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS OF THE AMENDED SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning”; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65302 requires that a General Plan include at least eight required “elements;” and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65302(g)(1) requires a Safety Element as one of the required elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element establishes the City’s goals, policies, and programs to reduce the short- and long-term risk of death, injuries, property damage, and social dislocation due to natural and human-made hazards, including, but not limited to, geologic hazards, including earthquakes, ground failure, and landslides; flooding; hazardous materials and waste; airport hazards; and climate change effects, including sea level rise, droughts, heat waves, and fire; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element also includes mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards and addresses evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 2 supply requirements, and minimum road and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards; and WHEREAS, the City’s Safety Element was last updated on February 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, since that time, significant new information has become available on public safety risks in the City, including, but not limited to, the designation of the Santa Monica Fault Zone, flooding, wildfires, and climate change effects; and WHEREAS, additionally, the State has established new statutory requirements pertaining to the Safety Element; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 379 (2017) requires the City to address climate adaptation and resiliency through the preparation of a vulnerability assessment or reliance on a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that addresses climate adaptation risks and vulnerabilities; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1035 (2018) requires the update of the Safety Element upon adoption of the Housing Element update, which shall be updated at least every eight years, to address new requirements and incorporate updated information during this time; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 99 (2019) requires the Safety Element to identify residential developments in any hazard area that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 747 (2019) requires the Safety Element to be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios; and

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 3 WHEREAS, the City adopted its Sixth Cycle Housing Element on October 11, 2022, which was certified by the California Department of Housing and Economic Development on or about October 14, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City is also currently in the process of updating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which will identify local disaster hazards, assess the possibility of these hazards occurring and estimates potential costs, and identify actions to mitigate disaster losses; and
WHEREAS, integration of the Safety Element Update and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ensures that City goals and policies to address hazards are aligned; and WHEREAS, the amended Safety Element includes updated goals, policies, and actions, including those to minimize risks due to accidental exposure of hazardous materials; and
WHEREAS, the amended Safety Element includes an action requiring new development in non-residential districts to conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to investigate for the potential presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination before the issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, to effectuate this action, Section 9.31.195 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Santa Monica Municipal Code should be amended to add a requirement that multiple dwelling units in Non-Residential districts conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to identify potential underground contamination; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2024, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(B), the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 24-012 (PCS), declaring its intention to consider recommending to

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 4 the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to implement the amended Safety Element of the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council adopt the updated Safety Element and the amendment to Section 9.31.195; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and now desires to adopt the amendment to Section 9.31.195 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to add a requirement that multiple dwelling units in non-Residential districts conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to identify potential underground contamination.

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

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.195 is hereby amended to read as follows:
§ 9.31.195 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects.

The purpose of this Section is to establish requirements for multiple-unit dwelling projects; however, 100% affordable housing projects are exempt from subsections A and B of this Section.

A. Unit Mix. Multiple-unit dwelling projects with more than 50 units shall incorporate the requirements set forth below, except Tier 2 projects shall comply with Section

9.23.030(A)(2).

1. For market rate units:

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 5 a. At least 10% of the units shall be three-bedroom units; b. At least 10% of the units shall be two-bedroom units; c. No more than 15% of the units shall be studio units;

2. Affordable housing unit mix shall be governed by Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program.

3. The Director may grant a waiver from this unit mix requirement pursuant to the requirements and procedures for Waivers in Chapter 9.43.

B. Transportation Demand Management. Multiple-unit dwelling projects that meet the applicability established in Section 9.53.030 shall include the following Transportation Demand Management measures in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand Management:

1. For nonresidential components of projects, provide the following:
a. A Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass, in accordance with Section

9.53.130(B)(2)(b)(viii).
b. Bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating hours.

2. For residential components of projects, provide a Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass, in accordance with Section 9.53.130(B)(2)(c)(iv).

C. Air Quality Assessment Zone. Multiple-unit dwelling projects within the Air Quality Assessment Zone shall be required to prepare a technical memorandum that describes the effectiveness of design features to reduce exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a part of the early project design process. Such memorandum shall be submitted at

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 6 the time of project application and shall be subject to review and approval by the Director prior to project approval.

D. Unit Replacement Requirements. Multiple-unit dwelling projects shall comply with all applicable residential unit replacement requirements in Chapter 9.34, Residential Unit Replacement Requirements.

E. Objective Design Standards for Streamlined, Ministerial Approval Process Established by Senate Bill 35. Qualifying multiple-unit dwelling projects that elect to use the streamlined, ministerial approval process established by Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), and set forth in Government Code Section 65913.4, shall be required to comply with objective design review standards, which may be established by resolution of the City Council.

F. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Multiple-unit dwelling projects in nonresidential districts or on a site identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 shall conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to investigate for the presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination. If the Phase 1 ESA finds that contaminated soil or groundwater is suspected to be present, the Applicant shall perform soil sampling and analysis to determine the extent of contamination. If contaminants are detected in soil at or above regulatory levels, then the results of the soil sampling shall be reviewed and acted upon by the appropriate regional, state, or local regulatory agencies as needed. No project construction shall occur in the affected area until case closure reports have been approved by the appropriate oversight agency.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 7 inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

12.A.e
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: SMMC 9.31.195 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 1 City Council Meeting January 28, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8.12.040

TO DESIGNATE CITY HALL EAST AS AN ESSENTIAL FACILITY
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning”; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65302 requires that a General Plan include at least eight required “elements;” and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65302(g)(1) requires a Safety Element as one of the required elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element establishes the City’s goals, policies, and programs to reduce the short- and long-term risk of death, injuries, property damage, and social dislocation due to natural and human-made hazards, including, but not limited to, geologic hazards, including earthquakes, ground failure, and landslides; flooding; hazardous materials and waste; airport hazards; and climate change effects, including sea level rise, droughts, heat waves, and fire; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element also includes mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards and addresses evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards; and

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: SMMC 8.12.040 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 2 WHEREAS, the City’s Safety Element was last updated on February 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, since that time, significant new information has become available on public safety risks in the City, including, but not limited to, the designation of the Santa Monica Fault Zone, flooding, wildfires, and climate change effects; and WHEREAS, additionally, the State has established new statutory requirements pertaining to the Safety Element; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 379 (2017) requires the City to address climate adaptation and resiliency through the preparation of a vulnerability assessment or reliance on a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that addresses climate adaptation risks and vulnerabilities; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1035 (2018) requires the update of the Safety Element upon adoption of the Housing Element update, which shall be updated at least every eight years, to address new requirements and incorporate updated information during this time; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 99 (2019) requires the Safety Element to identify residential developments in any hazard area that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 747 (2019) requires the Safety Element to be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted its Sixth Cycle Housing Element on October 11, 2022, which was certified by the California Department of Housing and Economic Development on or about October 14, 2022; and

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: SMMC 8.12.040 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 3 WHEREAS, the City is also currently in the process of updating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which will identify local disaster hazards, assess the possibility of these hazards occurring and estimates potential costs, and identify actions to mitigate disaster losses; and
WHEREAS, integration of the Safety Element Update and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ensures that City goals and policies to address hazards are aligned; and WHEREAS, the amended Safety Element includes updated goals, policies, and actions, including disaster preparedness, emergency response operations, and recovery; and
WHEREAS, the amended Safety Element provides a contextual framework and overview of the City’s hazard mitigation strategy and emergency response operation, including: (1) identifying potential evacuation route and critical facilities; (2) describing the resources available to the public to help them prepare for and mitigate hazards; and (3) establishing the framework for improving the City’s effectiveness and capacity for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery; and
WHEREAS, “Essential Facilities” are those which are necessary for emergency operations subsequent to a natural or man-made disaster and are categorized as Risk Category IV as defined in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 8.12.040 designates police stations, fire stations, and City Hall as “Essential Facilities;” and WHEREAS, while the existing City Hall has been seismically retrofitted, its age and condition makes it unsuitable to serve as an Essential Facility, whereas the newly

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: SMMC 8.12.040 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 4 constructed City Hall East is better equipped to satisfy the requirements of an essential facility; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Safety Element adoption, Staff is proposing that Section

8.12.040 of the Building Code be amended to replace “City Hall” with “City Hall East” as an identified Essential Facilities; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2024 and November 13, 2024, the Building and Fire Life Safety Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council adopt the updated Safety Element and the proposed amendment to Section 8.12.040; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Building & Fire Life Safety Commission’s recommendation and now desires to adopt the amendment to Section 8.12.040 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to designate City Hall East as an Essential Facility.

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

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 8.12.040 is hereby amended to read as follows:
§ 8.12.040 Essential facilities.

The following facilities are designated as essential facilities, which are necessary for emergency operations subsequent to a natural or man-made disaster: police stations, fire stations and City Hall East. Such facilities shall be categorized as Risk Category IV as defined in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code.

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: SMMC 8.12.040 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) 5 SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: SMMC 8.12.040 Amendment (6522 : Adoption of Safety Element Update) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 14.A
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Council Rules of Procedure Recommended Action
Adopt the attached resolution amending the Council Rules of Procedure pursuant to Council direction.

Executive Summary
Pursuant to direction given at the Council meeting on December 17, 2024, the Council Rules were amended primarily to make meetings run more efficiently for the benefit of the public, City staff, and the Council. Other substantive changes were also made, as requested by Council.

Discussion
Efforts to streamline and shorten meetings for the public, staff, and Councilmembers include:
• Limit Councilmembers’ time to speak:
o 10 minutes per agenda item
o 1 minute per Point of Privilege
o 5 minutes to protest a Council action
o 2 minutes per proclamation or commendation
• Increase the types of items that can be on the consent calendar. • Move consent calendar before closed session.

14.A
Packet Pg. 1599
2 of 3
• Start closed session or special agenda items earlier than 5:30 if meeting will be lengthy or hold closed session at separate special meeting. • Limit number of proclamations to two per meeting, except in extraordinary circumstances, and honorees shall appoint one or two representatives to speak, and their time to speak shall be limited to two minutes each. • Meetings no longer require a vote to extend past 11:00 p.m.

In addition to the changes to enhance the order and efficiency of meetings, other substantive changes were made:
• Include the land acknowledgement in the order of business. • Prohibit resolutions regarding international affairs, except items of support or condolence for natural disasters or similar tragedies involving Santa Monica sister cities.
• Allow for the formal censure of Councilmembers.
• Limit the use of the Mayor Pro Tempore title to times when the Mayor is unavailable, otherwise the Mayor Pro Tempore shall be referred to as Councilmember.
• Board and Commission seats to be filled by ranked choice voting.

Other minor changes were made to bring the rules into compliance with current practice, and to clean up the rules.

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

14.A
Packet Pg. 1600
3 of 3
Prepared By: Katie Doerr, Deputy City Attorney III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CAO-Council Rules Reso
B. Written Comments

14.A
Packet Pg. 1601
1 City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025, Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. ____________(CCS)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR

THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NUMBER 11630 (CCS)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify and amend some procedural Rules for the preparation for and conduct of Council meetings.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council Rules of Order and Procedure are hereby amended to read as follows:

RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
RULE 1. RULES OF ORDER.

These Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all City Council meetings, unless superseded or prohibited by federal, state, or local law. To the extent a matter is not covered by these Rules, the procedures of the City Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules shall be subordinate to all applicable laws and these rules to the extent they are inconsistent. These rules also apply to the Council sitting as or in combination with another body, such as the Housing Authority Board, Redevelopment Successor Agency, or Financing Authority, or Parking Authority, and to all boards and commissions.

The City Council rules, or any one thereof, may be suspended by a vote of twothirds of the Councilmembers present.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 2 RULE 2. TIME AND PLACE FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 611 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the City Council establishes the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month as the days for holding regular meetings of the City Council. The Council may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular Council meeting. The regular meeting shall commence at 5:30 p.m. However, if it is determined by the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk that a Council meeting is expected to be lengthy, and all Councilmembers are available, as may be noticed by the City Clerk, a regular Council meeting may commence earlier than 5:30 p.m. to allow for closed session and/or special agenda items to be heard then. It is the intention of the City Council that all other Agenda public action items shall commence no earlier than 7:00 p.m., following the Closed Session, unless noticed otherwise on the Agenda. If it is expected that Closed Session will require more than 90 minutes to complete, and if all Councilmembers are available, a separate special meeting to complete Closed Session shall be considered. If any such Tuesday falls on any day designated by law by the City Council as a day for public feast, Thanksgiving or holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the date of the regular meeting next following said Tuesday at the hour heretofore fixed or at such other day as may be fixed. The City Council Chamber in City Hall is established as the place for holding the City Council’s regular meetings.

RULE 3. QUORUM AND ACTION
In accordance with Section 614 of the Santa Monica City Charter, 4 Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, or other law or these rules, action shall be taken by a

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 3 majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council, that is, at least 4 votes, unless a higher number is required. However, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only 4 Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as 5 Councilmembers are participating.

Whenever any Councilmember questions the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the City Clerk to call the roll, each Councilmember shall respond when that Councilmember’s name is called, and the Clerk shall announce the result. Such proceedings shall be without debate, but no Councilmember who is speaking may be interrupted by a question as to the presence of a quorum.

The City Council may also establish standing committees and subcommittees of its members to address designated areas of City business on the Council's behalf and may establish ad hoc committees to formulate reports or recommendations on particular matters. Ad hoc committees must provide quarterly updates to Council, which shall be included on the Agenda by the City Clerk.

RULE 4. MEETINGS TO BE PUBLIC - EXCEPTION FOR CLOSED SESSIONS.

As required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (the “Brown Act”), California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq., all regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings of the City Council shall be public, provided, however, the City Council may meet in a Closed Session from which the public is excluded, for those purposes authorized by the Brown Act.

No Councilmember, employee of the City, or any other person present during a Closed Session of the City Council shall disclose to any person the content or substance

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 4 of any communication that took place during the Closed Session unless the City Council specifically authorizes the disclosure by majority vote or unless the disclosure is required by law.

Any required public announcements following closed session shall be made by the City Attorney immediately upon the Council convening in open session following closed session. Council direction to provide authority to settle a claim or lawsuit shall not be reported out until the settlement is signed and final.

RULE 5. AGENDA.

The City Clerk shall prepare the Agenda under the direction of the City Manager as follows:
(a) The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in the preparation of the Agenda.
(b) Other than the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney (and/or their designees), Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem, no person shall attend an Agenda preparation meeting without invitation of the City Manager.
(c) The Agenda and all available supporting documents shall be delivered to Councilmembers on the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday City Council meeting to which it pertains or as soon thereafter as possible.
(d) The City Manager may direct that any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction be placed upon the Agenda. The City Attorney may place items on the Agenda affecting the City Attorney’s Office or litigation closed session. Any Councilmember requesting a substantive discussion on an open session Agenda item shall do so by initiating a “16 item” first to obtain Council direction (see Rule 6(x)). Councilmembers shall

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 5 submit Councilmember Agenda items to the City Manager as follows: (1) for regular meetings, by noon on Monday, 8 days prior to the Council meeting, to ensure matters will be agendized for the following Tuesday; and (2) for special meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on the day at least 2 days before the day of the special meeting. Subject to Brown Act requirements, items submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the specified day will be agendized for the next regular meeting, unless the Councilmember has identified an urgency requiring that the matter be added to the current Agenda. The City Manager shall be responsible for submission of real estate, labor (except for City Attorney and City Clerk evaluations), security, and emergency closed sessions; the City Attorney shall be responsible for submission of litigation closed session items, including amicus participation items. The City Attorney shall verify whether the requested closed session is a proper topic for closed session pursuant to the Brown Act before the item is published on an Agenda, and if not, it shall be omitted.

Proposed 16 Items shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and then the language modified, if necessary, to ensure the Item requests a policy direction or action that is lawful before being placed on the Agenda, and by the City Manager, and then the language modified, if necessary, to ensure the Item requests policy direction or action that is feasible, that is, reasonably possible given available resources. In the event there are concerns that the request is potentially unlawful or infeasible, then the City Attorney and City Manager shall work with the sponsor(s) to frame the request so that it is lawful and feasible, and still as closely as possible reflects the desired outcome of the sponsor(s).

Once a particular 16 Item is heard and rejected considered, the same or substantially similar item may not be placed on a subsequent Agenda for reconsideration

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 6 for 12 months, unless it is sponsored by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side previously. (See also Rule 12(g) – Motion to Reconsider.) Councilmember items placed on the Agenda may be removed or amended by the sponsor(s), with the City Manager’s approval, no later than noon on Thursday, 5 days prior to the Council meeting. Staff sponsored items may be removed from the Agenda (or postponed) by the City Manager at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting and shall be announced by the City Clerk following Roll Call. The City Attorney may also remove items the City Attorney placed on the Agenda at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting and shall be announced by the City Clerk following Roll Call.

Councilmember items may only be combined with other items on the Agenda by a vote of the Council. A Councilmember who wishes to combine the Councilmember’s item with another item on the Agenda may direct that the following language be included with the Agenda item: “This item may be considered with Item __.” The City Manager may combine staff items on the Agenda to ensure the public’s business is handled efficiently and conveniently.

Proposed alternatives, other than minor variations, to items or portions of items on the Agenda shall be submitted in writing to the City Clerk for distribution no later than noon the day prior to the Council meeting; any alternatives submitted after the deadline may be considered by the Council only by unanimous consent, provided they are Brown Act compliant; otherwise, the amendment along with the main item may be considered at a subsequent meeting pursuant to an approved motion to continue.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 7 (e) The City Clerk shall post the Agenda as required by the Brown Act. Copies of the Agenda shall be posted on the windows of the Santa Monica Institute room, located at 330 Olympic Drive, Santa Monica, California 90401. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in the Clerk’s office declarations establishing compliance with the posting requirements.
(f) No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted Agenda unless the item is added to the Agenda in the manner required by the Brown Act. (g) Matters directed to be placed on the Agenda at the direction of Councilmembers shall be listed on the Agenda in the order of receipt by the City Clerk. (h) Written requests to the City Council shall be received and opened by the City Clerk and referred to the City Manager or the Manager’s designee and either shall be transmitted to the appropriate board, commission, or staff member, or shall be placed on the Agenda if City Council consideration is deemed appropriate by the Mayor or City Manager. Written requests being agendized shall be scheduled for City Council consideration at the earliest convenient meeting, taking into consideration the length and content of meeting Agendas. Members of the public submitting written requests shall be advised of how their request is being handled. Councilmembers shall receive copies of those written requests that are not agendized. Agendized communications shall be listed on the Agenda in order of receipt. No communication shall be placed on an Agenda if it contains material that:
(1) Is profane.
(2) Is potentially slanderous or libelous.
(3) Advocates or opposes the candidacy of any person or party for any elective

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 8 office.
(4) Is primarily an advertisement or promotion or has as a substantial purpose the advancement of any cause the major benefit of which is private and not public.

Members of the public submitting written requests to the City Council are encouraged to limit their submissions to one per meeting. (i) All electronic presentation materials intended for use at a City Council meeting, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by an overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits.
(j) Any Councilmember or the City Manager may place an item on the Council Agenda to present a report from a board or commission that is within the board or commission’s subject matter authority that was duly approved by the board or commission. The request and the written or electronic materials to be distributed or displayed at the meeting must be provided to the City Clerk, the City Manager’s Office, and the sponsoring Department Staff Liaison by 3 p.m. Friday, 11 days before the Council meeting. When heard, the speaker for the board or commission shall be permitted up to 10 minutes to present, unless the Council by majority vote allows for a different time. The Council may question the speaker concerning the report and presentation. The speaker shall have an opportunity to respond to comments by the City Manager and Staff. The City Manager and Staff may also provide information concerning the presentation. The

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 9 presentation will not be considered an action item, but the City Manager may combine it with an action item on the Agenda, and the Council may provide direction concerning the matters raised in the presentation. Action may be taken on matters raised in the presentation, subject to Brown Act compliance.
(k) Any Councilmember planning on being absent from a Council meeting or a portion of a meeting may submit written statements on a topic on the Agenda to the City Clerk at least by noon the day of the Council meeting. The City Clerk shall publish the written statement prior to the beginning of the meeting, and the City Clerk shall read the statement into the record at the meeting. This procedure shall not apply to quasi-judicial matters, wherein Councilmembers ordinarily shall not communicate about the matter prior to conclusion of a public hearing.

RULE 6. CATEGORIES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The business of the City Council shall be conducted in the order and manner specified below. The order may be changed by a majority vote of those present. The following is the order of business:
(a) Call to Order.
(b) Salute to the Flag and Land Acknowledgement.
(c) Roll Call.
(d) Levine Act disclosures.
(e) City Clerk Agenda announcements and Agenda Procedural motions. (f) General Public Input. Allows members of the public to address the City Council on matters not otherwise on the Agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 10 not listed on the Agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item.
(g) Public Comment for Special Agenda, Closed Session, and Consent Calendar Items Only.
(h) Special Agenda Items. This item includes the City Manager’s Report, proclamations, commendations, introductions of special guests, special meetings, appointments to the City Council and presentations and reports by other non-City public entities or legislative bodies. A Councilmember may place a proclamation or commendation on the agenda by submitting a request to the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee. No more than 2 proclamations or commendations shall be placed on any one agenda, unless an additional item is particularly time sensitive. (i) Consent Calendar. The consent calendar shall consist of the approval of minutes of previous meetings and those other items such as contracts and routine resolutions and ordinances that do not necessitate a separate public hearing and which are determined in the Agenda preparation process to be relatively non-controversial.

Ordinances for second reading and adoption may be placed on the consent calendar if approved by a majority at first reading. all members of the City Council were present when the vote for first reading and introduction took place and this vote was unanimous. The consent calendar shall be considered as one item regardless of the number of matters appearing on it and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual consent items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember.

Members of the public shall have no more than one opportunity to address the City Council concerning any and all items on the consent calendar. Members of the public

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 11 shall be heard prior to City Council consideration of the consent calendar.

Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed from the consent calendar so that they may be heard on those matters. All matters remaining on the consent calendar may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda.

Removed items may be heard immediately following the consent calendar or may be heard after the City Council concludes Closed Session or Study Session.

Councilmembers are encouraged to shall notify the City Manager by noon 5 p.m. the day before the meeting that an item may be pulled for discussion or questions to Staff and request a presentation of an item on the Consent Calendar, or Staff will not be present for the item to make a presentation or answer questions. When the Clerk calls the Consent Calendar, the Clerk shall identify those items that Councilmembers have indicated they wanted to pull (by noon 5 p.m. the day before) and which Councilmembers have made the requests. Only those items shall be pulled for discussion, unless a Councilmember makes an additional request following the Clerk’s announcement. (j) Closed Session.
(k) Reports and any Additional Public Actions from Closed Session. (l) City Manager’s Report.
(m) Councilmember Travel Announcements.
(n) Mayor’s highlight.
(o) Public Comment on Remaining Agenda Items. Allows members of the public to have the opportunity to speak on items on the Agenda before or during the City Council’s Consideration of the item, except where a public hearing is required by law.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 12 (p) Study Session. During Study Sessions staff will present information regarding a complex matter that will be subject to Council deliberation and decisions in the future. No City Council action will be recommended or taken as part of the Study Session, other than to give direction to prepare and return with Agenda items in the future. (q) Continued Items. This item includes agendized items of a previous City Council meeting not considered at such meeting. The City Council may vote by a majority of its members to have a carry-over item placed on a subsequent Agenda as a continued item. If public comment on a continued item was concluded at the initial meeting, it shall not be repeated. Nonetheless, continued 16 Items shall be heard along with 16 items for the current meeting.
(r) Administrative Proceedings. This item includes proceedings requiring the City Council to make a quasi-judicial decision concerning an individual application or appeal.
(s) Ordinances.
(1) Second Reading and Adoption. No public comment is permitted on second readings.
(2) Introduction and First Reading.
(t) Staff Administrative Items. This category will include policy matters to be considered by the City Council or at joint meetings of the City Council, Parking Authority, Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority and/or Redevelopment Successor Agency.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 13 (u) Public Hearings. This item consists of public hearings required by specific provisions of law. Public comment on a Public Hearing item shall be taken at the time the item is heard following the Staff presentation of the item. (v) Reports of Boards and Commissions. Boards and commissions that may present reports under this item and pursuant to rule 5(i) include, but are not limited to, all City boards, commissions, and task forces. Reports may also be provided by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and Santa Monica Travel and Tourism. Note this subsection provides for the location or timing of these items if placed on the Agenda, not the authority to place items on the Agenda, which is addressed elsewhere in these rules.
(w) Resolutions. A resolution will be considered under this item only if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar. No resolution may be placed on an agenda regarding international affairs, except for items of support or condolences for natural disasters or similar tragedies involving Santa Monica’s sister cities.
(x) Written Communication. This item allows the City Council to consider issues raised by written submissions from the public.
(y) Councilmember Requests for Discussion (16 items) and Closed Session Items. This category consists of Councilmember requested Agenda items to provide policy direction. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the Agenda item. Councilmembers shall submit proposed Agenda items to the City Manager, who shall consult Councilmember sponsors, the City Attorney, City

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 14 Clerk, and Staff as needed. No Councilmember requested resolutions or ordinances should be developed or drafted until a majority of the Council gives direction to the City Manager and/or the City Attorney. The City Manager will work with the Councilmember to decide if the item will be placed on the Agenda or address them in other ways.

Resolutions for advocacy would be an exception.

Councilmember requests for real estate and labor closed session items shall be submitted to the City Manager, and for litigation, including amicus participation, to the City Attorney.

The City Manager and City Attorney shall notify one another when Agenda item requests are made by Councilmembers.

With the exception of appointments to boards, commissions, and other bodies, all Councilmember discussion “16 items” on the Agenda shall be considered as one item, similar to the consent calendar, regardless of the number of matters and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. When the 16 items are called, Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed for separate consideration. All remaining matters may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda.

A Councilmember may place a 16 item on an agenda to consider a formal censure of a Councilmember for violation of the law, local ordinance, common law conflict of interest, Council rule, or resolution. Due process shall be provided, including notice of the allegations and an opportunity to oppose the accusation.

RULE 7. PREPARATION OF MINUTES.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 15 The City Clerk shall have exclusive responsibility for preparation of the Minutes, and any directions for corrections in the Minutes shall be made only by majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Minutes of a City Council meeting may be approved on the Consent Calendar without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished each Councilmember with a copy and unless a reading is ordered by a majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 9. PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) The Mayor shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings of the City Council.

In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall preside. In the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Clerk shall call the City Council to order and a temporary Presiding Officer shall be elected by the Councilmembers present to serve until the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore or until adjournment. (b) Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. As required by Charter section 604, the Mayor shall be selected by the Council. The procedure for selection shall be as follows: Beginning in December 2022, the Council shall select the longest continuously serving Councilmember, whether initially elected or appointed, to serve as Mayor for a 1 year term. Each subsequent December the next longest continuously serving Councilmember shall be selected as Mayor for a 1 year term, then rotating each December to select the Mayor in order of the next longest serving Councilmember. If two or more Councilmembers were elected at the same election, the Councilmember receiving the higher number of votes shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. If two or more Councilmembers were initially appointed to

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 16 serve at the same time, then when they each may first become eligible to be selected as Mayor, a coin flip shall decide who shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. The Mayor Pro Tempore may be selected by simple majority vote without regard to this provision. This provision shall not be subject to a suspension of the Council Rules, and shall be implemented until duly repealed or amended by the Council.
(c) Except as may be used by the City Clerk on official documents, the Councilmember serving in the position of Mayor Pro Tempore shall be referenced as, and use the title “Councilmember,” including during a Council meeting (for example, when the Clerk is calling for votes), unless actively serving in the capacity of the Presiding Officer during a Council meeting, or acting in lieu of the Mayor in a public forum in the event of disability or extended absence of the Mayor (for example, representing the City in the official capacity of Mayor while the Councilmember formally serving as Mayor is on vacation, hospitalized, or unable to be reached with reasonable notice). In these instances, the Councilmember serving in the position of Mayor Pro Tempore may use the title and be referenced as such. When possible, the Mayor shall notify the Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk of their temporary vacation of duties and assumption of responsibilities by the Mayor Pro Tempore, with advance notice and when they expect to return to full service. The term “Vice Mayor” shall not be used in place of the term “Mayor Pro Tempore.”
RULE 10. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) Participation. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed upon Councilmembers

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 17 by these rules, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a Councilmember by reason of acting as the Presiding Officer. (b) Duties. The Presiding Officer shall:
(1) preserve order at all meetings of the City Council; (2) state (or cause to be stated) each question coming before the City Council;
(3) announce the decisions of the City Council on all subjects; (4) decide all questions of order subject to the right to appeal rulings on questions of order to the entire City Council in accordance with Rule 12(d) below; and
(5) encourage all persons present at the meeting to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy.

RULE 11. SWORN TESTIMONY AND SUBPOENA POWER.

Any Councilmember may request that anyone appearing before the City Council on any matter shall be sworn. On receipt of such a request, all proceedings shall be suspended, and the City Council will immediately vote on whether the individual should be sworn. A majority vote of the Councilmembers present shall determine whether the speaker shall be placed under oath. All oaths will be administered by the City Clerk.

The City Council shall have the power to issue subpoenas as provided in City Charter Section 614.

RULE 12. RULES OF DEBATE.
(a) Getting the Floor. A Councilmember desiring to speak shall gain recognition by the Presiding Officer.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 18 (b) Questions to Staff. Councilmembers desiring to question City staff shall address their questions to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Clerk, or designated staff. Members of the City staff, after recognition by the Presiding Officer, shall hold the floor until completion of their remarks or until recognition is withdrawn by the Presiding Officer.
(c) Interruptions. A Councilmember who has the floor shall not be interrupted when speaking unless the Councilmember called to order by the Presiding Officer, a point of order or a personal privilege is raised by another Councilmember, or the speaker chooses to yield to a question by another Councilmember. If a Councilmember is called to order, that Councilmember shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined. Whenever any person is called to order while speaking, such person shall be in possession of the floor after the question of order is decided, and may proceed with the matter under the discussion within the ruling made on the question of order. (d) Points of Order. The Presiding Officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Councilmember to appeal to the City Council. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of order. Questions concerning procedures or other legal issues may be directed to the City Attorney for legal advice. If an appeal is taken, the question shall be: “Shall the decision of the Presiding Officer be overruled?” The Presiding Officer's decision may be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers then present. The City Attorney may also raise a point of order to provide advice to the Council should there be a concern about procedures, due process, or other legal issues.
(e) Point of Personal Privilege. The right of a Councilmember to address the

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 19 City Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character, or motives are questioned, or where the safety or welfare of the City Council is concerned. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of personal privilege. (f) Privilege of Final Comment. The Councilmember moving the introduction or adoption of an ordinance, resolution, or motion, shall have the privilege of speaking last on the matter after all other Councilmembers have been given an opportunity to speak.
(g) Motion to Reconsider Legislative Actions. A motion to reconsider any legislative action taken by the City Council may be made only by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side and may be seconded by any Councilmember.

Such motion may be made at any time and shall be debatable. A motion by a nonprevailing Councilmember or a request by a member of the public for reconsideration may be made only if one year has passed since the action was taken. (h) Calling for the Question. A question may be called by majority vote of those present. However, neither the moving party nor the party seconding any motion may call for the question, each Councilmember shall be afforded one opportunity to speak on each item before the question is called, and a question may not be called to interrupt or cut off a particular speaker.
(i) Limitation of Debate. Councilmembers shall limit their remarks to the subject under debate. Except for questions raised by another Councilmember to a Councilmember, no Councilmember shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any particular subject until every other Councilmember desiring to do so has spoken. Prior to

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 20 beginning deliberation, the Council may, by a two-thirds vote of those present, limit the amount of time that each Councilmember may spend stating the Councilmember’s views on a particular Agenda item.
(j) Each Councilmember shall observe a time limit of 10 minutes each to speak on an agenda item, with exceptions for asking questions of the Councilmember(s) who introduced the item (both questioners and respondents) or staff. The 10 minutes may be used at once or apportioned across debate of an item. If the proposing Councilmember does not save a portion of their time to avail themselves of their privilege of final comment in accordance with Rule 12, Section (f), the Councilmember forfeits their privilege of final comment. Time limits in this Rule may be extended at any time by a 2/3rds vote of the Councilmembers present, and such an extension shall apply to all Councilmembers, if approved.
(k) Time to speak to a Point of Personal Privilege shall be limited to 1 minute. (l) Time to speak for a Councilmember’s protest statement in opposition to an action shall be limited to 5 minutes.
(m) Time to speak to a proclamation or commendation, excluding the reading of a resolution or certificate, shall be limited to 2 minutes.

RULE 13. PROTEST AGAINST CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

Any Councilmember shall have the right to have the reasons for the Councilmember’s opposition to any action of the City Council entered in the Minutes. Such opposition shall be made in the following manner: “I would like the Minutes to reflect that I opposed this action for the following reasons…” A written submission may be provided to the City Clerk to be included in the record.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 21 RULE 14. DISCLOSURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS.

On quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers shall verbally disclose off-the-record contacts relating to the item, after the item is called and before City Council consideration of the matter. Disclosure shall include the identity of any individual(s) with whom the Councilmember had contact, and the nature of the contact.

RULE 15. PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
(a) Permitted. Pursuant to the Brown Act, public testimony is permitted on all Agenda items, except ordinances for second reading or as otherwise provided in these rules, and the public shall have an opportunity to comment on any matter that is not on the Agenda but is within the City Council’s jurisdiction. However, members of the public do not have the right to give testimony outside the scope of or unrelated to the Agenda item under consideration. Additionally, members of the public should strive to avoid unduly reiterating their own or others’ testimony.
(b) Registration. Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda for public discussion shall register with the City Clerk staff prior to the start of the meeting, if possible. No registrations for public input will be accepted on an item after the input period is closed.
(c) Manner of Addressing the City Council. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, members of the public addressing the City Council shall go to the podium, state their name and whom they represent, if they represent an organization or other person. Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to also state their address, neighborhood, or city of residence. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. After a public hearing has

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 22 been closed, no member of the public shall address the City Council on the matter under consideration without first securing City Council approval. (d) Written Public Comment. Those wishing to provide public comment are encouraged to submit it in writing via email to be viewed online. For written comments received by noon on the day of the Council meeting, best efforts shall be made to have them posted on the Council’s online Agenda. All written comments shall be made part of the public record.
(e) Time Limits. Except on Written Communication, members of the public shall limit their remarks to 2 minutes per comment section unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote or the City Council reduces this time limit because of the large number of speakers for public comment on the particular item. The order in which members of the public provide remarks will be determined by the City Clerk, to the extent possible giving priority to K-12 students speaking on their own behalf those limiting their time to 1 minute on an item, while members of the public using the full 2 minutes will speak afterwards. Persons speaking on another’s written communication and persons submitting late speaker requests, who receive permission to speak shall be limited to 1 minute. On Written Communication, those speaking on another’s item may speak only if the person raising the matter appears and testifies. If the person who raises the item does not appear and testify, the matter shall be received and filed and persons wishing to speak on the matter may give their testimony during Public Input. Members of the public wishing to speak on more than one item shall limit their remarks to a total of 6 minutes per meeting unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote. A member of the public may allocate time between items in one-minute increments up to 2 minutes. Testimony

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 23 given as an applicant or appellant does not count toward the 6 minute maximum. A Board or Commission member reporting to the City Council on behalf of a Board or Commission who was duly authorized to speak for the Board or Commission shall be limited to maximum of 5 minutes to speak.
(f) Special Time Limits for Applicants and Appellants. Applicants and appellants on administrative items and public hearings shall limit their remarks to 10 minutes and may reserve some of their time for use for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public hearing. The appellant shall have the opportunity to address the City Council first and last.
(g) Special Time Limits for Special Agenda Items. Public testimony is permitted on the City Manager’s Report and Appointments to the City Council.

Proclamations, commendations, and appearances by special guests are ceremonial items. To ensure adequate time for the Council’s regular business, groups of honorees or guests, who wish to speak, should appoint one or two representatives to speak for them.

Honorees’ time to speak shall be limited to 2 minutes each. (h) Special Assistance for Those Who Cannot Wait to Speak. Members of the public, including those with special needs, who cannot wait to speak on an Agenda item may request assistance from the City Clerk, and a member of the Clerk's office will provide assistance in preparing a written statement of testimony for distribution to the City Council.
(i) Extended Time Limits for Speakers Who Require Interpreter. A member of the public who utilizes an interpreter to provide English language translation shall receive twice the time otherwise allotted under these rules.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 24 (j) Donating Time to Another Speaker. Donations of time to other speakers may be made only if both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting. Except on Public Input, a member of the public, speaking on their own behalf, may donate 2 minutes per Agenda item to another speaker, speaking on their own behalf, and a speaker may accept one such donation from another per Agenda item. The speaker and the person donating time shall turn in their chits together, notify the Clerk of the donation, and go to the podium together. The speaker shall state both of their names and state that the speaker is speaking for both. Donated time shall not increase an individual speaker’s total time limit of 6 minutes per meeting. Any request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and the donor will not be permitted to donate the donor’s time.
(k) Any electronic presentation materials presented as attachments to written public comment submitted by email for viewing online must be submitted in accordance with the time deadline set forth in Section 15(d) above. Electronic presentation materials will not be accepted in connection with public comment being provided by calling in to the Council meeting. For speakers who will be physically present to provide public comment at the Council meeting, all electronic presentation materials intended for use in connection with the public comment, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by the overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. All such electronic presentation materials must be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office and include the City Council meeting date,

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 25 Agenda item number, and name of the public speaker who, as noted above, will need to be present at the meeting. See also Rule 5(i).
(l) Requests for Accommodation. Requests for a disability accommodation to provide public testimony at a Council meeting should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk’s office via email at [email protected] or via telephone at (310) 4588211 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Best efforts shall be used to accommodate requests received after the 72 hour deadline. In the case of special meetings, requests should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than noon the day of the Council special meeting.

RULE 16. RULES OF CONDUCT AND SAFETY.

When the City Council is in session, all persons present, whether in person or speaking by phone, must preserve safety and order and should strive to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy. Members of the public who are physically present at the Council meeting should sit in the audience seating area, unless addressing the City Council or entering or leaving the Council Chambers, should not block the aisles with personal belongings and should not bring audible equipment into the Council Chambers including cellular telephones or pagers. Members of the public may not, except when testifying on or participating in an Agenda item, enter the well area, which is the open area directly in front of the dais and extending outward from it to a line running between the points on the Clerk's desk and the podium nearest to the audience. Applause, vocally or clapping, is prohibited, except for ceremonial items, or as may be invited by the Presiding Officer.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 26 Any person who disrupts the meeting shall be called to order by the Presiding Officer. Disruption shall include but not be limited to, blocking the audience or camera view of the proceedings. If such conduct continues, the Presiding Officer may request the Sergeant at Arms to remove the person from Council Chambers.

The Chief of Police or such member or members of the Police Department as the Chief may designate, shall be Sergeant At Arms of the City Council and shall carry out all orders given by the Presiding Officer through the City Manager for the purpose of maintaining order at City Council meetings. Any Councilmember may move to require the Presiding Officer to enforce the rules, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council shall require the Presiding Officer to do so.

RULE 17. SEATING ORDER.

After each municipal election, the City Clerk shall determine City Council member seating order by drawing lots, with the exception of the Mayor Pro Tem, who shall be seated next to the Mayor. Changes in seating may be allowed by the Mayor, without requiring a vote, for good cause when those changing seats consent.

RULE 18. ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE AND FAILURE TO VOTE.

Every Councilmember is entitled to vote unless disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest. A Councilmember who abstains from voting consents to the decision made by the voting Councilmembers.

RULE 19. VOTING PROCEDURE.
(a) Any vote of the City Council, including a roll call vote, may be registered by the members answering “Yes” for an affirmative vote or “No” for a negative vote upon the member’s name being called by the City Clerk. Voting order shall be based on seating

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 27 order with each roll call vote beginning at alternating ends of the dais and the Mayor voting last.
(b) Unless any Councilmember calls for separate votes in advance, any item on the Agenda with related sub-parts shall be treated as one Agenda item and voted on in one motion. If the item and sub-parts receive sufficient votes for approval of some, but not all sub-parts (some subparts may require 4 votes and some subparts 5), at the immediate request of any Councilmember, the first vote shall be nullified and Council shall then immediately, without discussion, vote on each item separately. (c) When the Council is making appointments to any committee, board, commission, or equivalent, the Clerk shall ask for nominations, also reciting nominations received through an application process. If applicable, nominations may include one or more positions, such as chair and vice chair, or equivalent. The Council may split the vote on combined nominations by an approved motion. After all nominations are received, the Clerk shall recite the list of all nominees. The Clerk shall then call the roll, and each member shall identify the individual or individuals for whom they are voting. After all votes are cast, the Clerk shall recite the vote. If no nominee(s) receives a majority vote, then the two nominees receiving the highest number of votes shall then be voted upon in the same manner, until a nominee(s) receives a majority vote. If no nominee(s) receives a majority vote, the Clerk shall call for additional nominations and then repeat the process. the Council shall use ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting process shall be as follows:

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 28 (1) The Clerk shall ask the Council for nominations from among the qualified applicants, and upon collecting all nominations, shall present the Council with the slate of nominees.
(2) Each Councilmember shall then indicate their first choice from among the slate of nominees; they each may indicate only 1 first choice; (3) Each Councilmember shall also indicate their second choice from among the nominees; they may indicate only 1 second choice; (4) Proceed to do the same for up to the total number of nominees; (5) Each Councilmember may rank as many or as few nominees as they may choose; each may not give the same rank to more than 1 nominee; each may not rank the same nominee more than once;
(6) Votes shall be counted by first counting the total number of first choice votes for each nominee; if a nominee wins a majority (at least 4) of first choice votes in this round, that nominee wins; counting is then complete; (7) If there is no winner in the first round, then there is a second round count; in the second round, the nominee with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated; so, if a Member’s first choice nominee had the fewest total first choice votes, then their second choice nominee is counted as their new top choice; if a nominee wins a majority in the second round, that nominee wins; counting is then complete; if there is no majority winner, then again the nominee with the fewest votes is eliminated. There is then a recount, and continue this process until a nominee wins.

RULE 20. DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 29 Any Councilmember who is disqualified from voting on a particular matter by reason of a conflict of interest shall publicly state or have the Presiding Officer state the nature of such disqualification and shall leave the dais prior to Council consideration of the matter. A Councilmember stating or having the Presiding Officer state such disqualification shall not be counted as part of a quorum and shall be considered absent for the purpose of determining the outcome of any vote on such matter.

RULE 21. TYPES OF MOTIONS.
(a) Only Councilmembers, or duly appointed members of boards sitting with the Council, may make Motions. The City Clerk shall record all motions and read them back when requested. Upon request, the City Attorney shall assist in the formation of motions.

A Councilmember must have the floor to make a motion.
(b) Any motion that does not receive a second shall not move forward, and then another motion may be made.
(c) For noticed public hearings and quasi-judicial matters, a main motion shall not be made until public comment on the item is complete. (d) There are three motions that are most common and are usually subject to debate:
(1) The main motion. This motion puts forward a substantive decision, most frequently an Agenda item, for Council consideration. A main motion may include changes to the item as stated on the Agenda or supplemental materials.

Only one main motion may be on the floor at one time.
(2) The motion to amend. This motion seeks to modify the main motion before the Council. A motion to amend cannot be made until there is a main motion

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 30 on the floor. A motion to substitute a main motion with another motion shall be treated as a motion to amend. Only one motion to amend may be on the floor at one time. All motions to amend shall be resolved prior to voting on the main motion. (3) The procedural motion. This motion is to address a rule of procedure, postpone, or take some other action. Procedural motions take priority over main motions and motions to amend. Only one procedural motion may be on the floor at one time. A “point of order” may be raised at any time, interrupting a speaker when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to make a procedural motion.

Procedural motions are debatable but not subject to public comment. (e) The following common procedural motions shall be handled as follows:
(1) Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote. It is the highest priority motion. (2) Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to immediately recess. The Presiding Officer determines the length of the recess. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(3) Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to adjourn the meeting at a specific time set in the motion. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(4) Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires the discussion of the Agenda item to be halted and the Agenda item placed on hold. The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to Council. If the motion does not contain a specific time for the return of the item, a motion to take the item

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 31 off the table will have to be taken at a future meeting to bring it back to the Council.

A motion to table or to bring it back to the Council requires a simple majority vote. (5) Motion to continue. This motion, if passed, requires the item to be withdrawn from the Agenda at that time and postponed either indefinitely or to a certain time and/or date, or to a time later in that meeting, as stated in the motion.

A motion to continue is debatable and requires a simple majority vote. (6) “Friendly Amendment.” This is a “request,” rather than a formal motion. The speaker asks whether the maker of the main motion would agree to amend the motion, as suggested. If agreed, and if the member providing the second also agrees, or another second is offered, then the main motion is replaced with the amended motion. If an offer for a “friendly amendment” is rejected, then a formal motion to amend may be made.

RULE 22. CHANGING VOTE.

The vote of a Councilmember may be changed only if the Councilmember makes a timely request to do so immediately following the announcement of the vote by the City Clerk or the Presiding Officer and prior to the time that the next item in the order of business is taken up.

RULE 23. AGENDA MANAGEMENT.

At any time after roll call, the Presiding Officer may call for a motion for Agenda management to reorder or combine Agenda items or to determine when public comment may be taken on one or more items. However, public comment may be taken later, but not earlier, than the time or position shown on the Agenda. Noticed public hearings scheduled for a time certain may be heard later, but not earlier, than the time scheduled.

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 32 Such a motion shall require the votes of a majority of the Councilmembers present to pass. If such a motion is passed, the City Clerk shall call Agenda items or comment opportunity in accordance with the Agenda as modified by the motion.

RULE 24. PROCEDURE ON AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING A MOTION.

The following procedure shall be followed in connection with any Agenda item requiring a motion:
(a) City Clerk reads the title.
(b) Presiding Officer calls for a staff report.
(c) Councilmembers question City staff.
(d) City Council conducts Public hearing.
(e) City Council deliberates.
(f) A Councilmember makes a motion, another Councilmember seconds the motion, and the Council debates it, with the maker of the motion having the opportunity to speak last.
(g) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk restates the motion. (h) The City Council votes on the motion.
(i) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk announces result.

RULE 25. PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney, or, in their absence, their authorized representatives, shall attend and be present during all City Council meetings and give necessary service and advice.

RULE 26. RECORD OF MEETINGS.

All public meetings of the City Council shall be recorded. The recording shall be

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 33 made by City TV and retained in accordance with the City’s record retention schedule.

The use of other recording or television equipment is permitted so long as it is not disruptive of the meeting.

RULE 27. USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO COMMUNICATE DURING MEETINGS During City Council meetings, Councilmembers shall not use electronic communications of any type, including texts and emails, to communicate among themselves.

RULE 28. ADJOURNMENT [Repealed]
No new item shall be considered after 11:00 p.m. unless consideration is approved by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers present.

RULE 29. CHARTER SECTION 615
In accordance with Charter Section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present at the meeting objects.

RULE 30. INTERPRETATION AND MODIFICATION OF THESE RULES.

These rules shall be interpreted liberally to provide for the optimum in the free interchange of information and public debate without an unnecessary waste of time or duplication of effort. These rules may be amended by resolution.

RULE 31. FAILURE TO OBSERVE RULES OF ORDER.

These rules of order and procedures govern the conduct of City Council meetings.

These rules are intended to expedite the transaction of the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion and are deemed to be procedural only. Failure to strictly observe

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 34 these rules shall not affect the jurisdiction of the City Council or invalidate any action taken at a meeting that otherwise conforms to law.

RULE 32. COUNCIL BRIEFINGS.

The City Manager and/or City Attorney may meet with Councilmembers to provide briefings. Briefings shall be conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. No person shall attend these meetings other than the Councilmembers invited without invitation of the City Manager and/or City Attorney. No Councilmember shall authorize or permit any person who is not a City of Santa Monica employee or duly appointed agent of the City (for example, outside counsel, contractor, or consultant) acting within the scope of that person’s job duties, to represent them as a Councilmember, or represent the Council, or the City, at any meeting, function, or event.

SECTION 2. Resolution Number 11630 (CCS) and all other resolutions adopting, amending, or relating to City Council Rules of Order, are hereby repealed in their entirety.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: CAO-Council Rules Reso (6870 : Council Rules Update) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 14A

EXTERNAL
Council,
Please support item 14A to streamline the procedural rules, particularly the allowance to begin closed session early or as a separate meeting. Far too many meetings over the last year ran well past midnight, greatly impacting the public's ability to attend. The general efficiency gains of this item will also help avoid unnecessary administrative time and allow focus on areas that require more nuanced debate and consideration. Sound decisions are not made at 2am.

Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 14-A
January 28, 2025
Item 14-A
January 28, 2025

14.A.b
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6870 : Council Rules Update) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Human Services Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2027.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.A
Packet Pg. 1637
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Human Services Commission
Name Application Date
Glover, Kevin
Morrow, Brett A.

Muntaner, Zoë
Susman, Matthew B. *
12/18/2024
01/17/2025
05/14/2024
07/10/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 4
*Currently serves on the Disabilities
Commission

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Applicant List (6861 : Appointment to one seat on the Human Services Commission (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Personnel Board for a term ending on June 30, 2026.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.B
Packet Pg. 1639
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Personnel Board
Name Application Date
Kirschbaum, Michael
Lewis, Noelle K.
01/20/2025
01/13/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: Applicant List (6862 : Appointment to one seat on the Personnel Board (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2027.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.C
Packet Pg. 1641
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission
Application Date
07/19/2024
06/18/2024
06/17/2024
06/18/2024
05/14/2024
05/28/2024
01/20/2025
Name
Bannister, Xavier H.

Duncan, Jeffrey P.

Graber, Stuart B.

Kennedy, James G. *
Muntaner, Zoë
Singer, Donald I.

Winnemore, Paul Lee †
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 7
*Currently serves on the Clean
Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens
Oversight Committee
†Currently serves as a non-voting exofficio on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 1] (6867 : Appointment to one seat on the PSRO Commission (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Recreation and Parks Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2026.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.D
Packet Pg. 1643
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Recreation and Parks Commission
Name Application Date
Arreola, Larry M.

Campbell, Daniel
Kolhoff, Nikki
Mirhashemi, Jaleh
Rosenbaum, Barry A.

Stephens, Julie N.
06/07/2024
01/21/2025
06/18/2024
06/18/2024
01/09/2025
01/21/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Applicant List (6866 : Appointment to one seat on the Rec & Parks Commission (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Santa Monica Pier Corporation for a term ending on June 30, 2026.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.E
Packet Pg. 1645
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Name Application Date
Foster, Christopher
Jarrow, Jeff
Kim, Mouse
Trinh, Peter
07/11/2024
11/14/2024
01/21/2025
01/21/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 4

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: Applicant List (6863 : Appointment to one seat on the SM Pier Corp. (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc. for a term ending on June 30, 2026.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.F
Packet Pg. 1647
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc.

Name Application Date
Barker, Judi
Besser, Sean
Defuria, Tim
06/17/2024
06/17/2024
01/18/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 1] (6865 : Appointment to one seat on the SMTT (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee for a term ending on June 30, 2025.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.G
Packet Pg. 1649
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory
Committee
Name Application Date
Anawati, Kevin *
Puri, Dennis †
05/16/2024
07/01/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
*Is not a resident but applying for the
hospitality seat
†Is a resident of the City

16.G.a
Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: Applicant List (6864 : Appointment to one seat on the TOTAC (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.H
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Greg Morena's resignation from the Recreation and Parks Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resignation Email

16.H
Packet Pg. 1651
From: gregmorena
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2025 9:27 AM
To: Maryanne LaGuardia; Ann Bowman <[email protected]>; Steven Johnson <[email protected]>; Andrew Gomez
<[email protected]>; Lori Brown <[email protected]>; Maryanne LaGuardia <[email protected]>; John Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Jenny Rogers <[email protected]>; Noe Mendoza <[email protected]>; Micah Akerson <[email protected]> Subject: Resignation

EXTERNAL
My Dear Commissioners,
It is with a heavy heart that I write this email….

I’ve absolutely loved my time on the commission with you all, but I can no longer serve.

Please accept my resignation.

The Pier, and the restaurant business in general, has suffered greatly since Covid and now the Palisades Fire. We closed Rusty’s for good this week and my focus is now our first and last restaurant, The Albright, we are hopeful for a speedy recovery.

Praying that your families are well and safe. Thank you for your time and care (re)building our city.

In solidarity,
Greg Morena

16.H.a
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: Resignation Email (6854 : Resignation: Rec & Parks Commission - G.Morena (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.I
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of voting delegate and alternate for the Los Angeles County Division of CalCities.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.I
Packet Pg. 1653
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.J
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmembers Hall and Snell for Council to direct the City Attorney to return with an ordinance codifying resident representation for Council appointees to the governing boards of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc., and the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Inc.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 20250128 16 Item - Boards Composition - Hall Snell

16.J
Packet Pg. 1654
Meeting: January 28, 2024
1 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL AND BARRY SNELL
2 Request of Councilmembers Hall and Snell for Council to direct the City Attorney 3 to return with an ordinance codifying resident representation for Council 4 appointees to the governing boards of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica 5 Travel and Tourism, Inc., and the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Inc. 6 Resident representation on the governing Boards of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. 7 (DTSM), Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc. (SMTT), and the Santa Monica Pier 8 Corporation, Inc. (SMPC), has long been an understood norm and an asset to our 9 community. Residents provide oversight and feedback on programming, operations, and 10 leadership for critical organizations that help steer our local economy and promote the 11 Santa Monica brand, history, and culture.
12 Since their respective foundings, each organization has been served by residents 13 on their respective boards. These residents have presided over careful curation of 14 programming that benefit the community such as the Twilight Concert series, Locals’ 15 Night, SaMo Pride, and the ‘Extra Bedrooms’ program. Without resident representation 16 working in partnership with business leaders, industry experts, and property owners, the 17 community loses a critical voice on the governance boards in setting the strategic 18 direction for these organizations.
19 WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
20 1. Direct the City Attorney to return to Council with an ordinance codifying that a 21 minimum of half of City Council appointees to the Boards of DTSM, SMTT, and the 22 SMPC be residents of the City of Santa Monica, California. 23 1.1. The ordinance shall be presented to Council so that the second reading and 24 adoption can occur in advance of the annual Boards and Commission 25 appointment meeting.
26 1.2. The ordinance shall include a process for the Council to reappoint any 27 Council-appointed seats currently occupied by non-residents with partial 28 terms to complete.
29 2. Direct the City Clerk to make any appropriate and necessary changes to comply 30 with the above direction.
31 # # #

16.J.a
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: 20250128 16 Item - Boards Composition - Hall Snell (6843 : Boards of DTSM, SMTT, SMPC) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.K
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmembers Hall, Snell, and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis for Council to direct the City Attorney to return with an ordinance that amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095 prohibiting certain comfort items for unhoused individuals.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 20250128 16 Item - Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals - Hall Snell Torosis
B. Written Comments

16.K
Packet Pg. 1656
Meeting: January 28, 2024
1 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, BARRY SNELL, AND MAYOR PRO 2 TEMPORE CAROLINE TOROSIS
3 Request of Councilmembers Hall, Snell, and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis for 4 Council to direct the City Attorney to return with an ordinance that amends Santa 5 Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095 prohibiting certain comfort items for 6 unhoused individuals.
7 On September 10, 2024, the Santa Monica City Council amended Section 8 4.08.095 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to implement a ban on the use of sleeping 9 bags and bedrolls by unhoused individuals sleeping in public spaces. This overturned a 10 previous Council’s decision in 2022 to allow the use of such items in light of the Ninth 11 Circuit Court of Appeal’s Martin v. Boise decision, which the 2024 ruling in Grants Pass 12 v. Johnson ruling overturned.
13 From the meeting’s City Staff Report: “In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. 14 Supreme Court held that regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel 15 and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The decision reversed 16 the holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that camping prohibitions 17 were ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ if a person was ‘involuntarily’ homeless. The 18 Supreme Court held that legislative bodies, rather than courts, are the appropriate 19 decision maker when determining criminal regulations and penalties for camping in public. 20 The Court acknowledged legislative bodies have broad discretion in this regard. However, 21 the Court also acknowledged that a number of Constitutional and common law protections 22 still apply, for example competency to stand trial, a ‘necessity defense,’ due process, and 23 equal protection, among others. These protections ensure that everyone must be treated 24 equally. Whether someone falls asleep while sunbathing, a homeless person falls asleep 25 in a park during the day, or a backpacker falls asleep while passing through, under the 26 Constitution they must be treated equally…
27 The report concludes: “Even if sleeping on public property could be completely 28 outlawed, it will not end. Even if it is legally prohibited, resources must be available and 29 there must be the will to cite or arrest, prosecute, then despite zero bail and even if a case 30 makes it to court and the defendant appears, and a jury were to convict, there certainly 31 are not resources nor the will to hold those convicted of low level crimes such as sleeping 32 in public in the County jail. Until there are substantially greater resources available for 33 mental health treatment, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and housing 34 (shelter, transitional, and/or permanent housing), as people necessarily must sleep 35 somewhere, the issue will not be resolved by this Court decision. One consideration, 36 though, is that the legal process might assist in encouraging people to take advantage of 37 available resources, but current laws do not allow people to be forced to accept shelter, 38 and people can decline to accept shelter.”

16.K.a
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: 20250128 16 Item - Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals - Hall Snell Torosis (6845 :
16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, BARRY SNELL, AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE

CAROLINE TOROSIS
Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals

Page 2 of 2 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilJanuary 28, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
January 28, 2025