Written Comment — Santa Monica City Council, January 28, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

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 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!
Kimberly Turner
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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.

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.

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.

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
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
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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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
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
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
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
102
David Yakobson
From: Liza Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please keep our SM airport.

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 Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
112
David B. Smith
917-710-8891 (c)
[email protected]
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
134
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
144
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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
153
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
157
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
160
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
168

A CHRISTMAS CAROL
- Charles Dickens
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
172
Alan Levenson
www.alanlevenson.com
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

POLICY MOTION

ATTACHMENT A
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
Item 7-A
January 28, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
191
Thank you for your consideration.

John Fairweather

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

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

Santa Monica City CouncilJanuary 28, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
January 28, 2025